paradigm was disrespectful, even as a young kid.

They don't call it a "power suit" for nothing. The less clothing you're wearing, the less powerful you are, at least in some venues (I guess that doesn't count at the nudist colony, but I'm no expert on that...).

A study that touches on this topic: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-our-brains-turn-women-into-objects/

...A new study by Kurt Gray and colleagues in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, however, suggests that this kind of objectification might not cause perceivers to see women as mindless bodies but instead cause a transformation in the kind of minds that they perceive.

Research into mind perception has found two dimensions along which we tend to categorize others: agency (the capacity to act, plan) and experience (the capacity to feel emotions). A robot, for example, is high on the dimension of agency but low in experience. It can think, but it can’t feel. When we see flesh, on the other hand, we tend to see experience but not agency—an entity capable of pleasure and pain but not necessarily the sharpest or most useful tool in the shed.

So, objectification might not lead to perceptions of women as inanimate objects but as different kinds of humans—ones that are capable of feeling but not thinking. To test this hypothesis Gray et al. presented participants with images of individuals and varied the amount of flesh shown in the pictures (the amount of “body focus”). In line with their hypothesis, seeing full bodies, as compared to just faces, caused ratings of agency to diminish but ratings of experience to increase. The same was true when naked bodies were compared with clothed bodies. Indeed, as the sexual suggestiveness of the images increased, perceptions of agency decreased and perceptions of experience increased accordingly.

While this might initially seem modestly encouraging in that the objectified are perceived as humans and not objects, there is a disconcerting side effect of perceiving entities as high on experience—we see them as more capable of being harmed and, therefore, as more in need of protection. The researchers demonstrated this in a final study that showed participants are less willing to inflict painful shocks on half-naked individuals as compared to clothed individuals. It seems that when we see bodies we tend to also see potential victims. And though victimhood might be endearing to some, it certainly won’t help win elections.

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)

26. I have to admit a fondness for this rendition of Wonder Woman...

Reply to kpete (Original post)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 01:40 AM

Mar 2015

8 track mind

(1,638 posts)

27. Solomn Grundy wants pants!!!!!

Reply to kpete (Original post)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 02:02 AM

Mar 2015

McCamy Taylor

(19,240 posts)

30. My thoughts exactly.

Reply to 8 track mind (Reply #27)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 02:25 AM

Mar 2015

olddots

(10,237 posts)

28. I understand pants

Reply to kpete (Original post)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 02:07 AM

Mar 2015

I don't get cargo shorts though .

Marr

(20,317 posts)

29. I really like the Batgirl redesign.

Reply to kpete (Original post)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 02:19 AM

Mar 2015

There've been a lot of updated costumes for female characters in recent years that are more eh... let's say dignified... or functional.

I think Wonder Woman's is fine, personally-- it's very iconic, and she's such a strong character that she kind of owns it, if that makes any sense.

Revanchist

(1,375 posts)

31. I'm fine with that

Reply to kpete (Original post)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 03:12 AM

Mar 2015

colorado_ufo

(5,734 posts)

32. Do they realize how uncomfortable boots are with that Wonder Woman "swimsuit" outfit?

Reply to kpete (Original post)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 04:32 AM

Mar 2015

And how little overall protection that outfit gives? For some reason, it seems deeply ingrained that women need to show legs, etc. When I was in Junior High softball, the boys had regular uniforms, but the girls' teams had short-sleeved shirts and short-shorts for pants. Yet, the girls would slide into bases! I remember one girl with blood running down her leg after a slide. How crazy is that? Same thing with the movie, "A League of Their Own." If I remember correctly, they wore short "tennis skirt" style uniforms.

Dumb. Give Wonder Woman an outfit that really helps her fight crime!

Zipgun

(182 posts)

33. At some point it seems that homophobia set in. When you look at gold age comics and pulp fiction

Reply to kpete (Original post)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 05:29 AM

Mar 2015

it was not uncommon for male heroes to be depicted as wearing shorts and going bare chested. While the women's out fits were still very sexist, there was more equality of depicting men in outfits that showed off the physique and did nothing for protection. I have no idea what happened but around the 50's, the men all got covered up, yet the women kept their skimpy clothing.

The Batman outfit depicted here would actually have more clothing than what would be seen in the 50's for some of the male heroes. Catman, yes there was a Catman comic, the hero wore shorts and a long sleeve shirt. So did his side kick Kitten. While she still got to play second fiddle and the sexist name, at least she didn't wear more revealing clothing than he did. Amazing Man wore just shorts, so did Samson and the Green Turtle, just to name a few.

Orrex

(63,212 posts)

36. Good call re: homophobia

Reply to Zipgun (Reply #33)

Mon Mar 9, 2015, 07:56 AM

Mar 2015

Somehow, someone along the line decided that it was better to have the male characters running around in underoos than in hotpants. For that matter, a great many of the "covered up" male superheroes are wearing skin-tight "uniforms" that are little more than bodypaint.

And let's not forget ol' Namor!