comScore
  1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Maude
  8. The Braiser

What's with the name?

Allow us to explain.

For A More Civilized Age

Cartoon Network Pulls Sexualized Powerpuff Girls Variant Cover


Sugar, spice, everything nice, Chemical X… latex dresses and thigh highs? Yeesh. Thankfully, Cartoon Network and IDW have seen the light and pulled the above subscription variant cover for Powerpuff Girls #6.

The brouhaha about the cover started when comics retailer Dennis Barger Jr., owner of Detroit’s Wonderworld Comics, called IDW out on Facebook for “taking grade school girls and sexualizing them as way older… they are wearing latex bondage wear mini dresses, which on an adult would be fine but on the effigies of children is very wrong… especially on an ALL AGES kids book marketed for children.”

To IDW’s credit, their VP of marketing Dirk Woods responded that same day, saying:

That was actually a Cartoon Network mandated cover, by an artist of their choosing. I think they were thinking of it more along the lines of “female empowerment” than the kind of thing you guys are talking about, but certainly, we’re sensitive to the issues here. We love making comics for kids, and always want them to be appropriate. For what it’s worth, CN has been a great partner in that regard… I know an 8 year old and 10 year old really well, and always look at these kinds of things through their eyes… Half of the employees have kids here, and we pride ourselves in making comics they’ll enjoy and not give them a warped view of the world (except, you know, in a good way). Anyway, I certainly see your points, and we’ll be sensitive to these things, as I think we mostly have been.

Great. Now I get to be disappointed in IDW and Cartoon Network. Others chimed in against the cover, including Nancy A. Collins, whom you may know for her instrumental role in campaigning to boycott Dragon*Con before they got rid of co-founder/alleged child molester Ed Kramer. She pointed out that “These characters are supposed to be 6-7 years old, aren’t they?” Some defended the cover, pointing out that Blossom, Bubbles, and Buttercup would be legal now if The Powerpuff Girls took place in the real world… which A) it doesn’t, and B) is far, far beyond the point.

Thankfully Cartoon Network has realized they goofed and decided to pull the cover. Their statement to ICv2 reads:

In conjunction with our licensing partners, Cartoon Network Enterprises from time to time works with the artist community to reimagine and reinterpret our brands using their talents and unique points of view.  This particular variant cover for The Powerpuff Girls #6 from IDW was done in the artist’s signature style and was intended to be released as a collectible item for comic book fans. We recognize some fans’ reaction to the cover and, as such, will no longer be releasing it at comic book shops.

Yesterday the artist, Mimi Yoon, appeared to address the controversy on her Facebook page, where she wrote “one opinionated dog barks (i’m fine with that)… and the rest of the pack barks ‘pretending’ to know what they’re barking about (hate those idiots)… tsk tsk tsk.”

I’m going to go ahead and respectfully disagree that the people who objected to the cover are “idiots.” Look, if someone wants to draw fanart that takes young girls (or young ponies, not that I’m pointing fingers) and sexes them up, I think it’s gross (to use one word). But it’s not like the company that owns them is swooping in to shut individual fanartists down, barring extreme cases like the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic Ask Princess Molestia blog. Whether they should… well, that’s a different debate. But the company itself putting out an image like the one above takes the ugh to a whole different level.

At least they acted quickly and decisively. It could be worse. What do you think of how they handled the situation?

(via: CBR, Bleeding Cool)

Are you following The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?

TAGS: | | |


  • Joanna

    Why do all good things have to be turned into fanboy wetdreams? X(

  • Isaac Nolan

    Have to admit, the cover did a lot more than make me mad, it made me uncomfortable. I still watch re-runs of the show with my little brother which has made me pick-up on a lot of things that I didn’t when I was a kid, some quite obvious and others much more subtle. One of the more obvious things that I didn’t appreciate as a kid is the way the girls are always written and drawn as age-appropriate, with the writing always -not so much reminding- but subtly reinforcing that they’re kindergarten-aged girls.

    To the best of my knowledge they’ve never been sexualised, and I’d prefer they stayed that way.

  • http://runt.org/ Adrian

    I think they were thinking of it more along the lines of “female empowerment”

    Clearly, there is still this perception that sex and/or beauty is the sole or primary source of strength for women, and here we see that belief rearing its head again. I think they handled it swiftly and decisively, which is good… but I suspect it was more to cover their own interests; I’m not convinced they see the problems here. One step at a time, I suppose.

  • http://twitter.com/amydieg Beastbrarian

    I think they made the right choice. I can appreciate the artist’s style, but this content is marketed to children and the characters are children. These characters aren’t young women ready to embrace an empowered sexuality, they’re practically toddlers. Cartoon Network should have realized the inappropriateness before releasing the content, but at least the stepped up.

  • Anonymous

    Also, their depiction in the cover doesn’t seem all that “aged”. They look like 14-year olds.

  • Lady Commentariat

    That image depicts female empowerment the way that Sucker Punch did, which is to say, not at all.

  • Joanna

    I don’t know any 14 year olds that look like this O.o

  • Anonymous

    I meant that the size of their head in proportion to their body suggests that they’re not supposed to be fully adult. They look like pre-teens.

  • Anonymous

    Note to everyone in the entertainment business;
    “Female empowerment” is NOT synonymous with “sexualisation”!!
    If they were going for empowerment the girls would at least doing powerful stuff, like pounding some baddies – not posing fo a male gaze as in “can you spot my underwear?”
    I just HATE IT when they try to use that empowerment line in this fashion because NO – it is NOT about that!

  • Jamie Jeans

    Strangely enough, this is really rather tame compared with what I’ve seen on superhero comic book covers over the years.

    It doesn’t excuse this garbage cover, though.

    So yeah, lets not be doing that gross thing with the PPGs…

  • Jamie Jeans

    Good to know I’m not the only one who thought that movie was garbage fetish wet dreams wrapped up in faux female empowerment…

  • Laine Glaistig

    No, you weren’t.

  • Charlie

    I don’t want to sound like a prude but I think that sexualising female characters can really take away from the personality of said characters.

    As an example, do you think Buttercup would ever wear that? Even if she was old enough.

    I doubt it.

    The only time when its cool is when the character has seductive or sexy as a major character trait like a succubus and even then they should be flirting with another character, not the audience. To do anything else is inviting objectification. (removing personality and agency from a character and presenting them as a sexual object)

    Objectification can really harm how women are seen in society as a whole.

  • Charlie

    As soon as something is for adults all the women automatically turn into fap material. It’s depressing as hell.

  • Ashe

    Oh, you are FAR from alone…

  • Ashe

    What a shame. The art style is fun, but the content is not.

    Little girls learn early on that society views them for their bodies first, their mind and personality second. At least keep that crap out of their cartoon, huh? Leave this kind of work for retro fine art galleries.

    Where they can turn to and not get encouraged to be dolled-up for the male gaze when they’re not left out entirely is getting smaller and smaller. (Yet another reason I love Steven Universe)

  • Ashe

    As soon as something has a lot of women in it all the women automatically turn into fap material…

  • Ryan Colson

    This looks fairly Mark Rydenish. Folks complain too much and Mojo Jojo’s clearly beaten on the cover.
    That said it should just be a comic shop cover since it doesn’t depict the normal PPG. I think folks are getting in a hullabaloo over such a small thing (no, not the skirts) and honestly if someone was getting off on staring at this they probably already have a folder of far worse PPG art that’s worse acquired from the net.
    TL;DR: Folks freaking out over a riff of an art style that’s not nearly as sexy as they think.

  • Travis

    They aren’t sexualized. They are just older. They are posing exactly as you would expect each of them based on their personality. They are dressed exactly like you would expect teenage PPG to dress.

    What kind of message are you sending when you act as though all it takes to be considered “sexualized” is to have gone through puberty?

  • Anonymous

    Personally, I’m not really troubled by the variant cover. It strikes me as more of a reimagining of the PPGs as teenagers than a sexualization of them as children. Don’t get me wrong – it’s undoubtedly a sexualized image – but it’s a sexualization of the late-teens being depicted, not the underlying pre-pubescent kids in the original show.

    To be honest, though, I’ve always found the PPGs and other kid-superhero things disturbing based on the violence aspect. Hit Girl isn’t awesomely bad ass; she’s a fucking child soldier, which is a real thing in the world. What happened to Robin in Death in the Family is always one bad day away for these kids.

  • Charlie

    ‘They are posing exactly as you would expect each of them based on their personality.’

    No
    ‘They are dressed exactly like you would expect teenage PPG to dress.’

    No
    I give you an F- try again.

  • Hannah Elspeth

    Oh Sucker Punch. In a world where the heroine is abused by and distrusts men, why oh why is her internal voice also a man. Ugh. You could practically feel the lack of thought there.

  • GrumpyGoomba

    I actually don’t see a problem. This is obviously the grown-up super hero version of the PPG. Their poses aren’t sexual and their outfits cover pretty much everything but a bit of thigh and arms. I actually really like it.

    Kind of surprise people are accusing this artist of sexualizing the PPG when really they are just in grown-up bodies wearing pretty normal super-hero type outfits. Should they have to be covered head to toe and not have any boobs in order to not be seen as being sexualized?

  • GrumpyGoomba

    Considering they are posing while sitting on their just vanquished foe… I think that’s pretty badass. I think it’s totally okay for superheros to be badass and pretty at the same time.

  • Charlie

    They can be pretty without being sexualised. Like Korra for example.

  • Anonymous

    are we really going to use Mark Ryden as a defense here when all of his art is outright creepy sexualization of minors crap?

  • Anonymous

    lol, you beat me to it! I was just about to post this gorgeous piece!

  • Travis

    I can do that too. See. I’m right and you’re wrong. Doubledutch-no-Take-Basckies. Ha! I win!

  • Charlie

    I don’t think you have ever watched the powerpuff girls.
    Ever.
    I think Buttercup would punch the artist through a house if she saw this.

  • Skol Troll

    2 points not yet covered:

    1) If we’re using ACTUAL time, Batman died of natural causes, and Spiderman is wondering if his grandkids have superpowers. (Or would he be worrying about unknown great-grandkids?)

    2) “one opinionated dog barks (i’m fine with that)… and the rest of the pack barks ‘pretending’ to know what they’re barking about (hate those idiots)… tsk tsk tsk.” This is far and away the most irritating thing… the condemning apology. I don’t know Mimi Yoon, but I’m guessing she *thinks* she’s “girl power awesome,” and now has to deal with the fact she’s on the wrong side of the discussion. You did bad, Mimi. APOLOGIZE AND SHUSH. Don’t play the “overblown” card, or you’re just another fanboy looking up a skirt at a Con.

    Oh, and if you just figured out I’m a big PPG fan, you’d be right. And I just got my lil’ girls hooked. Don’t screw it up for me, Cartoon Network. I like being Mojo Jojo during superhero play-time.

  • Travis

    You’re right… Buttercup would wear more eye-liner and show-off her mid-riff. But this is their crime fighting uniform, not their day-to-day attire.

  • Charlie

    You really think the powerpuff girls, sweet little Bubbles, intelligent Blossom and fiery Buttercup would wear vinyl dresses and thigh length boots to fight crime in.
    Okay.
    Now I want to punch someone through a house.

  • Travis

    Because super-hero outfits have such an outstanding reputation for practicality…

  • athenia45

    I think the cover could have used less boob gleam and more “power” stances. And perhaps less eye make up, although that seems to be the artist’s style.

  • kinoumenthe

    Yeah, and nobody should EVER touch stupid costume tropes EVER.

  • Travis

    “Should” and “have to” are two different concepts.

    Should somebody touch on stupid costume tropes. Sure.
    Does anybody have to touch on stupid costume tropes? Nope.

    And regardless, I wasn’t aware that the frontline on the battle of silly costumes was being fought on a subscription exclusive variant cover for a PPG book.

  • Charlie

    That’s really not a viable excuse is it and kind of further outlines the problem.

  • kinoumenthe

    Oh riiiiiight. That makes sense.

  • baileybell

    Now that is awesome… And Buttercup is much more believable lol

  • Rebecca Pahle

    I don’t know any teenagers who wear latex mini-dresses and thigh highs. Hoodies, yes.

  • Travis

    I’m sensing sarcasm. Did you not understand the previous post?

    Okay, let me break it down for you.

    There are things in this world that should be done. Some are very important. Most are pretty insignificant, but they would serve to make the world a better and/or more interesting place.

    Touching on stupid costume tropes falls in the latter category.

    Now, your previous statement, “nobody should EVER touch stupid costume tropes EVER.” was, I’m assuming, also sarcastic. You are implying that statement is what you think I’m saying.

    Clearly, that’s asinine.

    Nobody is saying that nobody SHOULD ever touch stupid costume tropes. (Except for you, in a sarcastic manner.)

    And while I don’t have much of an opinion on whether or not somebody SHOULD ever touch on stupid costume tropes, I do feel that it is not something that should be required of Mimi Yoon and that her not doing so is not a valid basis for criticism.

    Do you understand now?

  • Anonymous

    Rule 34.

  • kinoumenthe

    Dude, I’m busy doing important stuff somewhere else.

  • Travis

    Maybe if more teenagers fought chemically altered monkey super-villains, you would.

    Note: I didn’t say this is how teenagers dress. I said, “They are dressed exactly like you would expect teenage PPG to dress.”

  • http://www.skreee.de/ Skreee

    I hate the expression “being legal” for a person.

  • Kryptoknight

    Wow… Just wow. I cannot express how squicked out I am by that cover. I am incredibly glad that the cover has been pulled and will not be used. However, this should never have been allowed in the first place. When the artist submitted the work to CN they should have requested it be re-worked to be appriopriate to the source material.
    Sexualizing grade school girls is NOT appropriate and is nasty, icky, and WRONG. Barring that even if it somehow slipped by CN, IDW should have put their foot down rather than saying, “well guys CN wants us to run this offensive sexualized cover so I guess we’ve got not choice.” SOMEONE along the way should have stopped this and it truly saddens me that no one did until after it was already put out to the public and the fan outrage opened their eyes.

  • Anonymous

    Your really don’t see a problem in taking child characters, written for children, and sexing them up to be fap fodder?

  • Travis

    There would be a problem if any of those things were happening, but…

    Those clearly aren’t children.
    PPG has never been written for children.
    And that’s not fap fodder.

  • Anonymous

    They are *heavily* sexualized in that image. PPG has always been for children, it was a children’s show. They have been aged up to be sexualized. There is no other purpose. That’s a problem whether you want to see it or not.

  • Kate Cooley

    I was already kind of honked off at the redesign. This is just… no.

    Frankly, the Powerpuff Girls were ALREADY empowered. We’re equating “female empowerment” (their words) with “sexied up.” And it shouldn’t be. There’s about a million other design ideas other than “Dollz” that could’ve been used, but… nope. Gotta make ‘em sexy. SMH.

  • Ryan Colson

    I’m just saying it’s kinda that same style, this isn’t nearly as “sexy” as the adult PPG on that one episode. Nobody made a big stink over that, so what’s so different about older PPG? If the leggings didn’t show thigh, would people be going bonkers over it? I mean it’s clearly a noncanon fan art cover when looking at it.
    Also Ryden’s art is absolutely not “ALL” what you described by any stretch of imagination. Guy has plenty of non..wtfever you’re insinuating.

  • Ryan Colson

    http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0dwszpVWH1qjdbzao1_500.gif
    GEE GUYS I GUESS BUTTERCUP WOULD THONG UP IF SHE WERE TO BE AN ADULT.

  • Travis

    The PPG originated as the “Whoopass Girls.” The show was always just as much geared towards adults as it was for kids, if not more-so considering the graphic violence.

    Even if you expanded the definition of “sexy” to include “anything that indicates the character has gone through puberty,” it still doesn’t matter cause that cover isn’t for kids anyway. It’s not being marketed to them and, unless you know a lot of six-year-olds with pull lists at their LCS, it’s not being sold to them.

    It’s a variant cover for nostalgia fans who were either adults when the cartoon originally aired or have since become adults and can presumably handled an off-model cover without losing their mind.
    And if they can’t, they don’t have to buy it with that cover either.

    This isn’t about “protecting children” or “having images forced on people.”

    This is a case of “I don’t like it, so nobody should have it.”

  • Anonymous

    This is a case of men feeling entitled to sexualized versions of women’s bodies.

  • Travis

    It’s a subscription exclusive variant cover. Little girls aren’t going to find it on the shelves in the kiddie section.

    This is the cover little girls will see.
    http://www.previewsworld.com/catalogimages/STK_IMAGES/STK620001-640000/STK630559.jpg

  • Travis

    Really? Be sure to tell that to Mimi Yoon. I think she’ll really appreciate you telling her what her work is about.

  • Travis

    Mimi Yoon has updated her Facebook page, FYI.

  • Anonymous

    THe comics and cartoons are/were marketed to children and depict kindergarden-age girls. Like five years old. There’s no need to put boobs and makeup on a five year old, and pretending that isn’t sexualizing the image is just ingenuous.

  • Anonymous

    Content isn’t created in a vacuum. Being a woman doesn’t excluded Mimi Yoon from creating a misogynistic image.

  • Travis
  • Anonymous

    It’s so much more about “now I can legally have sex with this person I’ve wanted to have sex with but couldn’t because the law says no” than “I respect this person as an adult now”.

  • Anonymous

    EXACTLY

  • http://www.thenerdybird.com/ Jill Pantozzi

    I know a lot of comic shops put variant covers on the shelves or up for display. Why wouldn’t they have this one out?

  • Anonymous

    How many of those teenagers are superheroes?

  • Travis

    The way I understand it, the variant cover is for people who actively subscribe to the book. Basically, people with pull lists. It’s not like a Cover A, Cover B, Cover C, type deal where they just send X amount of all three and you can take what you want.

    I suppose there’s nothing stopping a retailer from swapping them out or ordering extra and putting them on the shelves, but that’s not the intent.

  • http://www.thenerdybird.com/ Jill Pantozzi

    It depends on the cover and the company. Sometimes it’s the retailer having to order a certain number of regular covers to get one variant. Then they sell them for more in-store.

  • Travis

    I couldn’t tell you exactly how it works. It just says “This Mimi Yoon cover is intended for pre-order customers.”

    http://westfieldcomics.com/comic-books/Powerpuff-Girls-subscription-cover/13120687

    Like I said, I suppose there’s nothing stopping a retailer from putting it out there, but that’s not the intent. And even if the retailer was looking to gouge the price as a collectible, they aren’t going to be targeting the little ones either.

    Edit: Looking closer at the link, it looks like this is a different beast than the “Buy 10 to get this variant”

  • TheChief

    I seem to hear the female empowerment line used a lot by female cosplayers to justify sexualization of their outfits. I say this more in reference to cosplaying as characters that aren’t sexualized in their original medium, but the cosplayer makes a sexy version like the above did with the powerpuff girls cover. As a male, I don’t really understand the difference between the two or maybe I am just misunderstanding what they are trying to say. Maybe it is just a matter of the motive of the cosplayer and the artist above being different. I don’t know.

  • Eztrenk

    The big problem is that no 2 people agree on what an empowered woman looks like.

    And for no 2 women does it mean the same thing, to be empowered.

    As such, this discussion is moot.

  • Ashe

    Some women want to dress in revealing clothing and sex up their outfits and some don’t. Neither groups are doing it wrong; they’re just different.

    The issue is that empowerment is considered the exact same thing as dressing up for the male gaze, which is a very watered-down and convenient interpretation for straight men. It can cross over, but it’s not synonymous.

  • TheChief

    That makes sense. Thanks!

  • Anonymous

    Creepy cover. Just plain creepy.

  • Flitzy

    Sigh. I miss the days of the old Cartoon Network. :

    Since when does empowerment = short skirts and thigh highs, any way? Besides, I’m pretty sure it’s pretty uncomfortable to fight crime like that.

  • Lapin

    That is not what older PPG would wear. That is not what any adult or even teenager would wear. What it IS is latex versions of what the kindergarten-aged PPG wear. Children’s outfits made sexy. Which definitely adds an element of squicky childishness to the artwork.

    You can’t use the excuse that ‘superheroes dress like that’. We’re in the process of pushing back against the tired always-sexualized-heroine trope. We want to see less sexualized heroines in general, which definitely applies to the PPG.

    Lastly, that is not what older PPG would choose to wear, I’d think- it doesn’t reflect their personalities or characters at all. It’s not really creative, like the girls are, and it’s not practical. It’s just latex versions of what they wear as children, that the artist chose to draw on them.

    There’s a place for artwork like this, in the right context, but on the cover of an officially licensed kid’s comic is not it.

  • Saraquill

    Why is the pink one’s hip dislocated?

  • Saraquill

    I was one of them.

  • Mark Brown

    I can’t see Batman dying of “natural” causes. . .

  • http://www.according2robyn.blogspot.com/ According2Robyn

    Yeah, nothing says “female empowerment” like an up-skirt shot of a highly sexualized six-year-old girl in bondage gear.

    How the hell did this get approved? Did everyone involved have simultaneous aneurisms or something? Did none of the, I’m going to say dozens of people whose hands this passed through stop and say, “Whoa, hold on a second. Let’s maybe rethink this.”

  • Anonymous

    It’s SO CREEPY. Even beyond disregarding ethics (which doesn’t always align with laws), the term always seems to imply that that person’s consent or their comfort is of no importance. It doesn’t matter whether that person wants to have sex with you (or anybody!) … just that the law can’t stop you if you wanted to try. It’s so icky. Ugh.

  • Penny Marie Sautereau

    Sadly this is probably the LEAST sexualized “PPG’s as Adults” picture I ever seen. The internet is an unsettling place.

  • Ryan Colson

    Oh no, the misogyny of the PPG beating up a monkey again….
    This isn’t nearly as “misogynistic” as the Clipville segment.
    It isn’t sexy unless you’re a weirdo getting off at two inches of thigh or shoulder.

  • Anonymous

    UGH that movie. I could write a novel on the issues with that movie, starting with the fact that it basically needs to be renamed “Trigger Warning.”

  • Brittany K

    What’s to stop a little girl from having a pull list of her own though? Or perhaps a parent that reads comics would add it to their pull list for their kid? There are tons of ways a kid could’ve gotten a hold of a copy.

  • Anonymous

    That’s exactly what I was thinking. You don’t NEED an empowered version because they’re already little girls who save the world on the daily (while still being little girls!). You can call this the “all-grown up” version, but there’s a lot less empowering about this than the source material.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, literally the only thing that freaks me out more than referring to someone who has just reached the age of consent as “legal” is the phrase “jailbait.” *shudder*

  • Anonymous

    Maybe, but wouldn’t it be nice to have a version of empowerment represented that didn’t involve mini-skirts and thigh highs, especially on ALREADY EMPOWERED toddlers?

  • Alan Kistler

    Huge fan of the Power Puff Girls. Like the Simpsons, they are meant to be in a timeless bubble (pardon the pun). Saying “well, if they were real, they would be legal now” is a MORONIC justification. This cover idea should never have gone into effect or been released. Appreciate the apology, but really disappointed and surprised it was released in the first place. What is your target audience for an image the sexualizes six-year-old heroes?

  • Tiger Park

    Lol jesus at some of these responses focussing on policing the (female) artist’s taste for subject matter and making armchair accusations about her quality of feminism (or lack thereof).

    The problem is NOT that FEMALE artists with styles like Mimi Yoon exist.

    The problem IS that CW sought out this type of artist for PPG.

    We should focus on CW’s fuckup (because it was a biggie), NOT dump on Mimi Yoon for doing her thing for a job she was hired to do and was probably excited for.

    We can dislike her style of art personally and still steer the discussion AWAY from criticising her for not being to A Certain Feminist Standard, because that is an eyebrow-raising closeness to conveniently transferring the discussion and burden of the controversy onto a convenient woman rather than CW for dropping the ball.

  • Travis

    All of which involving you having to go out of your way to do so.

    Are you genuinely worried about a hypothetical little girl that has her own pull list at her LCS that she picks up and pays for while completely unsupervised? Is that who we’re making this fuss over?

  • Jen Rock

    HOW DO TIGHT DRESSES AND THIGH HIGHS EMPOWER WOMEN. HOW. HOW????????? *brain explodes*

  • Dennis L Barger Jr

    thank you

  • Dennis L Barger Jr

    I wanted to thank you for covering this topic and discussing it on here. You do not know how much I appreciate you support and helping to shout down the people that “just want to own this” or “don’t see the big deal”.

  • Eztrenk

    It’s pretty much their standard dresses in the show: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Powerpuff_girls_characters.jpg

    Have a look. I just doesn’t stand out as much due to the art style in the actual show.

    Personally, I think their “empowerment” comes from their actions, not from their looks. We know who they are and nothing can change that. You said it yourself, they are already empowered.

    Complaining they shouldn’t look a certain way isn’t going to change anything. Look at all the comments on this page and on other sites reporting on it. This stuff generates pageviews, ad-views and thus, money.

    If you want this to go away, I suggest you stop making it such a big issue.and let it die a silent death.

  • Charlie

    Practicality wasn’t really my point, It’s more of a point of that this picture goes against their personalities.
    They would never wear these outfits.
    That’s exactly the problem that images like this cause. You don’t see them as PEOPLE.

  • Anonymous

    PPG has never been written for children.

    Which is why I watched it when I was six on children’s network YTV, naturally.

  • Ender1200

    I’m having a hard time deicing if you are being sarcastic or not.

    It’s a good thing to bring problems to light, to explain your view to those who don’t see the problem and to debate and argue the need to do better.

    Shouting down people on the other hand is just bullying in the name of a higher cause. It’s not even working because in the end of the day you create enmity in people and usually just radicalize the other side.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t think I’m a fan of the artist’s style. Even ignoring the paint-on latex look of the outfits, the girls themselves look as if they’ve had all of the life airbrushed out of them. They’re just as shiny and unnatural-looking as the dresses themselves. They don’t look empowered, they look dead-eyed and pouty. There’s almost no muscle definition at all to any of them and while I know that skinny girls can kick ass as well as normally-proportioned ones, they look like they’re made out of limp noodles. If you’re suiting their personalities, I can see Buttercup being more hard lines and serious toning while Bubbles is a little softer around the edges and Blossom is a mix of the two.

    And no, for the record, I’m not a fan of sexualizing/fetishizing children or aging them up in order to cash in on the “sex sells” market. I find it intensely creepy and unnerving. However, if you ARE going to age up a bunch of kids (and it’s going to keep happening no matter how we feel about it) then you could at least show some creativity about it. This is bland, generic, and forgettable.

  • Anonymous

    Thank you and second all of that.

  • Travis

    They would never wear matching, color coded dresses, with a big black belt and white leggings? That’s your argument? Cause there’s quite a bit of evidence to the contrary…

    I suppose you’re going to tell me next that Peter Parker would never wear red and blue spandex.

  • Laura Truxillo

    “What is wrong with looking good as a woman?”

    Those are children, is the issue. But maybe you didn’t read the article which explained that…yeah, those are characters who are supposed to be CHILDREN. In a book marketed to CHILDREN.

    But sure, pull out the old bingo-card. Someone else finish explaining it to him, Lord knows I’m tired.

  • Charlie

    They would never wear latex dresses and thigh high boots. Colour coded or not.

    Next you’re going to tell me Peter Parker would never swing around in a sparkly red and blue thong with his abs oiled up…

  • karina

    Nor does sexualization have to DIE a horrible death for women empowerment to be a thing. I cherish my sexuality and I think it was a bold choice. I in no way see this as a deterrent to female empowerment. They are still tastefully covered. People need to stop being prudes and chill

  • karina

    yes but that doesn’t mean that tasteful sexualization is entirely a travesty. I see no issue with this aside from the age range issue.

  • Travis

    Peter Parker has no history of wearing sparkly blue thongs. (Well… maybe the early 90s…)

    Color coded dresses is virtually the only the PPG wear. Thematically speaking, the PPG are designed to emulate classic super-hero tropes. Latex, or something similarly form fitting, is the super-hero standard. This is not at all out-of-the-ordinary.

    Can you even give one canon example that would indicate the PPG would have an issue with that outfit?

    Other than, of course, not enough midriff?
    http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/zdL4aaAbgRc/hqdefault.jpg

  • TrippedB

    I see nothing wrong with it. When I was younger I used to watch the PPG. I always wonder how they would look if grown up. Pretty much what I see in the cover. They’re not really sexualized I’ve seen worse. I mean pretty much if a character has, curves or t& a, you’re pretty much gonna send some sexual signals across no matter what. I mean Buttercup still standing strong, Bubbles seems like she’s cheering or doing the “Yes” and Blossom sitting on top like she did everything and owned that shit. Eh I guess down to the point PPG is mostly a child cartoon, shield away.

  • Charlie

    Are you looking at a different picture or just being deliberately ignorant about the sexualised nature of their outfits.
    You know they aren’t just normal dresses and they aren’t wearing white leggings they are wearing thigh high boots.
    Those outfits they wear in ‘Clipsville’ aren’t really that sexualised compared to the picture we are discussing.

  • kurea

    Him? HIM?!

    First of all, I’m a woman thank you very much! I don’t suppose ‘kurea’ sounds very manly.

    Second, they don’t look like children and I don’t think the artist intended them to be children. True, the comic is mainly aimed at kids, but we all know it’s not just the kids that buy them. Just look at MLP or Young Justice, those franchises were, originally made for children but were watched by adults. You should never ignore a target group, even if you didn’t intend to attrackt one.

  • Charlie

    The problem is that respectable female superheroines have been yet again appropriated for sexual content. Aren’t women allowed to have anything to themselves? It’s just frustrating…

  • Anonymous

    I’m not sure what’s worse about your response; all of it, or that you used the phrase “cap fodder”.

  • Anonymous

    Maybe, on some level, she would. Though I’m more upset at Cartoon Network then I am at a female artist who is doing the kind of work a Patriarchal society pays to see.

  • Travis

    Is that supposed to be directed at me or Shield Girl?

  • Anonymous

    I LOVE (note: I don’t) when someone from a privileged position tells minorities that they’re totes “overreacting” about their experience of oppression!….

  • Anonymous

    It’s sexist, for sure. Misogyny? Not sure I’d go that far. Also, I’m disappointed by her response as well, but it’s more complicated then just calling her out.

  • Anonymous

    “You’re actually the ones being oppressive!!” Bingo!

  • Anonymous

    Thank the GODS we have someone to tell us all teh important things; things we should be fighting for! “Arguing about costumes is not important!” Jesus fuckin Christ, dude, I think I’ve one internet anti-feminist Bingo from your comments alone.

  • Travis

    It’s. Not. Sexual. All I’m seeing are the PPG done in standard super-hero style. There’s no boob-window. They aren’t wearing chainmail bikinis. Their outfits haven’t been torn in strategic places.

    I’m done with you. Just gonna repeat what the artist said.

    “my objective was to illustrate modern, pop cultured, SASSY (not sexy), and humanized Powerpuff Girls who have just beaten the crime lord and have him on the ground. yes, the girls are wearing latex costumes… SO?!?!?! don’t all superpowered heroes wear latex?
    unfortunately, the comic book will never make it to the stores… yes, i’m truely disappointed… because a perverted mind decided to see in this image what his dirty mind has conjured up, and barked loud enough. worse, he brought up kids and used protecting kids and kids’ perspective in his reasoning/excuse. does he think kids are dumber than him?”

  • Charlie

    She better be careful she doesn’t backpedal too hard and hurt herself.
    If you think that image isn’t sexualised then you are trying very hard to deny it to yourself. Especially since the vast majority of people commenting on it across the web agree.
    Strange that ;)

  • http://adornyourhearts.tumblr.com Xomyx

    Yeah its so prudish to find a problem with sexualizing little girls.

  • Ryan Colson

    But this cover is marketed to adults and it is more appropriate for LCS owners to give the few kids pullong this the second cover..

  • Ryan Colson

    If the LCS owner pulls this cover for a kid, he should not be pullong covers for customers.

  • Ryan Colson

    Yes.

  • Ryan Colson

    The statement is vague and “covering our ass” as is, the more focused part is “reinterpreting characters” compared to sentence length. Plus “i think they wanted…” is clearly there.

  • Ryan Colson

    I love people complaining of sexualized clearly lowbrow art made by a female who get upset at her labor of love complain it exploits women when it is simply art.
    Read: it is hilarious when you get oppressed by female due to art by a female.
    I am pretty sure I am not one of your fabled privileged men, since I have not taken advantages of it, but if it helps you pretend I am, go right ahead.

  • http://twitter.com/amydieg Beastbrarian

    I’m not sure sexualized small children as marketing to adults is really comforting in any way.

    And any cover should connect with the content. While differences in style are interesting, often beautiful, and generally the point of variant covers, it is still meant to be a representation of the material. In this case, the Power Puff Girls comic. A comic about children, marketed to all ages, including children. I’m not sure I can buy the idea that this cover was meant to somehow be only marketed to adults and kept away from children buying the same comic, but even if I did, I would still be concerned by the choice to sexualize little girls.

  • Ryan Colson

    POUCHES. ALL OF THEM.

  • Anonymous

    Oh jeez, yes. Like the sole reason this person is underage is to tempt you into being jailed, not because, like, time, DAMN THEM.

  • Anonymous

    You. Didn’t see that Shield Girl used it first. Not cool.

  • Travis

    I didn’t see an apology in there.

  • Anonymous

    “Deal with the objectification of your gender in silence; it weirds me out when you mention how I’m a part of your oppression.”

  • Anonymous

    In the show, they are toddlers. If they were dressed in proportion to size to look like the show, the dresses would be knee length and probably not made of PVC.

  • Brittany K

    As I said, perhaps a parent with a pull list has a few titles for their kid. And I don’t know about you, but some weeks I have quite a few comics, so I don’t pay too much attention to them individually until I’m at home. If I were a parent, my kid would have plenty of opportunities to get a hold of it before I saw it. And most parents wouldn’t necessarily pay attention because they would assume that a comic meant for little kids wouldn’t have an inappropriate cover. There are tons of variables that would allow a kid to get their hands on that comic.

  • Brittany K

    The LCS owner might not know it’s going to a little kid though, not when it’s just a name on a pull list. It’s the comic creator and distributor’s responsibility to not put out comics for little kids with inappropriate covers.

  • karina

    And I happen to disagree with you. It was an art cover. It didn’t strip them of personality. It was just an expression of art. Do I think some characters are over sexualized? Yes. Do I think this is one of those times? No. Now if they were characterized in tankinis or with low cut blouses I’d be more upset, but all the artist did here was portray characters as if they were in their late teens. They’re covered and I think its cute.

  • karina

    First of all you’re getting all upset over a cartoon. Granted a cartoon I love from my childhood, but still a cartoon and its just a cover art. There are far worse travesties in the world. I think it is a cute version of what they could look like when they grow up. Their outfit isn’t any shorter than Miss Bellum’s is in the cartoon. What’s prudish here is the complete lack of respect for the wonderful and tasteful artwork. It could be far far worse and I really don’t see why everyone is up in arms about an artwork that makes them look like they are in their late teens.

  • karina

    I think its just an interpretation of what they could look like when they grow up. The artwork is gorgeous. It’s not so sexualized that it misrepresents the material…not to mention that cover art does often have variants on the material.

  • karina

    I would agree if the cover art was inappropriate.

  • karina

    I’ll take this over the new version for the reboot. I really don’t see it as that “sexed up” same outfits but the characters are older.

  • karina

    I think they look closers to adults or at least late high school.

  • karina

    Finally someone with some sense. Everyone goes straight for the dirty in their minds when really this is fairly tasteful. It’s not the artist’s fault or cartoon networks fault that people can’t clean the gutters in their brains. I’ll agree with you I’m sad at most people’s take on this. People need to chill and not get their undies in a twist about this.

  • karina

    Heavily sexualized is a vast overstatement…and that’s me candy coating how ludicrous that statement was. They look like teens wearing the same outfits they have worn the entire time. They were even tasteful with their breast (yes I said a dirty word apparently). And honestly the show wasn’t just for kids and never has been. They aren’t even really sexualized in this picture. They are aged, but I wouldn’t call this fantasy material unless you have a thing for cartoons…which most people don’t.

  • karina

    Um….I’m a girl and I really don’t find this highly sexualized. NOr do I find it distasteful. Nor do I want to (for lack of a better term) “fap” at girls or cartoons. However, I appreciate this as a pretty interpretation. So, no, this isn’t entirely about people men feeling entitled to sexualized versions of a cartoon character. It’s about people needing to chill and take in a pretty art work done from a different perspective. Highly sexualized my rear end.

  • karina

    Yes and my parents and my grandmother enjoyed it with me when I was nearly in middle school. It was meant to appeal to all ages. Get over it.

  • karina

    OMG they made them look like teenagers…that’s such a horrible thing. OMG they gave them pretty makeup and a tasteful dress. This was an artists expression of the character. Its not ingenuous. It’s not a travesty. It’s art. If it were really that bad I’d be concerned, but its cute.

  • karina

    and actually…I’ll disagree with you once again. I could totally see an older group of powerpuff girls posing like this. Buttercup is standing strong. Blossom looks proud of herself and bubbles looks happy and bubbly. They are dressed how I would expect the teenages ones to be and it looks like several people on here agree with that. Finally No. I think the F belongs to you

  • karina

    and you know this because you’re the ultimate authority on the PPG? I don’t think so.

  • karina

    thank you for quoting the artist…and she’s right…it is sad that a dirty mind ruined it all.

  • karina

    I think its depressing that a majorities dirty mind ruined her chance to be on the comic cover. IF it were distasteful I would have an issue, but its not. It was just her take on classic characters….far better than the bad animation that’s going to ruin it for the reboot…its like teen titans go all over again…but maybe less mind numbing.

  • karina

    You have apparently never been out at night in Europe. From my experience in the clubs over there…even the tame ones….this is very tame. I saw far more of girls than I wanted to see in England.

  • karina

    If it were just being marketed to children yes, but they aren’t over sexualized. I think the author and several of the commenters are making far too much of a big deal about this.

  • Anonymous

    “It’s not her fault your dirty minds go right to sexual themes when there are clearly none!”

    Or maybe you’re so used to sexual themes that you don’t notice them anymore? Just because it’s not overtly pornographic, doesn’t mean it’s devoid of sexual themes. These girls wear tight, body-hugging clothes, yet you don’t see it as a sexual theme is because you’re so used to seeing that, even though it does.

    “Last time I checked, superheroes wear latex. Not just dominatrices.”

    Yeah, but more often than not, the superheroes who wear latex are the highly sexualized ones.

    “That’s what they’ve always worn.”

    Yeah, but the Powerpuff Girls were small kids when they wear them on the show. When put in more sexualized bodies, they’re going to have a different effect. It’s like the difference between a picture of a topless baby girl and a topless woman. They’re the same clothes, but the bodies make it different. Also, they didn’t wear latex in the show.

    “The real thing to teach girls is that it takes all shapes and sizes and not one of them is wrong.”

    We should teach little girls that all body types are okay, not just the supermodel figures we see in the media. But in this cover, that’s exactly what the girls have. True, it shouldn’t matter what you look like, but giving the Powerpuff Girls bodies that the media always say women should have is not the way to tell it.

    We need to teach girls that it’s okay to be fat, or skinny, or have any body type that’s not “perfect”. There’s nothing wrong with having a supermodel body, but the media is already full of women who has them that it makes it look like it’s the only “right” body type.

    “When I look at this cover, I see confidence and what is wrong with that?”

    Nothing is wrong with confidence. Not a single person in this site is arguing that confidence is bad. That’s not the problem people have with this cover.

  • Anonymous

    The artist can do whatever the hell she wants. The problem is Cartoon Network using the image as a cover for an official product.

    And making them look like teenagers would be fine if they look like real teenagers, and not the cliched “sexy” teenagers like in this cover.

  • Anonymous

    Their eyes and heads are made a little bigger in proportion to their bodies, which is usually how artists depict younger teenagers.

  • Charlie

    No but at least I care about their personalities unlike some people.

  • Charlie

    Haha okay, you just keep telling yourself that.

  • Charlie

    Well considering your avatar is a loli I’m going to take your opinion on sexualisation with a pinch of salt.

  • Charlie

    It’s hilarious that you are okay with the sexualisation of minors but WE are the ones with the dirty minds.

    Yeah, okay rofl.

  • Eztrenk

    That is not what I said at all.

    What I said is: complaining won’t help ignore it and it will go away. The only reason it keeps happening is because you keep reacting to it.

    Do you want the situation to be solved? As in, forever?

    Or do you simply want to be able to point out people who are being sexist all your life, because it makes you feel morally superior somehow?

  • karina

    and once again no issue there. I don’t think they look that sexualized. I think everyone is blowing this so far out of proportion that they cannot see straight.

  • karina

    I’ll agree to disagree with you. I still think they look like late high school to early adult.

  • karina

    Once again claiming to know everything. I care about their personalities…you have yet to make a valid or rational argument about how this really shows that it “destroys” their personalities. You’re full of it and blowing it out of proportion because you don’t like the art and are making assumptions without merit.

  • karina

    Just goes to show you’re one of the deluded perverted minds that ruined it for everyone.

  • karina

    a cute cat girl is not a loli. Apparently you need a vocab lesson as well.

  • karina

    I don’t find it that sexualized. Now if they were showing their breast and their coochie for lack of a better term….or if they were leaning in seductively over Mojo…then yes, I would call that sexualised. Also, they are being portrayed as young adults in the cover art. It was a perspective not a travesty. IT’s really sad that people like you are getting so up in arms about something so silly as a cute rendering of what the girls could look like as late teens early adults. YOu should be looking in a mirror when your rolfing

  • Guest

    It’s not solely “what about the children”. This unimaginative interpretation of the characters could likely be a bit demoralizing to female fans of any age.

  • 37 Pieces Of Ric Flair

    No.

  • 37 Pieces Of Ric Flair

    It’s not solely “what about the children”. This unimaginative interpretation of the characters could likely be a bit demoralizing to female fans of any age.

  • 37 Pieces Of Ric Flair

    I’m not surprised, as you seem pretty unaware in general. Which is why listening instead of scoffing and dismissing should be your thing right now. Nobody said this was the frontline of a battle. Fans here are just saying this male gaze crap gets old fast. Naturally the unaffected will defend the ubiquitous sexualizing of all characters. Not everyone feels like settling for it though. You’re free to skip this thread and read something else if these mild critiques from fans are too much for ya.

  • 37 Pieces Of Ric Flair

    Okay, let ME break it down for YOU:

    Mansplainers gonna mansplain. Piss on them them, and their mansplainings.

  • 37 Pieces Of Ric Flair
  • luces

    Choosing Mimi Yoon as a variant cover artist for PPG IS a problematic move. This is mainly because the main characters are kindergarteners. The fact that this cover is mainly targeted at subscribed adult readers may cause people to think “Gee, adult PPG fans must be perverts who enjoy seeing these little heroines in skimpy outfits.” Presenting aged-up, “what if” images of young characters itself is no big deal, but with this artist’s characteristic style, it can be controversial.

    That being said, I can’t believe some people actually claim that Mimi Yoon is a “misogynic” artist. Have you even seen her other works? From what I’ve seen, she is more of a “expressing female sexuality with provocative style” kind of artist than one who just spews out what patriarchal society wants for women. Her bluntness often makes her artworks overtly sensual, but no way is she a porn artist. Look, I get that aging up preschool girls and giving them short skirts may and will disturb some people. But if you want to criticize someone’s work(rather than the company who decided to give her the job and allowed to use her regular style), at least take some time to find out more about what that person really does. “Wow this artist draws female characters with revealing clothes. She must be a misogynic prick/Her only concern must be the money patriarchal society pays her!” Frankly, that just sounds stupid.

    Forgive me if I sound angry, but I happen to be a female artist who love to draw sexy girls, and some people in the comments section here upsets me to say the least.

  • luces

    My long and much-edited(English is not my first language and I goofed here and there quite a lot) comment is apparently awaiting moderation and disappeared altogether from my dashboard. I’m not sure if it is ever coming back. Next time I should be more careful!

    Rebecca Pahle is presenting us here the least-convincing arguments from people who defend the cover, as if that’s their main points. If one visits Dennis Barger Jr’s facebook page(where the whole thing started in the first place) it would be obvious that it’s much more than “Well they would be older in real life”. Proving your argument is one thing, but I don’t think simplifying the other side’s arguments and making them look like idiots is a fair move.

  • Josh Brown
  • Charlie

    Well there’s not much I can say in the face of such constant denial so we will have to agree to disagree.

  • Charlie

    I had a male friend of mine look at the picture without any other input and he said it was sexualised. So yeah..try again.
    It destroys their personalities because I don’t think they would wear those sexualised outfits. I’m not the creator of course but it’s no different from a fan of Wolverine saying he would never fight in drag.

  • Charlie

    You are really good at this denial thing aren’t you.

  • karina

    hun d-nile is a river in Egypt and I’m nowhere near it. I just view the image differently from you. To me its just the girls grown up. And don’t give me the crap saying that kids in their mid to late teens wouldn’t wear it.They do in England I know people in the states that do as well.

  • karina

    and I’ve shown it to several female friends who, like me, see no issue with it. So its a matter of opinion. And I disagree with you. It’s so close to what they already wore. And it is very different from saying Wolverine wouldn’t dress in drag. That comparison is like comparing a non fiction book to a fiction book…where the word book is all they have in common.

    Of course Wolverine wouldn’t fight in drag. That I get. This is a variant on the costume from an artist’s point of view. NOT an entire reworking of their personality. The only one you even potentially have an argument for is buttercup and it would ruin their persona for them to dress so different as superheros that she didn’t match anymore. Bubble like being cute, she is in this work. Blossom has always wanted to look mature and she still does. Buttercup looks badass. I don’t see a comparison to the wolverine thing.

  • karina

    We will have to agree to disagree…I just wish the problem was on my end….this would be so much easier if I was in denial and not just accepting an artwork for what it is: A cute representation of the girls if they were older.

  • Anonymous

    I really get sick and tired of being told it’s “sexualizing” if any skin is showing on a girl’s body. I expect this from guys, but when other girls and women are reinforcing the idea that there’s something WRONG and DIRTY about my body, that I have to cover every inch of it to keep some perv comic shop owner from having sexual thoughts about me because he saw an inch of my thigh, and calling their aversion to seeing any flesh on a woman “feminism,” that hurts. I guess I’m just something to be objectified because my dresses don’t come down to my knees. I’m not a person anymore, just a “fetish,” a wet dream,” and probably a slut while we’re at it. And clearly I just wear that stuff for male attention, not because *I* like how I look in it or anything. Nope, I’m just a silly girl who can’t think for myself, so I need others to do it for me and protect me from my own dumb self.

    How about we get to dress however we want without you trying to shame us by saying we’re “sexualizing” our bodies. How about you don’t insult a female artist by calling her misogynistic (guess she can’t think for herself either) for drawing an awesome cover that is in absolutely no way sexual. There are no suggestive poses or anything in this image, so how about you get YOUR minds out of the gutter instead of accusing everyone else of being the ones with the problems.

  • karina

    While I do agree that society tends to appreciate the body before the mind…I think you’re wrong on the male gaze crap and on that horrible show Steven Universe….that show is just brain cell death….Just my opinion…but CN has gone way downhill in its programing as of late. Just look at Uncle Grandpa and Teen Titans Go.

  • Charlie

    Except that’s not what it is. Most people here agree with me.

  • K8

    I see your point, people who say they are wearing the same clothes they always have. They are! They are _literally_ wearing the exact same clothes they wore as children.

    What the Heck, Professor? Couldn’t you have taken them clothes shopping sometime in the past ten years?

  • Charlie

    Blossom is smart and sensible, she would never wear a vinyl dress and thigh high boots and pose for an up skirt shot. Buttercup is a tomboy and tough she would never wear a vinyl dress and thigh high boots. Bubbles is sweet and shy she would never wear a vinyl dress and thigh high boots.
    I guess a better equivalent would be Wolverine in a sparkly jockstrap with shiny abs.

  • Charlie

    You think kindergartners wear vinyl dresses and thigh high boots?

  • K8

    The point i was attempting to make a joke about was that people very seldom wear the exact same style for ten years. Even superheroes change up the costume every now and again. How many Batsuits are there, for example?

    Honestly, I think Buttercup at least would have opted for Pants, were she allowed to dress herself.

    Also, Why does everybody think it’s vinyl? Because of the shine highlights on the girls? Maybe it’s just ridiculously sunny out, and Mojo-Jojo doesn’t have any sun on him because of the exact angle Buttercup is standing at!

  • Travis

    Then buy the other cover.

  • karina

    I still disagree on all fronts. Comparison is better, but at least this outfit is comparable to what they wore…so the Wolverine comparison is still messed up and not really comparable. And we apparently disagree on their characters potential convictions.

  • karina

    Look the recent posts may be more on your side but a lot of the older post do agree with me…and there are other pages out there saying the same thing. Just because some people here agree with you doesn’t make you right…or the know all authority. My major point aside from all the minor disagreements we’ve had here…is that people like YOU are blowing this way out of proportion and making a much bigger deal out of it than it really is or even should be. You’re being that annoying fan who thinks…well that’s not how I see her wearing her hair so it much be wrong…or I don’t like that dress…so it must be wrong because I say it is.

  • Charlie

    Well I’m upset that characters I respect and love watching are being appropriated for male fap material.
    I’m angry and so are others.
    This is a tiny part of a whole problem. A lot of women grew up reading age appropriate comics and watching xmen and batman the animated series. Now we are older we are expected to put up and shut up as characters we grew up with are twisted to suit the male gaze and treated as unimportant, secondary and weak (like Rogue in the recent films.)
    It’s annoying.
    This picture doesn’t exist in a vacuum, It’s just another clump on the pile of bullshit geeks have to endure.

  • http://twitter.com/amydieg Beastbrarian

    I certainly think that is the intent, and I actually agree that the art is beautiful. The problem, though, has less to do with intent and more to do with context. This cover exists as part of a world where many things made for/about young girls are unnecessarily sexualized. Is it the worst, most disgusting violation possible? Absolutely not. But that doesn’t mean that the companies can’t or shouldn’t do better.

  • Anonymous

    I agree. It’s not a great movie, and I think if what I suspect was the intent is true, it could have been handled more deftly, but I found it to be gunning for a really sophisticated meta-critique of sexy magical girl fandom, turning the observer into the problem under discussion. When people are railing against its sexism while simultaneously deploring its lack of overt sexuality, for example, as demonstrated by the much harangued “missing erotic dance scenes”, this has been achieved. The film forces the viewer to inhabit the role of sexual customer and reflects on that momentary feeling of being “cheated” of this when she instead is shown fighting, which is likewise done in a way that is improbable and sexualized.

    There’s more than enough commentary within the film between Sweet Pea and Babydoll about the dancing itself to suggest there’s a more complex theme running through the film and that the egregious “faux feminist” moments are actually what’s being criticized rather than utilized.

  • Raerae

    Yeah…er…nearly all the guys I know find it arousing so ymmv.

  • luces

    Choosing Mimi Yoon as a variant cover artist for PPG IS a problematic decision. This is mainly because PPG is about three superpowered kindergarteners and Yoon’s sensual art style doesn’t really work well with that. The fact that this cover is mainly targeted at the subscribed adult readers may cause people to think “Gee, adult PPG fans must be perverts who likes to see these little girls in skimpy outfits.” No one would have intended that, of course, but apparently IDW agreed that we should be more careful about this.

    That being said, Mimi Yoon is more of a “expressing female sexuality with blunt, often provocative style” kind of artist than one who mindlessly spews out what patriarchal socitey wants for women. Her style is sensual, for sure, but I’ve never regarded her work as something that debases women. I’m simply amazed that some people here accuse the artist of sexism/misogyny/objectifying women. “Wow this person draws young women with revealing clothes, she must be a sexist” is hardly a decent argument. Look, I agree that Mimi Yoon was probably not the best choice for this specific subject material. I also agree that aging up fictional preschoolers and giving them miniskirts may and will disturb some people. But if you are going to criticize someone, you should at least try to find out what that person really does. Accusing someone of something can’t be more easy these days(thanks to the internet), but that doesn’t mean we can judge other people without much thought. More importanly, CN gave her the job and allowed her to do it in her style. If anything is controversial, the blame should go to CN, not the artist.

    Personally, I happen to be a female artist who enjoys drawing “sexy” things, and some people’s reaction to this incident upsets me to say the least. I don’t think we can really agree on how women should be represented in media, at least not in the current state of our society. Different women is, and will be expressing female sexuality in different ways, and that’s the first step to find out. But clearly that path is riddled with problems.

  • Rose

    I completely agree with the point that women should be allowed to dress however they want without judgement or comment; however, I think the issue here is that these characters are children, dressed in a provocative style that would be perfectly acceptable on an adult who had decided herself to dress that way and was comfortable with the way she was dressed, but which on children is more problematic. That, coupled with the latex-look that the dresses have which has an undeniable link to sexuality, whether that link is correct or not, means that it is not particularly appropriate attire for children, as far as many people are concerned.

    I realise that this argument is straying into what-women-can-and-can’t-wear territory, which is highly problematic in and of itself, but I personally feel that the only issue here is that this style was placed onto characters whom we know to be children (and young children at that).

  • Georgethecat

    This whole “people are perverts with dirty minds” thing is really bad faith arguing. And telling people they need to “chill” or “calm down” over problematic portrayals of women in media or calling out sexism is a classic example of derailing.

    Just because you happen to be a woman who is perfectly fine with this cover does not negate the many other women (and men) who have real issues with this problematic cover.

  • Georgethecat

    She did make some rather derailing comments about the entire thing, particularly her “it’s just everyone else who has a dirty mind” garbage.

    (And of course, there’s nothing wrong with drawing/liking sexy things yet still recognizing problematic stuff).

  • Georgethecat

    Other than this being a pretty problematic cover, it’s just pretty boring and hegemonic. If you want to reimagine the girls as teens at least try to put a little bit of effort into diversifying their faces and body shapes (as seen on the Super BFFs).

    Give them some personality in their faces, at the very least. The PPG each have their own distinct personalities and traits. Why not play that up in their faces and outfits? Yet, all I’m seeing is sameface, samebody which is really not different from the problematic issues with a lot of male creators who draw adult female characters.

    And while I’m throwing a whole lot of shade at the Cartoon Network for this, the artist’s comments are particularly derailing and missing the point by about 1,000 miles.

  • karina

    It’s not derailing in any way….maybe bad faith with a stretch of the phrase. I just fail to see how it is problematic in any shape or form. I’m sorry you’re not comfortable with the cover, but that doesn’t make your opinion the end all be all either. Nor do I believe mine is the ultimate authority. My problem is the ridiculous arguments that it destroys the characters or people trying to say that this show was solely created for small children….when even the creators have said that it was intended to be just as appealing to parents.

  • Georgethecat

    No, it is derailing.

    You fail to see how the cover is problematic? I actually work in a comic book store. I see parents come in with their young children and I see them buy for their daughters titles like AdventureTime, My Little Pony, Power Puff Girls, PrinceLess, etc. Rarely do I ever actually see an adult buy Power Puff Girls, first of all. I’m sure there are some that do. But frankly, all-ages books should be appealing to ALL-AGES. And I can guarantee you if this was a book about three young boys? Them reimagined as teens would feature them standing in an action or powerful pose and they would not be there to look sexy but to look strong.

    Secondly, you don’t believe this cover makes the PPG look sexy. Others see it much differently. However, what this cover also does is reimagine the girls as teens; however, they notably have the exact same face, the exact same body type and are upholding a beauty standard that the PPG were never actually designed to uphold (especially since the characters as young girls are drawn with oversized heads and stubby arms and legs). There are much more imaginative ways to do that cover a lot better. The cover? Is frankly boring and hegemonic.

    And before you jump in and say well, every other woman in comics is a size 2 with big breasts, so how is this any different — think about that. When you have male characters who range from all different sizes and shapes, yet female characters can only be one extraordinarily narrow pre-set beauty standard (as the PPG cover demonstrates), then there is another kind of problem.

  • http://tiffanygholar.blogspot.com/ Tiffany Gholar

    I love it! They’re grown up, mature, but not objectified. Their outfits still reflect their personalities, and they look ready to do some serious crime-fighting.

  • Anonymous

    But they’re not children. They’re fictional characters, and they’re pretty obviously depicted as older versions of those not at all real in any way characters. If we were looking at anything actually sexualized, I would object, too. But it’s just girl shaming piled on body shaming topped with slut shaming sauce. “Their dresses are shiny! I see thigh! They have breasts!” The cover is cute and innocent, but since some dude couldn’t look at it without thinking about the characters in a sexual way, I’m supposed to be angry at the female artist and Cartoon Network. He may not have been comfortable with the cover, but he SURE was comfortable with all the slut shaming that took place in his Facebook thread and the “you don’t get it” comments some guy directed at a female fan who had the nerve to disagree with the menfolk.

  • Anonymous

    Now that is empowerment!!
    Great picture! I’d totally wan to read about those girls superhero deeds.

  • karina

    I will have to disagree with your first statement in at least some cases and definitely in this one. Second, I never said they were about the woman’s sexual pleasure….I was never even discussing that….so its irrelevant to what I was talking about. I still find this image more empowering than sexualized.

    Second, I would be far removed to say I follow social norms….and I could go into detail, but then I would have people disagreeing with my opinion and attacking a lifestyle that I live and love because it works for me. However, I don’t feel that this really relates to following the status quo either…so once again….not really a connected point. I am empowered to enjoy that lifestyle…and I would say that is far from following social norms and very courageous. So I will have to disagree with your opinion on the second point as well…at least as it relates to this case…as no response can be generalized to all cases. I also think that you have a twisted sense of what this word means….because I see very few instances of people using the word that way.

  • Anonymous
  • JJ

    dikfor – I enjoyed that pic. Men are just as objectified as women are – just in different ways. Men are expected to be tough, not talk about feelings, fix everything, be breadwinners, kill spiders, love sports/talk about sports, told to ‘be a man’ and ‘man up’, enjoy female exploitation and are ridiculed and mocked when they say, want to take time off of work to care for a child; or when they violate the tough guy standards and stand up for women or those who are bullied. “The Mask You Live In” is a new, and heart-breaking documentary about the standards men and boys have to live by. Same people who did Miss Representation – currently can be seen on Netflix.

  • Marilyn Love Izen

    i would agree with you if it weren’t for buttercup. she is sitting, in an upskirt-peek pose, ON HIS FACE.

  • Dessa Brewington

    The movie makes it point a bit better with the inclusion of the deleted ending too, IMO.

    Sucker Punch was misunderstood by almost everybody, and its’s so disappointing because I thought it was fantastic.