Things We Saw Today: Captain America Wearing A Belly Shirt

She’s from Community? Didn’t know, as I don’t watch the show… but yeah, the belly shirt is frigging stupid considering the kind of hand to hand combat that Captain America does. And no, it doesn’t matter that he has a shield, he still got shot IN THE GUT in the movie.

Alison Brie should be Wasp!!!
Joss – make it happen!

“Someone did an awesome job photoshopping Community’s Alison Brie as Captain America. What they failed to realize was she would have looked equally cool with her sensitive stomach region protected. (via ScreenRant)”

Yeah, when people “Genderbend” or just Portray any Female instead of any Male for a Character, I honestly don’t think females have to be Skimpier, much less, sl*ttier to be Female. This is when I ask, “where’s the “Character Accuracy Argument” for this?!” If the male character was skimpy, nude, or sl*tty to begin with, than YEAH, Okay, fine.

Actually, according to long-term analysis of female body armor patterns, a bare midriff provides the equivalent protection of 76mm of rolled steel.

This is probably related to the phenomenon of a ripped shirt or tunic providing an up to 130% increase in strength and endurance on males, aka the “Captain Kirk Effect.”

Yes, and she looks equally cool with it exposed. Quit whining about people daring to show off skin.

I don’t care what people wear in their downtime, Lady!Cap can stroll around midtown in a bikini if that’s what she wants, but she’s going into battle. Covering her stomach is functional. *That’s* what drives me batty about skimpy superheroine costumes.

Oh god some of those dating stories from The Frisky are making me afraid to try and meet people again.

Indeed, Ok, one could argue that characters like Supergirl don’t really need armour, because they can shrug of more damage than any readily available armour anyway, so it doesn’t really matter for them.

That’s not really the case with Captain America, though, (S)he’s enhanced, but not really bulletproof. Same goes even more for most superheroes who are unenhanced, baseline humans, where adequate armour isn’t really a bad idea. (Same goes for a lot of mutants and metahumans who’s powers don’t include bulletproofness).

You do realize this is not a real person in a costume, right? Someone photoshopped the actress to look like that. It’s not a real person daring anything.

You’ll also note I did say she looked equally cool either way.

The point of everything involving the motives of art, fiction, and the way women are consistently portrayed- you missed it.

If women in fiction were consistently shown to dress like, you know, actual women (as in *gasp!* a VARIETY of styles and modesty levels! With fairly modest looks being in the majority, like real life!), then we wouldn’t be-

No, wait. I would still complain because this is Captain America. If gender bent, they would still be from WWII and probably have the same view of themselves and would probably not wear a belly shirt. I mean, really. (I would also say I could see a gender-bent Tony Stark having a Iron Man style biki suit, but at the same time tony is so practical and has to withstand insane speeds, so most likely wouldn’t have one as a actual battle suit. More for entertainment purposes).

Plus, it gets tired when people always have to make girls look sexy. Always. Like, wtf? Why can’t girls have a variety of looks like guys do? (And if you claim there is no problem with the portrayal of women in media, for goodness sakes, just look at female supervillains vs. male ones. If you don’t think “all women must be sexy, or they aren’t worth representing!” is a bad message, then you are a fool.)

While I agree that it’s pretty lazy and uncreative to constantly delegate women versions as ‘well uh wearing less clothes OH and heels and make-up!’, I wouldn’t use the term ‘slutty’, either.

There’s nothing wrong with showing skin. There’s something wrong with it being such a gender specific double standard.

Whether they ‘need’ armour or not is beside the point. The problem is that women are consistently portrayed for sex appeal, whilst men are not. It’s a misogynistic double standard and it needs to go.

It’s hilarious to see stuff like this, as bare midriff hasn’t been in style since a very brief part of the 90′s. Fan, amateur, and pro artists need to look at some style websites every now and then — you still see bare midriffs all over romance/faux urban fantasy novel covers. The get hung up on something they saw decade[s] ago. Anyhow, this person missed Bru/Epting Cap #50 a few years ago when he got shot point blank in the chest.

It’s just ephemeral fan art that’ll be forgotten; tomorrow’s chip paper. Nothing to waste energy being annoyed over.

I didn’t say Skimpy=Sl*tty.

I tried to Word it in a way that I felt were 2 DIFFERENT STYLES.

I said portraying women in the styles that most people would Constitute as ‘sl*tty,’ like most “female” versions of male character Halloween Costumes (Don’t tell me you never heard of the so-called “Sexy Halloween Costume,” which I argue is more than just ‘showing a lot of skin,’ it just looks ‘sexually gross’ to me.).

h

Regardless it’s CLOTH ARMOR! Get over yourselves.

Watch the film “Thor” and then tell me men are not being portrayed for sex appeal. Or Hugh Jackman in any X-Men film. Or Christian Bale in any Batman film. Hell, it goes right back to Christopher Reeve in Superman. Superhero films in general are about eye candy. I’m not saying I agree with it (I’m pretty much over Marvel films for that reason) but it swings to both genders and in this particular instance I think the accusation of misogyny is too easy an out.

The concept of “daring” really doesn’t apply here.

They aren’t being portrayd for sex appeal in the same way. The default position of hollywood is that the male characters are someone that you should inspire to be, the women are someone you should inspire to bone.