I have seen a series of editorial articles, one after another, regarding the role of women in comics and especially comic book films. Most of these articles are preoccupied primarily with women as sex objects or their sexual appeal.
I think the authors of some of the recent articles have good intentions, but in their attempts to address what might be what they perceive to be objectification and over-sexualization actually end up sounding rather sexist and considering female characters as sex objects.
Two articles off of the top of my head have featured lengthy considerations of the role and sexuality of Black Widow in Avengers in particular. The most recent asked if changing her costume (nearly identical) and hairstyle between Iron Man 2 to Avengers was merely an attempt to make her more sexy for male audiences. The author further suggested that she didn't serve much of a role or purpose in the Avengers, she was thrown in there, again, for the male audience to gawk at.
This critique is sexist to me in two primary ways.
First is that the concern is primarily on Black Widow as a sexual object - whether she is over-expressing or under-emphasizing her sexual traits as the center of a controversy. Some exposed cleavage and a haircut doesn't designate a character as merely there for sexual gawking, nor does 'covering her up' give her more credibility or make her a more essential character. Black Widow wasn't portrayed in the Avengers as particularly sexy or used in a sexy way other than the actress being extremely beautiful. Her being beautiful doesn't mean she has to hide her beauty or body in order to be "taken seriously" more than any male character in the film had to do the same. This judgment of a character based on her sexual traits, including if those sexual traits and sexuality are properly covered (not "distracting") is sexist and reduces a woman's value to being a sex object JUST AS MUCH as valuing a female character based on how sexually suggestive she is.
Her personality and character weren't based on being sexy or sexually appealing - she was a character who COULD be sexy, or could NOT be sexy, and she would still be a complete character.
Widow, I thought, served a great purpose in Avengers - she was the audience vehicle. Hawkeye, the other non-super person, was mind controlled, Cap, Iron Man, Hulk and Thor are superpowered, larger than life, Fury is the boss, Loki is the villian. Widow didn't have the same "stake" in the whole super-game, like the audience, and she was a player without having a superpower (even Hawkeye has one skill that's 'super'). She was the outsider of the outsiders. She anchored the perspective of the audience. In terms of plot "usefulness", she served as the representative of this huge organization, SHIELD, that was sponsoring/bringing together this team of Avengers. In the climax, she was the one able to close the portal to lock out the Chitauri because she wasn't a "heavy hitter", she could make her way up to do something critical while the more powerful characters could protect civilians and battle the Chitauri head on.
Now, obviously, there were some problems in the promotion of the Avengers, parodied here:
While there may be critiques to be made about Black Widow in the film, I haven't heard a convincing argument regarding the portrayal of her sexuality or sexual characteristics.
Another character who was brought up for her sexuality was Catwoman in the Dark Knight Rises. Catwoman is a manipulative femme fatale who walks a lot of lines, and using her sexuality and beauty is part of the character. This doesn't devalue the character simply because sexuality is employed. Sexuality is part of a character just like it part of every woman you meet, and is not a grounds of value or devalue whether she displays/expresses it or not - the essential point I'm making.
The second main point I want to address is this idea of female characters being tacked on to to Comic book films with the question "are they necessary or there for sexual appeal?" As a male, comic book fan, and appreciator of good story telling, I look for and appreciate strong, rounded female characters because I appreciate good characters, rich stories, and intelligent story telling. It's an insult to think that I need to be hooked in to 2 hours of flashing lights and explosions and tits in order to watch a movie, rather than filmmakers stepping up to the plate to create high quality work. I refuse to see such films.
It's impossible to accomplish any of the above with flat, one dimensional female characters. Most of the people in my life are female, why would a film feature almost all men and why would anyone not want the balance that represents real life? I'm not interested in male characters and psychology more than female characters and psychology, so this constant discussion of whether a female character is valuable or necessary is ridiculous.
Finally, consider the women in recent comic book films - Yukio, Lady Sif, Maria Hill, Peggy Carter, Pepper Potts, Mary Jane, Gwen Stacy, Aunt May, Jane Foster, Rachel Dawes,, Storm, Rogue, Jean Grey. These women might be beautiful or be human beings in possession of sexual parts and desires, but they're not taken primarily for any of that.
However, I do agree with the issue of women primarily being depicted as damsels in distress or love objects for the male leads rather than fully fleshed out and/or independent characters themselves, but that isn't what I intend to address here. That is an informed and accurate critique, in my opinion, that addresses a repeated dynamic of females as some kind of object for the male's story. Hopefully, a Captain Marvel or Wonder Woman film might
Thanks for reading.