Report: Only 30 Percent of Marvel/DC Characters Female

[Phil the Nervous]

Remember when Pixar tried to make movies centered around female characters?
And how surprised we all were when the same studio who created characters like Jessie put out a movie that had all it's big impressive scenes in the first fifteen minutes?

I'm not saying that we don't need more women in comics. Enforced status quo is actually an awesome thing when done properly. What I'm saying is that they need people who can write female characters competently, then to even out the %. Launchpad before the shuttle and all that.

Huh.

They're not saying heroes, they're saying cast. So the 30% is including all the side characters and girlfriends/damsels into this?

 

[xdiesp]

I don't visit The Escapist for gratuitous, baseless accusations of misoginy against an entire industry. Let the Gawker trash handle that. Burn this censorship crap and do not threaten DC\Marvel under your dirty agenda.

 

[Ogoid]

I have to agree, it's really a shocking and apalling state of affairs that for-profit corporations which put out mainly a product (superheroes) that has, for the last 60 or 70 years, had a mainly male audience tend to cater primarily to said audience.

If only there were other comic companies out there (which might even, conceivably, put out non-superhero comics - fancy that)...

Oh, wait.

www.darkhorse.com/
https://imagecomics.com/
www.boom-studios.com/
www.dynamite.com/
www.idwpublishing.com/
www.fantagraphics.com/
archiecomics.com/

But I understand, that took me like 3 minutes of Google. It's unfair of me to expect a journalist writing on the subject of comics to go through that kind of strain.

 

[Lupine]

Oh no, the horror. Quick SJWs whine about it because we have to force everything to be completely equal even though the genders are very different and specialize in very different things. Next up: Why are nurses and teachers usually women? SEXIST!

So are we just going to ignore that nurses and teachers are more commonly women because of factors outside of themselves? I mean it can't be that traditional view points even if incorrect or motivated by reasons no longer valid in society can have any affect on the peoples that grow up under them? I mean we are all living in a cultural vacuum where none of us ever take in any thoughts not our own and are never exposed to any outside stimuli ever?

Don't get it twisted, I agree with your notion of differences between the genders, especially physically where there are observable and easily quantifiable differences. However I feel like we can all see that this is basically a nature vs nurture argument with the actual answer being that the two are interconnected and thus the whole thing is complex enough that it is chicken and the egg, rather than...hey this is what women are good at and this is what men are good at.

 

[Guerilla]

Oh no, the horror. Quick SJWs whine about it because we have to force everything to be completely equal even though the genders are very different and specialize in very different things. Next up: Why are nurses and teachers usually women? SEXIST!

So are we just going to ignore that nurses and teachers are more commonly women because of factors outside of themselves? I mean it can't be that traditional view points even if incorrect or motivated by reasons no longer valid in society can have any affect on the peoples that grow up under them? I mean we are all living in a cultural vacuum where none of us ever take in any thoughts not our own and are never exposed to any outside stimuli ever?

Don't get it twisted, I agree with your notion of differences between the genders, especially physically where there are observable and easily quantifiable differences. However I feel like we can all see that this is basically a nature vs nurture argument with the actual answer being that the two are interconnected and thus the whole thing is complex enough that it is chicken and the egg, rather than...hey this is what women are good at and this is what men are good at.

Neuroscientists and evolutionary biologists have repeatedly explained why we have more teachers and nurses yet feminists continue their anti-science crusade by not only ignoring scientific facts but also actively trying to discredit science. Hint: It has nothing to do with "culture" and everything to do with instincts of taking care of people and raising kids. Similarly men are better at being violent (nothing to brag about, protecting is the politically correct tern which I'll not use) which is why they're more convincing in action movies and comics.

 

[Lupine]

Oh no, the horror. Quick SJWs whine about it because we have to force everything to be completely equal even though the genders are very different and specialize in very different things. Next up: Why are nurses and teachers usually women? SEXIST!

So are we just going to ignore that nurses and teachers are more commonly women because of factors outside of themselves? I mean it can't be that traditional view points even if incorrect or motivated by reasons no longer valid in society can have any affect on the peoples that grow up under them? I mean we are all living in a cultural vacuum where none of us ever take in any thoughts not our own and are never exposed to any outside stimuli ever?

Don't get it twisted, I agree with your notion of differences between the genders, especially physically where there are observable and easily quantifiable differences. However I feel like we can all see that this is basically a nature vs nurture argument with the actual answer being that the two are interconnected and thus the whole thing is complex enough that it is chicken and the egg, rather than...hey this is what women are good at and this is what men are good at.

Neuroscientists and evolutionary biologists have repeatedly explained why we have more teachers and nurses yet feminists continue their anti-science crusade by not only ignoring scientific facts but also actively trying to discredit science. Hint: It has nothing to do with "culture" and everything to do with instincts of taking care of people and raising kids. Similarly men are better at being violent (nothing to brag about, protecting is the politically correct tern which I'll not use) which is why they're more convincing in action movies and comics.

Yeah, except that isn't exactly true. Testosterone plays into aggression sure, but even chemically speaking every man and woman is different. There are women with higher than average testosterone levels for women and men with higher than average estrogen levels and no I'm not talking about people with abnormal hormone issues that would need medical treatment either.

Then there are things like upbringing, societal origins, traditions, and even the law that all play into what people do and do not do or feel comfortable doing.

Also while maternal instinct (and instincts in general do effect human behavior) it would be pretty crazy to say that humans by in large are driven solely by their instincts or even that when we are driven by instinct that we haven't built cultural constructs around those instinctual urges that frame or focus them in a way that society sees fit. If men were so violence focused, I feel like we wouldn't have needed centuries upon centuries of warrior culture to convince men to go to war and to romanticize violence or tout virtues like honor or bravery for that very reason.

So yeah..."culture" not having an effect just isn't true. And I might be going out on a limb here, but I'm gonna say that being a feminist doesn't preclude one from an interest in science, nor does it mean that one is disregarding it. Instead I feel like you're trying to simplify something complex for the sake of your argument but that doesn't really work with people whom are not logical nor do they simply follow their biological programming.

 

[Guerilla]

Yeah, except that isn't exactly true. Testosterone plays into aggression sure, but even chemically speaking every man and woman is different. There are women with higher than average testosterone levels for women and men with higher than average estrogen levels and no I'm not talking about people with abnormal hormone issues that would need medical treatment either.

Then there are things like upbringing, societal origins, traditions, and even the law that all play into what people do and do not do or feel comfortable doing.

Also while maternal instinct (and instincts in general do effect human behavior) it would be pretty crazy to say that humans by in large are driven solely by their instincts or even that when we are driven by instinct that we haven't built cultural constructs around those instinctual urges that frame or focus them in a way that society sees fit. If men were so violence focused, I feel like we wouldn't have needed centuries upon centuries of warrior culture to convince men to go to war and to romanticize violence or tout virtues like honor or bravery for that very reason.

So yeah..."culture" not having an effect just isn't true. And I might be going out on a limb here, but I'm gonna say that being a feminist doesn't preclude one from an interest in science, nor does it mean that one is disregarding it. Instead I feel like you're trying to simplify something complex for the sake of your argument but that doesn't really work with people whom are not logical nor do they simply follow their biological programming.

Nice, using anecdotal evidence and exceptions to try refute scientific research on demographics. Thank you for confirming my point about the anti-science crusade.

And noone said that humans are driven solely by their instincts but instincts are a very significant factor. This is why women prefer certain jobs and reject others or men are so good at action flicks. The fact that feminists continue to deny human nature and scientific findings is why the movement will always reach the wrong conclusions and will always have idiotic unrealistic standards about both men and women.

If you ever want to open your eyes I suggest watching the Norwegian Gender Equality Paradox, it's a great 40 minute Norwegian documentary about how ridiculously stubborn and dogmatic feminism has become opposing science and logic.

 

[Lupine]

Yeah, except that isn't exactly true. Testosterone plays into aggression sure, but even chemically speaking every man and woman is different. There are women with higher than average testosterone levels for women and men with higher than average estrogen levels and no I'm not talking about people with abnormal hormone issues that would need medical treatment either.

Then there are things like upbringing, societal origins, traditions, and even the law that all play into what people do and do not do or feel comfortable doing.

Also while maternal instinct (and instincts in general do effect human behavior) it would be pretty crazy to say that humans by in large are driven solely by their instincts or even that when we are driven by instinct that we haven't built cultural constructs around those instinctual urges that frame or focus them in a way that society sees fit. If men were so violence focused, I feel like we wouldn't have needed centuries upon centuries of warrior culture to convince men to go to war and to romanticize violence or tout virtues like honor or bravery for that very reason.

So yeah..."culture" not having an effect just isn't true. And I might be going out on a limb here, but I'm gonna say that being a feminist doesn't preclude one from an interest in science, nor does it mean that one is disregarding it. Instead I feel like you're trying to simplify something complex for the sake of your argument but that doesn't really work with people whom are not logical nor do they simply follow their biological programming.

Nice, using anecdotal evidence and exceptions to try refute scientific research on demographics. Thank you for confirming my point about the anti-science crusade.

And noone said that humans are driven solely by their instincts but instincts are a very significant factor. This is why women prefer certain jobs and reject others or men are so good at action flicks. The fact that feminists continue to deny human nature and scientific findings is why the movement will always reach the wrong conclusions and will always have idiotic unrealistic standards about both men and women.

If you ever want to open your eyes I suggest watching the Norwegian Gender Equality Paradox, it's a great 40 minute Norwegian documentary about how ridiculously stubborn and dogmatic feminism has become opposing science and logic.

Anecdotal evidence huh...

So reading history books, knowing human biology, and looking at sociology is anecdotal. Hmmm. Color me surprised. And I'm not using exceptions, I'm saying that you're generalizing on a marco level, something that isn't readily observable on the macro level for the most part. Also you haven't shown me anything that says anything you've said so far is backed up by scientific research. However I'm not saying you're lying as much as I'm saying that you're focused on believing what you believe rather than this being some sort of unbiased scientific endeavor. Science is unbiased sure, but people's interpretation of data is not. And that goes double for supposed "soft" sciences where conclusions are less conclusive if you will. And on top of that, I'm saying that science while valid in the discussion and dissection of what exactly makes a human being, there are times that it also fails to simply grasp the "human" element of humanity and the nuances of the individual.

Feminist aren't ignoring human nature at all, if anything I'd say they are an example of it at work. Human nature isn't simply our genetics or instinctual reactions. The human animal isn't as predictable as other animals and so that is why I argue that there is no wrong conclusion when it comes to human beings. We have a sense of self, we have a sense of others, a sense of mortality, or morality, of society, and what have you in regards to all the things that you or anyone else you'd meet would believe sets us apart from other animals.

I'll probably watch your documentary, but I doubt it will have the effect you think it will, especially seeing as how hard you're generalizing feminists in this sentence. I've no doubt that there are feminist that oppose science and logic, but by the same token that can be true of any group and seeing as how diverse a group feminists are bound to be...you see where this is going.

 

[Guerilla]

Anecdotal evidence huh...

So reading history books, knowing human biology, and looking at sociology is anecdotal. Hmmm. Color me surprised. And I'm not using exceptions, I'm saying that you're generalizing on a marco level, something that isn't readily observable on the macro level for the most part. Also you haven't shown me anything that says anything you've said so far is backed up by scientific research. However I'm not saying you're lying as much as I'm saying that you're focused on believing what you believe rather than this being some sort of unbiased scientific endeavor. Science is unbiased sure, but people's interpretation of data is not. And that goes double for supposed "soft" sciences where conclusions are less conclusive if you will. And on top of that, I'm saying that science while valid in the discussion and dissection of what exactly makes a human being, there are times that it also fails to simply grasp the "human" element of humanity and the nuances of the individual.

Feminist aren't ignoring human nature at all, if anything I'd say they are an example of it at work. Human nature isn't simply our genetics or instinctual reactions. The human animal isn't as predictable as other animals and so that is why I argue that there is no wrong conclusion when it comes to human beings. We have a sense of self, we have a sense of others, a sense of mortality, or morality, of society, and what have you in regards to all the things that you or anyone else you'd meet would believe sets us apart from other animals.

I'll probably watch your documentary, but I doubt it will have the effect you think it will, especially seeing as how hard you're generalizing feminists in this sentence. I've no doubt that there are feminist that oppose science and logic, but by the same token that can be true of any group and seeing as how diverse a group feminists are bound to be...you see where this is going.

I don't think you understand how this works. When you give me a percentage of women doing this or a percentage of women represented in that explaining you why percentages aren't 50/50 using science to make you understand that genders think and behave differently is NOT generalizing. Looking at demographics and how they behave isn't generalizing, generalizing is always expecting from an individual to behave like the rest of a certain demographic.

This is why when you're using crappy anecdotal evidence and exceptions to counter-argue scientific facts when we're talking about percentages in demographics you're only repeating a useless overused argument that leads to nothing. An argument that I've witnessed being used by feminists to counter hard evidence a million times and to me only proves how irrational the movement is and how I'm on the right side of this debate.

 

[Schtoobs]

Superheroes are a power fantasy and most comics are written by men. If there were more women writers I'm sure we'd see a larger amount of female super-heroes/villans.

I'm with most people here, I don't see a need to reach some kind of gender parity. Way to make something out of nothing. I wonder if our species wasn't so close to 50:50 male to female, we'd have people demanding a cull to make it even.

 

[Lupine]

Anecdotal evidence huh...

So reading history books, knowing human biology, and looking at sociology is anecdotal. Hmmm. Color me surprised. And I'm not using exceptions, I'm saying that you're generalizing on a marco level, something that isn't readily observable on the macro level for the most part. Also you haven't shown me anything that says anything you've said so far is backed up by scientific research. However I'm not saying you're lying as much as I'm saying that you're focused on believing what you believe rather than this being some sort of unbiased scientific endeavor. Science is unbiased sure, but people's interpretation of data is not. And that goes double for supposed "soft" sciences where conclusions are less conclusive if you will. And on top of that, I'm saying that science while valid in the discussion and dissection of what exactly makes a human being, there are times that it also fails to simply grasp the "human" element of humanity and the nuances of the individual.

Feminist aren't ignoring human nature at all, if anything I'd say they are an example of it at work. Human nature isn't simply our genetics or instinctual reactions. The human animal isn't as predictable as other animals and so that is why I argue that there is no wrong conclusion when it comes to human beings. We have a sense of self, we have a sense of others, a sense of mortality, or morality, of society, and what have you in regards to all the things that you or anyone else you'd meet would believe sets us apart from other animals.

I'll probably watch your documentary, but I doubt it will have the effect you think it will, especially seeing as how hard you're generalizing feminists in this sentence. I've no doubt that there are feminist that oppose science and logic, but by the same token that can be true of any group and seeing as how diverse a group feminists are bound to be...you see where this is going.

I don't think you understand how this works. When you give me a percentage of women doing this or a percentage of women represented in that explaining you why percentages aren't 50/50 using science to make you understand that genders think and behave differently is NOT generalizing. Looking at demographics and how they behave isn't generalizing, generalizing is always expecting from an individual to behave like the rest of a certain demographic.

This is why when you're using crappy anecdotal evidence and exceptions to counter-argue scientific facts when we're talking about percentages in demographics you're only repeating a useless argument that leads to nothing. An argument that I've witnessed being used by feminists to counter hard evidence a million times and to me only proves how irrational the movement is and how I'm on the right side of this debate.

Again, you keep touting scientific facts as if they are the only thing going on. I think you're the one that doesn't understand how it works. You see because again you're saying that biological reasons are the reason said person is acting this way or going into this field and I'm pointing out to you that said scientific data is being gathered in the real world where people are already products not just of their genetics or instincts but also products of their societies, upbringings,traditions, etc.

To put it another way, if you're doing a study like this, you shouldn't do it with a single test group and say "good enough". Your sample size can't be limited and more than that it needs to have representatives from more than a single society, country, race, etc. If you want to say that this is nature and not nurture then you need to cover your bases on the nurture end of things instead of having a go at it on the small scale and then touting it as the new gospel truth.

And to repeat myself once more, even after that is done, you can't take those findings and then try to apply them to the micro level indiscriminately. Also I can't see anyone being particularly irrational except for your insistence that feminist must be. I get the feeling that you don't know a lot of feminist and thus for you they are these fairytale-others built in your mind from pieces of media.

Also I say this while not exactly disagreeing with you that men and women have different mentalities and instincts and that these very well can lead to different job choices, but the problem is that you see this as totally because of biological reasons and can't be bothered to consider things not happening in a vacuum...Not to mention that feminism doesn't care about having 50/50 male and female representation in anything, what it does care about however is that women have the same opportunities as men or vice versa. At its core equality is about choice.

 

[TheRiddler]

2 small questions. First, how does 30% compare to, say, prime-time television? Like, I realize that the gender disparity is unfortunate, but is it so demonstrably worse than other media that it's necessary to call out DC/Marvel specifically for it?

Also, are we talking main characters here? Or just... all of them? Like, is the victim that Wonder Woman saves in Wonder Woman number something-or-other a character? Or is it just named characters? But should, for example, Ambush Bug be weighted equally to Catwoman? Or are we just talking about series-leading main characters?

I'd be interested to know how they collected this data.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Kinda surprised it's that high, myself. I'm kinda of an off, and on comic fan.

It's kinda funny, some people kinda read like this percent is a -good- thing, though. Like it should be enough, we're done, lets leave it like this.

I'm not saying that we need some check boxes, or quota, or what ever the, IMO, irrational fear is (Like there's forces powerful enough to fully enforce such a quota? In any medium? In the internet age?), and that we need some 50/50 split since I'd value freedom more. Then again, I'm not deluded enough to think there's that much freedom in the comics industry.

I'd definitely agree with the notion that quality is better over quantity. Sad thing is, I gotta wonder how many of these characters we'll see after a few months, or a year, male or female. I suspect the woman wielding the hammer, and mantle of Thor will be gone in less than a year, and assuredly not given a weapon like Beta Ray Bill, and thunderstrike so she can continue her heroic ways. Likely even killed off.

I kinda find it, well bullshit, seeing people bring up a genre of a medium (romance) vs the medium (comic books), on another note. May as well say there's plenty of bats in baseball, when there's not a while lot of bats in sports in general, or something like that. It's not a great argument, IMO.

Captcha: Flavors you love.
yeah, plural, damnit all, I want flavors, not just flavor! >.>

 

[Guerilla]

Again, you keep touting scientific facts. I think you're the one that doesn't understand how it works. You see because again you're saying that biological reasons are the reason said person is acting this way or going into this field and I'm pointing out to you that said scientific data is being gathered in the real world where people are already products not just of their genetics or instincts but also products of their societies, upbringings,traditions, etc.

To put it another way, if you're doing a study like this, you shouldn't do it with a single test group and say "good enough". Your sample size can't be limited and more than that it needs to have representatives from more than a single society, country, race, etc. If you want to say that this is nature and not nurture then you need to cover your bases on the nurture end of things instead of having a go at it on the small scale and then touting it as the new gospel truth.

And to repeat myself once more, even after that is done, you can't take those findings and then try to apply them to the micro level indiscriminately. Also I can't see anyone being particularly irrational except for your insistence that feminist must be. I get the feeling that you don't know a lot of feminist and thus for you they are these fairytale-others built in your mind from pieces of media.

Also I say this while not exactly disagreeing with you that men and women have different mentalities and instincts and that these very well can lead to different job choices, but the problem is that you see this as totally because of biological reasons and can't be bothered to consider things not happening in a vacuum...Not to mention that feminism doesn't care about having 50/50 male and female representation in anything, what it does care about however is that women have the same opportunities as men or vice versa. At its core equality is about choice.

I don't even understand where you're getting at. Single test group? Why are you assuming that multiple studies on sex differences happened with only one test group? Here's a couple of sources from neuroscience alone (not even including evolutionary biology and biology) that confirm vast differences between men and women:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131202161935.htm

I believe in that. You keep believing in feminist hogwash and gender pseudo-scientists making shit up as they go along only to parrot their misguided view on sexes.

 

[Ronald Nand]

Numbers are a completely arbitrary measurement when it comes to written media like comics. What would be better, ten generic bland female super heroines or one iconic, well rounded and complex female super heroine?

By the logic of this article Marvel could make a super heroine called 'Damsel' whose super power is getting captured by villains so she can be rescued by our male super hero, and that would be great after all we have a new female comic character right...

 

[Ogoid]

I kinda find it, well bullshit, seeing people bring up a genre of a medium (romance) vs the medium (comic books), on another note. May as well say there's plenty of bats in baseball, when there's not a while lot of bats in sports in general, or something like that. It's not a great argument, IMO.

Trashy romance novels are a genre in the medium of books, every bit as superheroes are a genre in the medium of comics.

Equating "comics" to either "superheroes" or "Marvel/DC" shows a woeful lack of knowledge of the medium.

 

[Lupine]

Again, you keep touting scientific facts. I think you're the one that doesn't understand how it works. You see because again you're saying that biological reasons are the reason said person is acting this way or going into this field and I'm pointing out to you that said scientific data is being gathered in the real world where people are already products not just of their genetics or instincts but also products of their societies, upbringings,traditions, etc.

To put it another way, if you're doing a study like this, you shouldn't do it with a single test group and say "good enough". Your sample size can't be limited and more than that it needs to have representatives from more than a single society, country, race, etc. If you want to say that this is nature and not nurture then you need to cover your bases on the nurture end of things instead of having a go at it on the small scale and then touting it as the new gospel truth.

And to repeat myself once more, even after that is done, you can't take those findings and then try to apply them to the micro level indiscriminately. Also I can't see anyone being particularly irrational except for your insistence that feminist must be. I get the feeling that you don't know a lot of feminist and thus for you they are these fairytale-others built in your mind from pieces of media.

Also I say this while not exactly disagreeing with you that men and women have different mentalities and instincts and that these very well can lead to different job choices, but the problem is that you see this as totally because of biological reasons and can't be bothered to consider things not happening in a vacuum...Not to mention that feminism doesn't care about having 50/50 male and female representation in anything, what it does care about however is that women have the same opportunities as men or vice versa. At its core equality is about choice.

I don't even understand where you're getting at. Single test group? Why are you assuming that multiple studies on sex differences happened with only one test group? Here's a couple of sources from neuroscience alone (not even including evolutionary biology and biology) that confirm vast differences between men and women:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131202161935.htm

I believe in that. You keep believing in feminist hogwash and gender pseudo-scientists making shit up as they go along only to parrot their misguided view on sexes.

I didn't assume a single test group across multiple studies. You mentioned the documentary which I watched and then commented on. See how that works. Also congratulations you are going to ignore sociology, world history, and psychology in favor of biology alone without the context or acknowledgement of human cultural constructs and all those have done and mean to us humans. So yeah lets pretend that all of those things have no affect on the human condition because since there are quantifiable differences between the sexes then that means that there is no point in equality, right? Note: That equality doesn't say that we are all the same, it says that we all deserve the same opportunities.

I'll say it again. You are trying to simplify something complex with long standing societal issues and bias with a scientific outlook that while it might shed some light on the human animal as an animal, does absolutely nothing to actually address human society or by extension us human beings beyond the specifics of biology. And then you're using it, not very successfully to strawman feminists into some sort of irrational science haters, which doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

I kinda find it, well bullshit, seeing people bring up a genre of a medium (romance) vs the medium (comic books), on another note. May as well say there's plenty of bats in baseball, when there's not a while lot of bats in sports in general, or something like that. It's not a great argument, IMO.

Trashy romance novels are a genre in the medium of books, every bit as superheroes are a genre in the medium of comics.

Equating "comics" to either "superheroes" or "Marvel/DC" shows a woeful lack of knowledge of the medium.

You missed the whole

Kinda surprised it's that high, myself. I'm kinda of an off, and on comic fan.

part of my post, huh? As in not hugely into it? I never claimed to be an expert. Still, hope ya feel better.

I'm aware of more comic brands than Marvel/DC, but honestly, Super Hero is damn near all of them.

 

[Ogoid]

I kinda find it, well bullshit, seeing people bring up a genre of a medium (romance) vs the medium (comic books), on another note. May as well say there's plenty of bats in baseball, when there's not a while lot of bats in sports in general, or something like that. It's not a great argument, IMO.

Trashy romance novels are a genre in the medium of books, every bit as superheroes are a genre in the medium of comics.

Equating "comics" to either "superheroes" or "Marvel/DC" shows a woeful lack of knowledge of the medium.

You missed the whole

Kinda surprised it's that high, myself. I'm kinda of an off, and on comic fan.

part of my post, huh? As in not hugely into it? I never claimed to be an expert. Still, hope ya feel better.

I'm aware of more comic brands than Marvel/DC, but honestly, Super Hero is damn near all of them.

Okay, first and foremost I see I obviously came across as more confrontational than I intended, for which I apologize.

My comments about equating comics and superheroes was not directly aimed at you; if anything, it'd be directed at whoever wrote the original piece, and at that particular and - as far as I'm concerned - misguided attitude of taking a genre (a grossly over-represented genre, no arguments here, but a genre nonetheless) for the entirety of a medium.

Case in point, one wouldn't have to look further than more than half of the links in my first post in this thread, and I wouldn't even have to strain myself to throw in some more, even without going into Japanese or European stuff.