MCU warrior-women outfit analysis - Iron Man I (2008)

✨⚔️This series is about⚔️✨: Warrior women and realistic female armour has always been one of my favourite topics to discuss, so this is what this series is about, focused on the women of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). We'll be analysing and commenting on the outfits and armour warrior women and action women wear and the way they are depicted in each of the MCU movies. I will also be commenting on unrealistic outfits for female characters who are not warrior or action women, but who find themselves in the midst of action scenes which involve running, for example (and you can't do that very easily in heels or tube skirts, now can you). 

 

A more in-depth description about this series in my first post about it, here. 

Well, this one will be quick (by my standards xD) because there's practically no warrior or action women around, apart from a female soldier extra at the start of the movie and a brief foray of Pepper Potts into the final action scenes (not part of the action per se, but the 'women running in thin stiletto heels' must be always criticized 🙄😬 xD). In fact, this being one of the most infamously sexist moviesin the MCU, most women are there to provide ample examples of casual gratuitous sexism - To be harassed, used, exploited and ogled at, as well as to fulfil the roles of the (future) love interest, personal assistant and emotional support who caters to every of our entitled male hero's wishes (hello, Pepper, you deserve so much better in this movie).

I'm going to focus on our small number of action women and how they are portrayed, but regarding general feminist criticism, I agree 100% with this post's discussion of Iron Man's sexism and racism/colonialism. I'd especially like to highlight this quote:

"Had the intent truly been to show Stark to be an ass, and not to use his mistreatment of women as proof of his success and charm, then some of the women would have registered disgust or discomfort in his company. By portraying women as being universally susceptible to the 'seductiveness' of Stark's misogyny, the film implies that all women either like being belittled, don't have the dignity to stand up for themselves, or are too empty-headed to notice a pig when he stares them in the face chest."

Peggy for sure doesn't agree with that kind of bullshit

 

Yep. My main issue with the casual sexism as portrayed in the movie was that the women didn't seem to mind being harassed, belittled, sexualized and used - they reacted favourably because it was the 'desirable' Tony Stark doing it (for example, this idea is handled better with Jim Kirk from Star Trek AOS - He begins as a cocky playboy wannabe but not all women he hits on are cool with his behaviour - nor is he into the Stark level of casual sexism or lacks so many morals at the start of his story, but that's another topic and another fandom xD). And of course, even though there are more than a handful of problematic aspects in Pepper and Tony's interactions, of course it's romantic story material from the start (I also 100% agree with the paragraph on Pepper in the above linked post).

Anyway, let's move on to the actual focus of this post xD:

• Number of warrior/action women: 1 - A female soldier extra. Pepper Potts gets involved a bit in the action, but barely.

 1. The lone female soldier

 

• Context: The movie starts with Tony Stark being driven in a military humvee in Afghanistan. A female soldier is the driver of the transport he's in. She's the only female soldier in the car and practically the only female soldier to appear in the whole movie (if we're not counting a couple bringing a stretcher at the airport - it's also pretty sad that it's all full of men no problem, but I have to be squinting at all the extras while pausing the film in order to find someone who's a woman). And she's basically there to be workplace harassed by Stark so that the audience knows that 'wow, he's an incorrigible - but still adorkable - playboy who hits on all the women'.  

The only other women in the military in the whole movie are army medics

 

"A female soldier giggles coquettishly when he throws some low-grade harassment her way, because what soldier wouldn't love to hear words like 'Now that I know you're a woman, I can't take my eyes off you. Does that make you feel uncomfortable?' drifting her way over the romantic rumbling of the humvee she's driving" Source

• Armour/outfit analysis: The only positive thing about how this character is treated is that she's actually wearing a realistic military uniform, same as the rest of the men. According to the context, she's wearing practical clothing that don't sexualize her or impede her mobility. And because she's non-sexualized, Stark obviously mistakes her for a man at first because it's so hard to recognize that someone is a woman when she's wearing practical outfits that actually give her protection and mobility, right? I guess that's just why they need to sexualize action women so much everywhere, it's actually about not mistaking them for men! 🙄

Not impressed.

Her response to Stark formerly mistaking her for a man is also problematic - 'I'm an airman', she says, having to prove her validity, worth and professionalism by using the masculine (faux) generic. Yes, the military already usually uses masculine generics for everything 😕. But another interesting point is that apparently the only way to be seen as an equal by her all-male entourage is to define herself according to male terms and using male language. Being a woman means being sexualized and reduced to her 'bone structure' (something which the filmmakers have also made her react happily to, yay). Being an 'airman' is her proactive job. And this is a thing, unfortunately - many women actually prefer to use masculine generics for their jobs - even if the feminine version of the word is ridiculously straightforward - because they think they will be taken more seriously that way. And hey, using masculine non-inclusive faux generics actually doesn't help society to see women as equals, or even neutral language more common. At least, that's my standpoint.

 

-About the character as a warrior/action woman:

• Representation: Female soldier. I'm anti-militaristic, but always nice to see parity (if you can call ONE female soldier parity, which you really can't either *eyeroll*).
• Female bonding/Bechdel with other (warrior) women: Nope. Surrounded by men.
• Token warrior woman? Yep, practically the only female soldier in the movie.
• Love interest/catering to men as main plot function? Harassed by Tony Stark while doing her job, laughs it off and is actually portrayed as being flattered by it because every woman wants to be talked in a condescending, sexualized manner by Tony Stark, of course they do. 

So -
+1 Non-sexualized, realistic outfit.
-1 Her minimal role is full of sexism and normalizes workplace harassment in a positive light.
-1 No female bonding or positive interactions with other women.

 2. Pepper Potts and her stiletto heels

Running in heels. That infamous sexist trope.

-Context: Pepper becomes embroiled in the movie's final showdown and turns up to investigate the antagonist's doings alongside Coulson and Co. from SHIELD. The antagonist ends up attacking them. She has to run from explosions and from the suited-up 'baddie'. In heels.

And not just any heels. THESE heels o_O

-Outfit analysis: As is unfortunately usual for many office and business jobs, pencil skirts (sometimes also pant suits) and stiletto heels are part of the daily 'uniform' of Pepper as a rich and important man's personal assistant. This is an example of the glaring double standard sexist-fest that is compulsory stiletto heels and skirts as part of many women's jobs - imagine having to wear uncomfortable and mobility-impairing contraptions just because of your gender, because if you're a woman, no matter if your job involves standing up of walking a lot (servers, assistants, secretaries, flight stewardesses, you name it), it's apparently super important to enhance your sexiness first and foremost. This has become so warped in our society that stiletto heels and pencil skirts have also come to mean 'professionalism' and 'smartness' as well as 'sexiness' and 'femininity', and are basically the 'female uniform' for many other occupations (from lawyers to businesswomen to politicians) where the woman in question wants to look adequately 'competent' and 'to be taken seriously'.  

 

And it's worth mentioning that in this movie we also get the delightful example of Stark's private plane's stewardesses, who sport high thin stilettos (and whose job apparently also includes pole dancing for the boss 😣).

So comfortable

But Pepper doesn't only have to brave through wearing stilettos and mobility-impairing skirts through her daily job, no. She also has to dive into - and run from - the action scenes of the last part of the movie in a tube-skirted dress and thin high heels. Because it's a cliché in this kind of man-made movies - as well as practical af, huh?! - to see women running from the danger and the baddies in stilettos.

"And as the tension mounts towards the film’s climax, watching her totter in heels to help save the day is unnerving–at least they could have given her some boots."  Source. 

(sarcasm all around once more)

(and again xD)

It was definitely ridiculous to have to see yet another woman run around in ridiculous thin heels without anyone questioning the absurdness of it all (couldn't Coulson or any of the agents give her another pair of shoes? Especially knowing they were going to face danger?? I guess maintaining her sexiness was the priority there :/). She is 100% ill-equipped for these action scenes - Even though she's not an 'action woman' per se, but she's very much in the *midst* of a pretty intense action area. And she is also very ill-equipped for an ardous daily job that requires moving and standing around a lot, just saying. 

Spot the differences between Coulson and Pepper

-About the character:

• Representation: She's competent in everything that she does, does have a role in thwarting the antagonist in the final showdown, and will become CEO of Stark Industries, but we cannot forget that her role as Stark's personal assistant and love interest means that most if not all of her actions revolve around the male hero's plot and decisions.  Pepper has the wit and cool-headedness to evade the antagonist in a scene prior to the final showdown, and the agency to go arrest him with SHIELD, so yay for Pepper there (and in heels no less), but she also kinda fulfills the 'damsel in distress' trope for a good chunk of said action scenes, surrounded by male agents with guns and hunted by the weaponized baddie.
• Female bonding/Bechdel with other women: Talks briefly with a journalist seduced by Stark (which shows us that Pepper knows exactly what kind of playboy life Stark has going on - one aspect of her job is to usher all his one-night stands out - and still finds his male entitlement, ego remotely attractive. And not only that, but the only scene where women talk is full of female competition, hell yeah! 😬). 

Pepper having a go at Stark's one-night conquests because hell yeah let's be jealous that your entitled womanizer boss sleeps with other women! "Why is she not referring to Stark as the trash in this situation? He's the one that continues to treat women as throwaway objects he's entitled to" Indeed (Source)

• Love interest/catering to men as main plot function? Yep. Her job is literally that. She doesn't really have a life of her own portrayed, and repeatedly has to put up with all the problematic stuff Stark comes up with because her job as his personal assistant is to attend to his every whim with a competent air, a ready smile, and a pair of stiletto heels always at the ready. Also a model of the female character who helps 'make the man better' with her emotional support and her putting up with too much of his shit (she does challenge some of his decisions, but yeah).  
  
• Additional notes (you know I had to xD): 
•  To those usually saying Stark appreciates and respects her competence, and that he gets more character development in that direction - that may be so, and I don't deny that Iron Man gets some character development going on in this MCU arch (without really making him accountable for his former higher levels of obnoxious sexism, if I may add, tho). But Pepper's still fulfilling the traditional role of the woman who does all the men's work while not being the actual boss, CEO or not. Not her actual company, but her boss-boyfriend's company. Yes, she wields power, as so many female PA's, consorts and the like do - But not her actual power, at the end of the day. Women with actual power are actually often portrayed as 'evil', 'bossy' and 'controlling', but because Pepper has Stark as her superior, that's all right if she displays her competence and skills. And it's also all right that she shows a lot of competence while catering to each and every one of the male protagonist's needs, paperwork and wishes, of course ("I don't think you could tie your shoes without me" and such are shown as proof of Pepper's competence, not Stark's utter incompetence when it comes to boring bureocratic matters other women handle for him).
• She's also treated in a pretty controlling and manipulative way by Stark in more than one occasion in this movie ("I don't like it when you have plans" and several other quotes come to mind). Yes, Stark gets character development, especially regarding his moral compass, and that's great, but his entitlement and flyboy attitude are still there in more than one way, and he is never held accountable for his casual sexism and use of women in the same way he is for his prior pro-weapons stance (if at all). They want to sell us Pepper's constant calm competence and apparent no-nonsense attitude as proof of her empowerment, maybe also to show us that everything's super normal and healthy where Stark is involved, a good foundation for a relationship (especially now that he's becoming the better hero!). But with that kind of discourse they're also hiding under the rug all of Stark's bullshit behaviour (for ex., the rather creepy scene where he pressures Pepper to fix his heart reactor or else he will go into cardiac arrest; the party scene where Pepper is uncomfortable to dance publicly in a backless dress with her boss, while privileged manly womanizer Stark is not only unaffected by sexist double standards of what people may think, but also suggests that maybe if he fired her she would feel better about the flirty scenario; or the cringeworthy entitlement in the very last scene where he very unsubtly asks Pepper to be his girlfriend), as well as promoting the idea that PA's are super happy to have demanding narcissistic womanizer bosses, so much they end up hardcore crushing on them! Yes, Pepper refuses Stark's offer at the end of the movie ("No matter how proud she might be of the ‘man he’s become’ Pepper’s not about to get into a relationship with a man who treats her like shit (hurrah), even if she might still work for him." Source). But as we know, that won't last long 😬

So - 

+1 Capable and competent. She's also pretty cool-headed in a crisis, even though -
-1 SHE HAS TO RUN IN HEELS EVERYWHERE. Also, job, plot and love story revolve around narcissistic womanizer dude who's never really accountable for his sexist behaviour.
-1 No female bonding or positive interactions with other women in this movie.

Objectification in fandoms - On the AOS Starfleet minidress uniform and why I hate it

I will be referencing this post multiple times in my AOS Star Trek comic feminist reviews (AOS: Alternate Original Series, the Trek movies from 2009 onwards). Here focusing on the AOS miniskirt female uniform, although I also reference the TOS (The Original Series) version as comparison.

I also note that AOS Star Trek is one of my favourite fandoms, I'm officially obsessed about it and it holds a special place in my heart. But as a feminist, I also find problematic flaws in it, and this is the main one.

-On the Starfleet female miniskirt uniform and why I hate it:

One should definitely not judge a woman for wearing miniskirts or shorter skirts, and I'm firmly against patriarchal modesty mindsets. I firmly think women are entitled to wear whatever they like and feel well in (so long as they're not making an unfeminist 'choice' and 'choosing' to wear a burka or a similarly misogynistic gendered covering, of course). However, the context should also be taken into consideration in order to ascertain if the character is being sexualized or not when wearing a more revealing skirt/dress/outfit. For example, female Starfleet officers shown wearing miniskirts (and sleeveless dresses) is both unrealistic and ridiculous - and thus, objectifying - because the logical thing would be to wear protective and practical clothing in the context of an actual job in outer space with bonus potential accidents and planet away missions! 

So comfortable and realistic for an action-packed mission!

Weather (exposed skin will be more prone to cold or heat), risk of injury to the exposed and very poorly protected legs and/or arms (no explanation needed here), lack of mobility (when one's underwear is showing so easily one has a limited set of posture choices :/ 'I remember always being exposed', Uhura's Zoë Saldana says. Sounds comfy for (such) a job, right?!),...These are all important factors which make the choice of a (sleeveless) minidress (in the case of AOS without even thin tights beneath -not that those did any protection either!-, even though it's a little bit less ridiculously short as TOS' version) clearly thought for the aims of sexualization and male gaze, as well as promoting the narrow-minded idea of gendered uniforms where women, for the sake of being women, too often automatically have to wear skirts/dresses and more uncomfortable and/or revealing clothing.  
The sexism of this is also of course anachronistic as hell (that in the 23rd Century such gendered uniforms would still exist). Then again, we know that in (male-dominated) science fiction obsolete sexism always ends up making an appearance. This gendered uniform is also particularly infuriating because in real life women have been forced to wear skirts for practically everything, including many jobs where it is impractical and hazardous to do so, and thanks to stupid gender roles, they were also actually forbidden to wear the 'male uniform' (aka actual practical pants) in many cases - Female forest rangers in USA, for example, were not allowed to wear the pant uniform until freaking 1973!! Meanwhile, policewomen had to wear skirt and pumps combos because logical thinking ("Some women wore skirts with a gun belt, pumps, and pantyhose — they really couldn’t do anything.”), or had to make do with the overlarge men-size pants. So yay, liberal feminists, please tell me how this is about 'choice', and especially about 'appreciating femininity' and 'allowing women to be feminine' (like, are women allowed to be anything else??).

The most logical outfit for an away-mission! Obviously. 

And real life example of the exact same situation - This skirt+bare legs combo is so practical and logical when it comes to being a forest ranger!

And if you need more proof (even though I think it's already pretty obvious), just read Zoë Saldana's comments on how uncomfortable her minidress 'uniform' made her, how she couldn't sit in any way without her underwear showing and her male colleagues calling her on it ("I kept being reminded by all my male cast members that I was flashing, I would sit down and it would be like, 'Oh, Zoe, cross those legs.' And I would say, 'They are crossed.' [They would say], 'Well, then put something over that because I'm just seeing everything.'"), and how the costume designer responded to her complaints with male gaze justifications, which win against every discomfort a female lead might have, apparently: "I just remember always being exposed no matter how hard I would try," Saldana said. "I would tell Michael that we had to work on this and [he would say], 'But it looks so cute.'".
 Women's sexualization wins and no surprises there :/, but it bugs me so much that so many female fans actually defend this shit and even call it 'empowering' (f* you liberal 'feminism' >_<)! Or that Beyond's costume designer, who is a woman, decided to keep on using the unrealistic and uncomfortable minidress - even though she added long sleeves and the dress is slightly longer - that caused so much discomfort to the actresses, never mind the characters (and this is the only issue I have with the awesomeness that is Beyond).

Just the kind of thing you'd wear in order to work in outer space, RIGHT?

This is a TOS female uniform as a comparison - Very similar regarding ridiculousness and sexualization aims :/ The TOS 'uniform' has an even shorter skirt (which however acts as a bathing suit of sorts - uncomfortable and unnecessary af, but at least the underwear wouldn't be as exposed, I guess), and generally includes very thin tights, which add like 1% protection, so no big deal either.

Another essential point to consider about this issue is to see if, by contrast, all male characters are always wearing pants and generally comfy and practical clothing while the women are generally wearing more revealing clothing just because they're women (double standard) and they must be seen as adequately attractive for the male gaze. And yes, this is what's happening regarding Starfleet gendered uniforms: All men wear actual realistic and comfortable uniforms with pants (and reinforced biker-style pants at that!) and, regarding the two first Trek movies where many minidresses are also sleeveless, the male uniforms always sport long sleeves, of course. Men are allowed to be protected! Male leads in movies and male characters in general are also allowed to be handsome and stuff while being protected!

What male privilege looks like

These are some of Michael Kaplan's costume sketches for Star Trek's Academy and duty uniforms. As you can see, the double standards are strong with this one. Men have realistic, reasonably comfy and non-objectified uniforms (they are also depicted in non-sexualized postures), while women are extremely sexualized (regarding both the outfit and the poses) in an illogical, unrealistic and ridiculous way.

Also featuring hypocrisy from the designer's part: "The women had lots of different options for the cadet uniforms: They could wear pants, skirt and a sweater, a skirt and jacket, or a jumper - an over-sweater like a little dress" Where are the 'lots of different options'? They're basically lots of options for wearing miniskirts and dresses, because I literally didn't see one female cadet with pants in the movies or in any production design. If you state that women can wear pants, why aren'y any women wearing them in the Academy? Or do I have to squint more at the screencaps? At least be sexist in an honest way, I don't know :/

Let me stress that gendered uniforms of this kind are inherently sexist and misogynistic af, not to mention narrow-minded in their gender-role glory. Because they're telling you: You're a woman, so your role in life is to wear a uniform that's more uncomfortable, protects you less and limits your mobility, because you must look 'sexy' and attractive at all costs. They brainwash women into thinking this actually is logical and makes sense. And those women who don't get brainwashed effectively usually have to accept it anyway, or lose their job/not go to (a uniform) school/lose their acting job. It's one thing to like miniskirts/dresses, it's another thing entirely to have to wear them as a uniform in the wrong context just because of your gender and because a male designer/male somebody in power said so (Michael Kaplan again: "We loved the idea of sticking to the homage of the 1960s and putting the girls into mini-skirts [he forgot about the 'lots of different options here!]. Zoë Saldana is adorable - it was so much fun to dress her. She has such a great figure for short skirts and the costume - she was the main prototype for the costumes").
 I myself wear miniskirt-and-leggins combos on a regular basis because I like the aesthetic, but I sure as hell wouldn't wear them to work in outer space, or as your standard female uniform to go to uni, and not only because contextually it doesn't make any sense, but also because I resent being sexualized because of my gender, thank you very much. 

In the AOS Trek movies we have a handful of female crew also wearing the long-sleeved pant uniform (in Beyond all female uniforms have long sleeves, but the pant version sports a tunic-like top and most female characters still wear the minidress version :/). Apparently, women in Starfleet can wear the pant version of both the Academy and duty uniforms (why thank you, 23rd Century so full of anachronistic 60s sexism in that respect), but oh surprise!, I haven't seen any female Academy cadet in the movies wearing the pant version, and all women in pant duty uniforms are extras (you can see a handful in all three Trek movies), or secondary characters at most (like Ensign Syl in Beyond).
(click on pics or open in a new tab for larger images)

Both pant uniforms, and dresses with long sleeves (which is something - like in Beyond - but still impractical)  

 

Let us also remember the brief glory of pant uniforms for women in TOS

 

Needless to say, this is the kind of uniform Starfleet women should be wearing, for practicality, comfort, protection, mobility and general equality (why can only men wear pants when it comes to uniforms, when it's the most logical option?). It's high time we taught society that women are not here to decorate men's world and thus should not look sexualized in every freaking situation, and also high time we taught people that not only should women be allowed to wear pants in these situations (it's so surreal to have to say this in the 21s Century, never mind the 23rd) but also- if appearance should even factor - that women and actresses can look just as good as men and male actors in freaking pants. No need to put them in ridiculous miniskirts in order to boost the attractiveness Hollywood selling factor.

Of course, we can't have the (limited) main female characters non-sexualized for our dear male audience (because we also know that female sexualization sells), and also for brainwashed neoliberal feminists! Neoliberal 'feminists' who claim - much to men's comfort, of course - that these women who are depicted with the minidress versions are empowered and not sexualized at all because they have the pants option available and didn't choose it (oh choice 'feminism', you always make so much sense).  How fitting for the male audience that no one main female character and less than 50% (being generous in some cases) of the secondary characters and extras chose the pant version! How fitting that so many women use the word 'choose' for fictional characters whose outfits are generally chosen by (male or brainwashed female) designers and crew!  Bonus points to that other argument they favour - That it's not objectification or sexism because women should be able to be both strong and 'look feminine' at the same time! That a sexualized heroine is actually subversive and empowering! Because by 'look feminine', of course, they usually mean justifying the gratuitous and blatant sexualization of so many female characters for the male gaze (comic characters such as Wonder Woman especially come to mind in this case). Not to mention that as non-binary and as a radfem I'm 100% against 2D simplistic gender constructs of  'femininity' that state that a woman 1) Must always look 'feminine' and that 2) The onlyway to achieve it is through skirts and dresses and other limited gendered options.
 Neoliberal and choice 'feminism' is truly poison and Patriarchy's pawn. They also make like 0% sense, my gods.

The newest Boldly Go Trek comics, as well as some Ongoing issues such as the genderbent 'Paralell Lives' one and some other random cases, made me hope for a change in this respect, seeing as 99% of the women portrayed in the first issues actually wore pants, even Uhura a couple of time :D, so we'll see, although I'm not that hopeful because the media does still rely on objectifying their female characters too much.  But THIS is what we deserve to see everywhere:

In short, I find it so infuriating and ridiculous that I'm here vindicating the right of women to wear comfortable, realistic uniforms in a job that requires lots of mobility and protection (minidresses are all fine and cool but in other contexts thank you), and that it's actually an 'unpopular opinion' *facepalm*