It’s a statue folks. Get over it! It was on “Inside Edition” last night too. The tabloids must not do their homework though, as MJ was referred to more than once as Spidey’s GF. This is despite the fact that they have been married in the comics for many a year now.

“…clothes need cleaning and its good of m.j to wash petes suit.I wash amandas clothes sometimes and in boxers…really.not as sexy,lol… but you get the idea. time to move on folks.”

Jim, I’m now repressing a nightmare.

Why is this an issue now even though this style of art is rampant throughout comics?

Because it’s a statue? Even less people buy statues than those who buy the books.

It’s good to know that there is a furor over a fake girl’s thong and cleavage in a statuette.

Meanwhile, the killing and gore in comics is on the rise and no one really minds.

It’s staggering to see how this country ABHORS sex but tolerates violence.

Jimmy,

Totally agree.Nuff Said.

Matt,post #5.
No matter how much you bitch and whine about this statue,you’re still not gonna get laid by the chubby goth girl at the LCS.
Unclench,man.

Okay, Gladiator X, let’s not get personal.

HAHA

Anytime you feel you have to resort to comparing something extreme like a hate crime, your argument is already lost.

Nobody–You pervert my points to a shocking degree.

It’s a slippery slope, but it’s a slope, and this is a stage on that slope.

It’s not that far to slip from “Hey, sure, there’s a woman with her breasts hanging out, bending over to do laundry for her man” to “Sure, why not kill this female character and stuff her in a fridge?”

If you don’t see this slope, and understand the stages on it–if you can’t do as booksforlunch suggests above, and try to view the world through someone else’s eyes, instead of coming up with whatever flimsy argument you can to justify your acceptance or appreciation of things like this–then it’s not worth us even talking.

and jZa–again, the slope is there. This is a stage on the slope toward stuff like “hate crimes” being okay. I would assume that’s why Nobody awkwardly references killing someone who is wearing a thong–a clumsy attempt to reference the disgusting “she dressed sexy, she deserved it” argument occasionally offered by pigs as justification for violence against women.

What does Mary Jane deserve in the statue there, folks? Is she posing in such a way that she is encouraging you to accept and respect women?

do you have a daughter? Do you have a girlfriend, a wife, a mother, a sister? How would you feel about showing them that statue, and what would you expect THEIR reaction to be?

Wouldn’t it be juuuust a little bit uncomfortable? Why is that, you think?

Ya think it’s because the pose and the actions depicted are disrespectful to women, and the fact that repressed fanboys consistently accept this kind of depiction with either consenting silence or enthusiastic affirmation demeans women?

Ya think???

I seem to recall Mrs. Watson-Parker modeling bathing suits & lingerie in the ‘mics when I was a tween. How is this different?

Matt – you’re the one who compared this statue to women in fridges, I was pointing how ridiculous you are.

And yeah, I have a girlfriend. She’d be first in line to buy this.

There are more important things to worry about than a cheesecake statue, for crying out loud. What the hell happened to creative expression in the country?!

Oh, yeah…Sept 11 and Boob-gate 2004. America needs a lobotomy and a colon cleaning.

By The way,I am all for a spiderman statue with him doing something totally retro as well…as a companion to this piece. ideas?

First of all, the problem is not that she is sexual, or attractive, or busty. It is that she is doing laundry and that is being made sexual. That is what women are upset about. It is sexualizing women’s servitude to men. But it’s also playful and done in a fairly harmless way.

Was the statue a good idea? No, not at all. It is stupid to think that a statue like this won’t cause some controvesy.

Is it the end of the world? Nope. We all know comic fans aren’t the best at dealing with women. This doesn’t change anything.

Do we have better things to worry about? Most definitely.

TD: love that idea.

I see it as a tribute piece to people world-over that don’t wanna knuckle under and buy a washing machine. Go MJ, go!

jimmy p., I’m all for artists expressing themselves in whatever way they feel suits them. And I agree that the simplest solution to something you don’t like being put on the marketplace is not to buy it.

However, these things do not exist in a vacuum. At a time when comic shop owners are being sued and arrested in police sting operations because they’re supposedly peddling porn to 8-year-olds, something like this just adds fuel to the fire. Spider-Man is, and always has been, actively marketed to young children in various forms. Taking a character from his world and turning her into a blatantly sexually fetishized toy can and will be used by those with the requisite agenda to support their argument that comics are being used to sell/promote inappropriate material to their tykes.

Of course the counter argument will be made that the piece is too expensive for a little kid to buy. Even if that’s true (and it might not be in every case) it’s not really relevant. Because who buys the thing is much less of an issue that who sees it/is aware of it (and in the Internet age, that’s everyone) and what message it sends to those that do.

Jimmy,

which: Peter acknowledging Mary Jane’s hard work by doing something that many companies still don’t do or Reed Richards being a lazy, beer-swilling jerk while Sue vaccuums BB?

There’s more great ideas where that came from. Like Frank Castle washing his semi automatic rifle. While wearing a thong.

Incidentally, it was actually a reference to superhero comics that once led to an accusation from a female co-worker that I was more of a feminist than she was.

All I said was that I thought it was cool that Wonder Woman could kick Superman’s pansy @$$ if she really wanted in reference to the Sacrifice storyline from a while back. I then continued on my geek rant by talking about how the writers of Star Trek: TNG missed a great opportunity to do a scene with Tasha Yar and Worf sparring on the holodeck thus condemning such a scene to fan fiction on the Internet for all eternity.

Yep, I figured.

I’m the problem.

Listen, this statue is just the latest in a long, long line of examples where men choose to either silently or vocally affirm that it’s okay to demean women in popular culture.

Just the latest example, here. A particularly nauseating one, in fact.

Turning on the television, opening a magazine, watching a film–it’s all a matter of reconciling one’s self to how much of this crap one can swallow before it becomes too much, or influences the quality of the experience.

(Same with rampant violence, which someone else mentioned here–actually, Geoff Johns’ fetish for dismemberment is probably way more disturbing than this, but that’s not what the post is about, so it’s a separate conversation.)

You’re all right. I don’t have to buy it. I don’t have to look at it. We live in a free country! Hooray!

We can buy all the chauvinistic, dehumanizing, degrading, overpriced high-end collectibles we want! LUCKY us! God bless the USA!

Why bother considering how it affects others? Who cares, right? It’s THEIR problem. It’s THEIR issue. THEY need to take a chill, unwind, etc.

The problem couldn’t be YOU, could it? Naw. There’s no need for any of YOU to open your minds and acknowledge the existence of other viewpoints, is there?

(Funny thing, too–I’m as liberal and un-PC as you can imagine. but this isn’t a censorship, free speech issue AT ALL. I never debated Marvel or Sideshow’s right to create the statue, or anyone’s right to buy it.

I’m saying it’s fundamentally sexist and demeaning, and out of respect for those of genders other than 18-34 white male, we all might want to consider that.

Whatever. I said my piece. I got this off my chest. Justify it however you want.

When you say this is okay, or support it, or argue in favor of it–you are striking a blow against women. ALL women. Including women you KNOW and LOVE. Even if they LIKE it.

I love that statue. It’s a fantastic piece and really shows the supermodel in MJ.

And Matt should seek help for that temper before he hurts someone. Talk about someone crying out for help.

You know, I could be wrong, but in the 40+ years of Spider-Man comics, I’m sure I’ve seen at least one issue where MJ sewed and/or washed Peter’s costume because he was too injured to do so. Why did she do that? Because she loves him, and cares about him. Was she wearing something as sexy as this outfit? Probably not. But she was/is a super model. She doesn’t exactly go around wearing sweats all the time. The girl dresses provocatively most of the time. It’s who she is. And this statue represents that aspect of her character. God forbid Adam Hughes designs a high quality statue! If you don’t like it, don’t buy it, don’t look at it, and don’t worry about it. It’s sad that a statue has gotten this much press. You see this stuff every single day in every single medium out there. If this is your first exposure to this sort of thing, where have you been?

Jesus H, Matt, you’re a crazy dude.

Stuff like this has existed, and will exist, forver. I have a couple of little statues myself, including a manga girl in a skirt doing a kick. No one who’s ever seen it were terribly offending — my girlfriend even laughed at it.

Do you seriously think guys are sitting there going, “Hell yes, a hot chick doing laundry! Just like it should be!” in anything but a joking tone? And who gave you the right to speak for all women everywhere? This does nothing bad or good for women. For you to presume how this statue is going to effect an entire gender, one that you’re not even a part of, is ludicrous at least.

You should check out the book called Female Pornography (the title might be wrong, but its something like that), filled with pictures of hot, semi-naked men doing things like vacuuming, mowing the lawn, and one of a guy looking longing at the camera with the caption ‘What are you thinking?’ That should enrage you, right? I mean, how dare they try to suggest our normal demeanor isn’t good enough, that we have to act in a certain manner.

I’m still holding out for the Aunt May variant.

They should do a piece with Dust in her outfit washing X-Uniforms. See what these prudes say about that…

Ya know… as an “artist” i expected a LOT more from you Jimmy.

Surely you grok the symbolism represented in this… misogynistic train wreck. You KNOW what this means to women everywhere, because of what Mary Jane represents in comics.

the pose, the lack of shoes, the activity itself, and hey; where the hell is her *wedding ring*… this is MJ? really? and you’ve read spider-man comics before right? you know how she’s a strong and independent female character who’s being reduced to a Jerry Springer Paris-Hilton-Knockoff… this icon who is Peter Parker’s rock, his companion, his partner, his equal… portrayed in such a subservient and submissive posture. If it were “in character” that would be entirely different. but no… we get this incredibly strong and powerful woman, barefoot, bent over, doin’ her man’s laundry and wearing a pearl necklace. This isn’t just about a statue.

and you have the freaking NERVE to tell us to “get a life”? you who does this for a living, presumably because you have some marked interest in the medium and rich history of comics… you think we shouldn’t be upset when a character who has meant so much to so many is portrayed in a ridiculously offensive and appalling manner? “get a life”?

This affects people in their personal lives, man… sure the world is going to crap out there, but these are our ideals, these are our fantasies… this is what helps us deal with all that crap out there. And this statue is a slap in the face to all the reasons why i’ve loved those stories for so many years and what makes her such an iconic part of comic books…. This is NOT Mary Jane Watson-Parker.

how dare you imply we don’t have a REASON to be upset about this.

Actually they do market Mary Jane, to younger girls even, in Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane.

comment #42–re: the book “Female Pornography”–the reason such a book even EXISTS is because of statues like this and the image of women they represent.

The fact that you don’t GET that underlines why you–and really, many if not most male comics fans–will never see what’s fundamentally wrong with the majority of the depictions of women in comics.

templar, I DARE to say whatever i like and my opinion is mine. like it or not, its mine…as is yours and I respect that.

you make an argument and maybe in your world where making mj an object of your affection is an escape from the real world is a valid point, but not one I share. can you understand that? is that something maybe you can relate to more so you can understand how i feel the way i do?

Maybe a lot of people feel the way you do, and thats fine. its just not at all the way I feel. Not a bit.

again, my opinion.

You know what? Just to support the arts, I’m going to start buying statues. I’ll start with the sideshow collectibles series by Adam Hughes. He’s done two of the most amazing peices I’ve seen so far, so needless to say I think it would be wise to buy SUCH FAMOUS AND SOON TO BE INCREASED IN VALUE peices of art.

While it is a cop to say there are bigger problems, there is a problem with depicting women doing laundry in an oversexed image. However, think about CONTEXT!!! Mary Jane is a beautiful married woman who’s modeled after the latest generation and Peter Parker is her husband. I’d bet dollars to dimes she doesn’t send the suit out to the cleaner, neither does (did) aunt may, or Peter (who cleaned it himself for years!) If this was Sue Storm or Sue Richards, there would be no problem.

It’s true. Marvel does publish SPLMJ. But everybody keeps saying that this is a Spider-Man statue and it’s not. It’s a Mary Jane statue. And the Mary Jane portrayed in said statue is not the same as the one Marvel promotes in SPLMJ. Which is a comic I enjoy every month.

What’s wrong with being sexy?

oh, by the by… did you only read the last paragraph of my initial post? because you seemed to have really grabbed hold of my use of the word “fantasies”… and totally ignored the symbolism of the piece, and my point that this isn’t just about a statue.

or… did you just have nothing to say about that? ’cause really i was trying to lure you into the topic regarding the artistic merits of creating a sculpt that was so openly sexual of a character who, in being depicted this way, is fundamentally altered from the way she’s been written.

(which, just to say this one-more-time for you kids playing along at home: is the heart of the problem… not “oh noes boobies?!” or “laundry? in this day and age?! NEVER!”… it’s about making a strong female character a sex-object.)

you’re an artist… you get the meaning behind the cheesecake, i know you must.

i’m rubbing one out right now….oops…how many kids have the money to buy something like this? it seems like a non issue

It seems that the main issue that a lot of posters just don’t seem to view is the symbolism.

This has been said before, but it is good to repeat it:

Most girls don’t care if women are portrayed in a sexy way (well, okay, its better if there’s equal gendered sexiness going on rather then just blatant male oriented stuff). A girl has boobs, she’s in a provocative position… I think all of that could be over looked and forgiven…

If not for the SYMBOLISM.

I looked at that and two seconds later went 0__o So… two steps away from “Barefoot and in the kitchen”.

Can everyone agree that the notion behind the idea “Barefoot and in the kitchen” is a degrading idea tossed against women? Yes? (This, of course, means that the woman is subservient and has no value past her womb and the chores she can do, to vaguely summarize it)

So… if that age old, chauvinistic idea is bad the very slight twist of having a woman doing her man’s laundry, flashing her ass and breasts, and being depicted as completely subservient would be…

Not that different.

Shut Up all of you. It’s a joke, get over your self righteousness. Just don’t buy it. And seriously shut up about the boobs because no one that matters really cares what your insignificant views are.

Boobs!

Scruffy — re your comment that “we shouldn’t have to change every little thing just because some people get offended by it.” Did you hear about the young woman who just got stoned to death in Iraq by her own family? I’m offended. Shouldn’t I want to change that one little thing? It’s the attitude that’s pervasive, not the little pictures or stautes depicting (and perpetuating) it.

Cheryl Lynn said:

“Jimmy, I think a great companion statue to the MJ one would be of Peter in that tiny green robe he used to wear back in the day and Spider-Man booties while standing beside a basket of laundry HE’S about to fold. He’s winking and giving the “Spidey Hand” to MJ with his right hand as if he’s about to shoot a web at her. With his left hand he’s pulling open the top of his robe in a playful manner. Adding Peter would turn the whole scenario around. Then it would be about a sexy silly couple doing chores while flirting shamelessly with each other. I doubt that statue would ever be made though.”

This idea is actually sensible compared to this parody:

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/15/thongy_figurine_of_s.html

Rose:

Honestly, I think you and others are reading too much into things here, and seeing symbolism where none exists.

FACT: The statue was based on a sketch from a line of images, one that displays MJ finding Peter’s Spidey suit in the laundry basket at home, and in a moment of playfulness deciding to try it on. She is NOT doing his laundry. She is NOT being subservient. The situation you railing against does NOT EXIST.

The fact that so many people jumped to a conclusion that has nothing to do with what was actually being depicted speaks volumes about the sexist ideas in the minds of the observers, and how far we still have to go before we achieve a society where women can do anything and everything including do laundry naked if they feel like it without it becoming a political statement.

Oh, and I shudder to imagine the thought process that equates the concept of a woman looking sexy and beautiful doing domestic things with the thought of said woman’s rape and murder.

Oh, and by the way, people who know the Newsarama forums know my feminist credentials and how quick I am to rail against the WiR syndrome wherever it raises it’s ugly head. I’m just not seeing it here.

I must say that Matt has had the most cogent comments overall — barring his initial outburst. Jimmy P. — I know your work, but brother, your views and mine simply do not meet on this subject (and I’m a comics pro, too). Still, I’m glad that this discussion is even happening in our little comics universe because it’s a microcosm, in a way, for the rest of the world: women can be thought of as strong, powerful, nurturing, etc., but are still depicted as sex objects.

The argument has been made by the previous posters that the MJ statuette is supposed to represent/honor a 1950s pinup. Being of a certain age, I get that. But times change! Even “nostalgic” homages run their course.

So here’s my personal challenge to the guys who will sculpt (and draw) the super females of the future: Do it without pushing their butts out or their breasts forward.

(Just don’t spread their legs… that’s so porno.)

The main problem with Hodges’ knee-jerk defense of the statue is that it flies in the face of what is the MORE OBVIOUS INTENT of the statue. So she’s finding the clothes in a laundry basket? Still doesn’t explain why she would be digging in there UNLESS she was washing the damn costume herself.

The other issue with claiming this poorly-imagined statue to be ‘a 50s style pinup homage’ is that it also flies in the face of the fact that Mary Jane Watson WASN’T created in the 50s. And the underlying subtext of the pearl necklace is STILL IN PLAIN SIGHT, not to mention the jeans rips around her ass (is THAT ’50s style’, too? Didn’t think so either).

Perhaps those who continue to weakly defend stuff like this should also be reminded that commercial and moral mis-judgements like this ARE how the Comics Code came into being in the 50s. Do you guys really want to invite a new Wertham to your comics stag party? And perhaps some of you pros would be well chastised to REMEMBER YOUR HISTORY ACCURATELY instead of loosly RE-INTERPRETING the details for your own benefit.

KET

God, how can I say this so that it gets through?

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH WOMEN DOING LAUNDRY.

Let’s start there. Women do laundry. I understand this. Men also do laundry. Fine.

MARY JANE HAS BEEN A SEXPOT CHARACTER SINCE HER INTRODUCTION.

True. Does that make it RIGHT?

This is the LATEST EXAMPLE of the degrading, sexist, offensive attitude toward women displayed frequently by Marvel, DC, other comics publishers, and by comics and genre fandom in general. It’s been going on for a long time, and there are many examples of it.

There are also many countries where people starve to death every day on the streets–is that okay now too? Should we all just shrug and say, “Oh well, can’t solve that problem, onward and upward”?

Jesus, go to a convention sometime–I have. Watch the greying old men drool openly at anything that half-LOOKS like it might be a female. It’s disgusting.

This is just the latest example, and for me, just the tipping point.

If you think this statue is okay, I ask you to do me one simple favor.

Imagine any woman you care about in that same pose. Your mother, your sister, your girlfriend, your wife, your daughter, your friend.

Just give it a second.

Then tell me how it’s okay for this industry to put these images consistently out into the public space, EVEN in limited editions, and EVEN for a targeted, tiny, sad market.

Y’know what?

If my mother/girlfriend/sister/friend were in that pose and made into a statue, you know what my reaction would be?

“Wow, someone’s making my mom/girlfriend/sister/friend into a statue! That’s kinda cool.”

So it’s not bad to do laundry. It’s just impossible to be sexy and a strong woman/character at the same time, especially if men openly find you attractive. Got it.

Is the comic industry misogynistic? Sure, sometimes it is. It also consistently publishes stories about female protagonists and supporting characters that are just as strong and capable (or more so) than the male characters around them, and these stories often tend to be the RULE rather than the EXCEPTION. It’s just that the misogynistic moments get way more press, because it’s not “news” that Storm is as good a leader for the X-Men as Cyclops, or that Wonder Woman needed to rescue Superman from a mind-control plot. The issue isn’t nearly as one-sided as you’re making it out to be.

But I suppose you’ll continue to go on living in the world where it’s a cardinal sin for a man to find a woman physically attractive, or god forbid to find a piece of sculpture of an idealized fictional woman aesthetically appealing.

Did she treat it Spray and Wash first?

And yes, it was totally worth going back and reposting to add the word ‘with’

Its refreshing to see products like this put out.

Jeeze people get a life. If you concerned over an inanimate statuette of a juggy comic character sporting a visible thong you have problems.

Quite frankly I think the prude, fugly women of this country and the world for that matter need to take a long hard look in the mirror and embrace the reality that they will never look like that.

Yeah sure she’s idealized…so are all the women in Playboy and other mens magazines…funny how those women don’t have a problem being objectified.

Its what we men really want.

Aaaaand…this is where everyone convinces me I’m the problem, and I’m crazy and a censor and a “labeler” and the one deciding what is “right” or “wrong” (HA!).

So this is when I exit.

I tried. I got pissed, and heated, but this was my personal breaking point. I hope at least one person tried to understand what I was saying and open their minds to it.

Thanks for the illuminating view of fan gender politics in 2007. I’m too young, but I’m betting it’s not so different from fan gender views in 1997, 1987, 1977, 1967, etc. We have gone absolutely nowhere. I’m sure this makes most of you happy.

Except, of course, that we have this beautiful internet on which to communicate absolutely nothing to each other.

Jimmy Palmotti.

I’m afraid I cannot see the other side of the opinon here.

No, I’m wrong.

I CAN see the other side of the argument. I used to THINK the other argument was true. “Boys will be boys”, or something to that extent.

Then I realized it was wrong.

This is a form of discrimination. In this case, it’s not so much that the statue is discriminiatory as it is the social context of the statue.

Basically, it’s not the only statue of its kind. In fact, there are TONS of statues out that portray women in a submissive postion, as this statue does (I can’t see why you’d think MJ statue isn’t submissive. The pose is everything).

Then it becomes a problem. And I cannot consider the other side to be “right” in any sense of the word.

Besides, this seems to suggest that superhero fans are the sexually repressed nerds. I hardly think anyone here wants to fall in that group. Unfortunatly, some of the posters here obviously are.

“Yeah sure she’s idealized…so are all the women in Playboy and other mens magazines…funny how those women don’t have a problem being objectified.”

HAH, that’s incredible! Yes. Let’s all hold up the women who accept money to take their clothes off as the standard bearers.

Or better yet, go ask porn stars and strippers, or better yet, ex-porn stars and strippers about whether or not they have a problem with it.

Go check out that documentary on Deep Throat and find out -from her own mouth- if Linda Lovelace felt she was being exploited.

Please.

God, this is TOO funny!

Re: Matt and his constant “how would your mom/girlfriend/wife/daughter/sister/cousin/cat/mail carrier/boss/waitress/grocery bagger/landlady/stranger on a bus/crazy old neighbor/lightbulb manufacturer feel about this?” tirade.

I showed this to my mom and girlfriend.

My mom: Unoffended, actually really really apathetic. I asked how she’d feel if I had this in my house. She said she’d be angry that I spent so much money on something so stupid and useless.

My girlfriend: As I said earlier, she’d be the first in line to buy one of these. She liked it. A lot. She said it’s unoffensive and anyone who thinks it is, is retarded. Her words, though I agree.

Me: Unoffended, but in the end, can’t give a shit. It’s a stupid useless statue, and I don’t even like Spider-Man, let alone Mary Jane. But anyone that wants to waste their money on it, should be allowed to, free of judgement.

[quote]Don’t get discouraged. Your critics are secretly freaking out that the debate over the MJ statue has exposed their immaturity, misogyny, and poor social skills to the mass media and thus the general public. If the debate were confined strictly to comic forums, these sad fanboys wouldn’t be nearly as worked up over this. [/quote]

Your critics? First we have Matt trying to make a big deal over nothing, now we have this guy trying to make Matt into some sort of social commentary leader with a legion of detractors and everything!

Sorry Matt, you have no “critics”. You’re not Michael Moore, you’re not even Bill O’Reilly.

You’re a kid. A kid with self-indulgant “outrage”, trying to force that outrage onto other people..and then running away with a grand finale speach when others don’t flock to your vision with newfound insight as to how the world “really is”.

You’re like the guy in the middle of the room, pointing fingers at the rest and saying “I’m not crazy, YOU ARE!!!”

Too bad this isn’t Fark. I’d flag this as a nominee for thread of the year.

Anthony L

Just because you have a kid (so do I) doesn’t mean you AREN’T a kid. If you can’t remember 1987 or even 1997, then you’re a kid. Plain and simple. You showed your age by your profanity, your attitude, and your, well, self admittance that you are too young to remember how things were in 1987 or 1997 tells me (and everybody else) just how young, naive, and immature you really are.

You can keep on telling yourself you’re a man all you want, but until you start acting like one….

Anthony L

David: I know nobody was putting Matt up on a pedestal and glorifying him…I was being as over the top in my post as Fred was in his. The whole “Keep on fighting the fight, you’ve got them on the ropes!” etc., so forth.

It was just so ridiculous. Some of the posts in this thread are so drama queen-ish I can’t take them seriously. From Matt’s Mrs. Lovejoy impersonation to Fred’s cheerleading sentiments, it’s so sureal I’m having a hard time keeping it serious in my mind. I feel like I made a wrong turn on my way to civilized conversation and somehow ended up in the village of “WON’T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN????”

I’ve seen two people I know and respect casually disregarded (Jimmy and Amanda, the only reason I bother going to MegaCon every year other than Ethan Van Sciver), and one person I’ve had the pleasure of interveiwing and critiquing over the years being mis-represented (Gail Simone) all in one thread (I’d actually love to see Gail’s response to this, someobody go grab her!)

It’s crazy. And the guy who started it all stretches for smart sounding vocabulary to back up his argument in one sentence, and then uses childish vulgarity in the next. How can I take somebody seriously who tries to deny he’s a kid, and then talks about having a kid, in all seriousness, as “Shit like that will sober you up….”. I mean, bloody hell, he’s claming he’s a father, and refering to the experience as “Shit like that”

And i’m supposed to take him seriously?

It’s like I said before, he’s a kid. A punk kid starting drama, and then crying when nobody cares about his POV.

This isn’t an exchange of ideas, it’s one side trying to shove their notions of what is right and wrong down the other sides throats.

Listen, I’m a journalist. I”m all about fair and balanced. Matt doesn’t want fair and balanced. Matt doesn’t want a free exchange of ideas, which is why his comment about the internet accomplishing nothing made me laugh: People like him are the reason why nothing is accomplished in any given situation.

You cannot have a free exchange of ideas if you are so set in your ways that you’re waiting to debunk or refute the next phrase out of the other person’s mouth that you aren’t even listening to that person.

Matt’s mind is made up. No amount of free exchange will change that. And when he realizes he’s not going to force his opinion down anybody’s throat and convert the unwashed masses, what does he do? He pitches a fit and leaves (and then comes back).

Yeah, that’s not a kid at all….

It’s okay though, like I said in my first posts…we’ve all been kids before. We’ve all been where Matt is now, hell, I was like him a few short years ago.

It’s just part of the growing process.

Anthony L

Yeah, I probably should of shut up myself a few posts back. You’re right, there is a lot of passion in these “debates”, but in all reality, people can get passionate over the littlest things. From this, to if Thor could beat up Superman.

This statue, doesn’t bother me. Just like so many cheescake works of art haven’t bothered me.

I’m less concerned about the objectifying of women as I am about the impression on the industry. THAT’S where the problem is. Not sexism, not any of that women’s lib agenda. That’s just a prop to get up on a soapbox and push your political views.

Nah, that isn’t the issue. Stuff like this is more harmful to the industrie’s growth out of the stereotypes that have held it down for decades. THAT’s the reason to be upset…not the hate crime mentality that’s run rampant through the thread.

Matt, and people like him, DO have a right to be concerned…they’re just being concerned for the wrong reason.

Anthony L

Anthony L–

Why do you hate women?

Hey Garth, never said I was better than him. And just because I’m responding to him, doesn’t mean I care about his ideas. I don’t like his attitude, plain and simple. That’s not saying I’m above him in the least. You’re reading into sentiments that aren’t there. I’d be careful of assumptions, if I were you. Unlike him, I’m not using profanity. Unlike him, I’m not trying to shove my opinion down anybody’s throat. Unlike him, I dont do the whole drama thing (did you even bother to read his big exit post, on how “the internet communicates nothing” and how “he tried” and how he feels he’s not getting through too anybody, so there must be a communication problem via the internet, or that we all have closed minds because we don’t automatically jump to his point of view?

Tell me Garth, did you read any of that? Or (as is most likely the case given the posts you’ve already done in this thread) are you LIKEMINDED with him, and feel that you have to defend him by attacking me?

Yes Garth, please show me the instances where I WAS THE ONE using profanity, or I WAS THE ONE getting upset because people weren’t siding with me or I WAS THE ONE shoving an opinion down anybody’s throats, or casually dismissing Amanda Conner, or insulting Jimmy Palmiotti, or grasping at straws to use Gail’s Women In Refrigrators essay in order to further their own agenda, which has nothing to do with Gails.

Show me Garth. I’ll be waiting.

But I’ll be waiting a long time, because you won’t find it. Any of it. Well, at least from ME.

Does that make me better than Matt? Naw. It just makes me DIFFERENT. Unless of course, you consider being better as not getting bent out of shape because I don’t concur with Matt’s POV (or yours, Garth). Unless of course, you consider being better as NOT dropping profanity and using sarcasm against indivduals when they don’t agree with me. Unless of course you consider being better as seeing through the bull of one particular poster (and his one or two like-minded peers)

If you consider any of THAT as being better..well, who am I to argue?

Gloria- I love women. I love looking at women. I love making love to women. There are some women I can’t stand, but on the whole, I think more highly of women than I do of men. And i’d LOVE it if my woman washed clothes like that! Hell, i’d love it if my woman washed clothes at all (I do all the domestic stuff in our household, she does all the household repairs and such…call it a role-reversal on the traditional formula if you must catagorize it)

Sorry if you think I DON’T.

Whatever gave you that impression is not true.

Anthony L

Hey AnthonyL, never said you used profanity or sarcasm. And just because I’m responding to you, doesn’t mean I care about your ideas. I don’t like your pseudo-superior attitude, plain and simple.

Tell me AnthonyL, did you read any of that? Or do you feel that you have to defend yourself by insulting someone because of your perception of his age?

Yes Garth, please show me the instances where I WAS THE ONE who said anything about you using profanity, or I WAS THE ONE ignoring the body of your post and answering the questions that you didn’t ask.

Show me AnthonyL. I’ll be waiting.

There’s plenty of male camel-toe in comics nowadays (or in the case of Thor, camel-hoof).

Where’s the outrage over that?

“Taking a character from his world and turning her into a blatantly sexually fetishized toy can and will be used by those with the requisite agenda to support their argument that comics are being used to sell/promote inappropriate material to their tykes.”
–kalorama

So, to summarize, this statue is what will earn the wrath of the non-comic reading public and cause them to bring back the threat of government oversight and a new Comics Code? Remind me, did this little seen photo have that effect on the industry?

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/images/body-parts/lois-cape.jpg

Furthermore, let’s look at Matt’s request that we imagine real life females we know and love doing the same thing that MJ is doing in this scene the statue represents. I’m curious if the same argument applies to this statue:

http://www.bigbadtoystore.com/bbts/product.aspx?product=RAS10006&mode=retail&picture=aux2

I think this statue (based on the original Frazetta painting) is okay. Should I now imagine any man I care about in the same pose as that snow giant that Conan has just slashed, drawing blood? What if it was my father, friend, grandfather, or brother that the barbarian was cutting into? Would I want to buy it then?

A serious dissection of sex and/or violence in fiction (particularly the comic medium) would be illuminating, but that’s not what Matt seems to be looking for. He does seem content to level both barrels at everyone remotely involved with production or appreciation of this product and then refuse to converse further with those willing to engage him on the topic.

To claim this statue is in the same category as the “Women in Fridges” argument and then not expect debate is absurd. To further equate its appearance with blackface is outright incendiary. Why wouldn’t there be some posters on edge in response to that, especially when the same post called them chauvinistic and sexist (in all caps, no less)?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but hasn’t Simone’s talked up the ability of some of her corresponding artists to draw sexy gals before? I seem to remember her praising the talents of Ed Benes during their BoP days and that isn’t too far removed from this statue, IMGO.

Also, I noticed this comment:

“HAH, that’s incredible! Yes. Let’s all hold up the women who accept money to take their clothes off as the standard bearers.

Or better yet, go ask porn stars and strippers, or better yet, ex-porn stars and strippers about whether or not they have a problem with it.”

Is a physically attractive woman (or man) who accepts money to take clothes off any worse than a physically powerful and/or agile woman (or man) who accepts money to play a sport? Both are being asked to exploit aspects of their body for financial gain.

Finally, I think it’s notable that Matt’s first post exclaims that he doesn’t care if there are women who don’t have a problem with the statue. Why would you state no interest in the viewpoint of members of the group supposedly being exploited? How is that any less chauvinistic than the customer who buys this statue?

Also, to those who label the men buying a statue like this as being stereotypical geeks who need to escape their basements, do you know the circulation numbers on something like Maxim? I’m willing to bet its readership far exceeds that of the highest selling Marvel monthly and would seem to indicate an overall high level of acceptance of such imagery by men in general. It’s not just “dorks” that can appreciate an attractive woman, be it in a photo, drawing, or statue.

As a tie-in, this is the same as Jeri Ryan’s character from “Boston Common” showing up in FHM wearing a revealing business outfit. That ties it into the lawyer theme of the show like the spidey outfit ties the statue into the comic MJ is from.

BINGO!

AnthonyL-
You and Bill O’Reilly have so much in common. You must really love him, imitation being the sincerest form of flattery and all.
Thank you for answering my question as to why you hate women. You cleared it up quite well and it makes total sense.
Now, I’m wondering why you hate homosexuals?

I first read about this statue on in the Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/artsentertainment/article/214778) and I’m a little surprised at the outrage targeted at Marvel. Has anyone criticizing Marvel ever bothered to read a comic book? Being the vehicle for male teenage escapist fantasy, this statue should hardly be a surprise and is typical of mainstream comics. It left me to wonder what sparked this outrage. Is it the issue Mary Jane’s exaggerated features? Well, if that’s the case, then you could throw that blanket criticism over any mainstream comic published in the last 75 years. Is it the display of sexual submission? Again, this is typical of mainstream comics. So, that leaves the fact that she is doing laundry that distinguishes this statue from the other portrayals of women in the comic industry. How dare Marvel make a statue of a woman doing laundry?

I guess it could be a result of the fact that Spiderman has left comic book stores and crossed over into mainstream culture (I guess I’m being liberal with the term culture) and this statue is deemed offensive to the this mass audience, where this criticism would remain invisible while relegated to the marginal audience of comic book consumers. I’m not suggesting that this statue should not be consider offensive, however, Marvel shouldn’t be held accountable for playing into a chauvinist narrative that already exists.

The cartoon of Spiderman drawn in MJ’s pose and clothes is missing the point. Spiderman is also drawn as an idealized homo erotic character (well most super heroes are) and statues of Spiderman vastly outsell those of Mary Jane (but don’t tell that to fanboys buying these statues, their lives are already hard enough). Criticism of the MJ statue merely serves as a release valve for pent up frustrations that are ubiquitous in a chauvinist culture. It allows for the expression of pseudo radicalism that modern feminism critique has become, where individuals are offended by particular products rather than the system that creates the environment for the products. I guess it easier to vent about this product and blame Marvel for falling short of putting out responsible art (and if you bother to look around there isn’t a whole lot of tasteful art in this mass culture) than to put forth a critique of consumerism as a whole.

It’s shamefully ironic that this superficial exercise of reviewing a seemly random offensive product through a feminist lense reflects the same distasteful short sightedness of the design the artist put into the original mold of this statue. More attention and thought should be putting into identifying the alienating and forces in society and not point blame at the comic community.

“Is anyone so misguid to believe, let alone be the author of this absurd analogy? Can you seriously not tell the difference between professional sports and stripping? If you can’t I’ll give you a start point, one involves years of training and developing virtues via hard (a virtue) and the other is a degrading act one subjects themselves to the fantasy of another, for money.”

No. That comment must have spontaneously manifested itself out of the mass digital unconscious. What? You were being facetious? Oh…

Riddle me this, “Golf,” what say you to the opinions of many historians that the ancient Greek Olympics featured naked (or near naked) competitors? Wouldn’t that indicate a correlation between the two, as celebrations of the nude form and as exhibitions of physical strength and/or agility?

Further, remind me, is there not a crowd of paying attendants at an NBA game there to watch a bunch of gals or guys, in essence, perform? Aren’t many sports fans living out a fantasy when they watch their favorite players doing things they could never do in real life? It’s a different kind of fantasy than the so-called stripper fantasy, I’ll grant you, but it’s still a kind of wish fulfillment.

In addition, just as people can privately enjoy and play sports outside of a professional venue / league, so too do many people engage in the act of stripping in the privacy of their own homes or as part of non-profit artistic exhibitions. In 2004, a Norwegian court ruled that striptease is an art form and, if I’m not mistaken, there has been a noticeable rise in the installation of “stripper” poles in homes and in their use with aerobic exercise classes. For a further example of the blurring between the two professions, see this:

http://www.verticaldance.com/

Hopefully this gives you some insight into why I made the comparison in my first post.

Oh James, you’re really reaching here, there is an incredibly different social context between today and ancient Greek society. Exploitation in a slave society and capitalist society is an important distinction to keep in mind. Lets also consider the issue at hand of women’s status in society, this being the case, I wouldn’t want to hang my argument on the ancient Greek society if I were you.

Anyways, its quite a narrow analysis to reduce athletes to strippers,
“Wouldn’t that indicate a correlation between the two, as celebrations of the nude form and as exhibitions of physical strength and/or agility?”
if you’ve ever actually seen porn, or been to a strip joint are you really overcome with a sense of inspiration or admiration for the performance? Do you say yourself ‘wow, she really must have worked hard to develop those skills display in her act.’ Can you seriously not see the difference between the audience in a stripper joint and a basketball game? It ridiculous to think that they’re interchangeable.

Now lets consider the each performance. In sports, we witness genuine passion, and in the other we see simulated passion. Believe me, there is a huge difference. One is edifying and the other not. There is a reason kids are encouraged to participate in sports and are kept out of the porn industry.

Further, yes I agree that sports and stripping/porn are forms of entertainment and the audience experiences a type of escapism, but there are better and worse forms of entertainment, just as there are different kinds of pleasure. You’re just not willing to honest if you’re going to claim there aren’t significant distinctions between the content of fantasy.

People may privately engage in sporting activities and stripping, but again there huge difference. Stripping tends to be done a little with a little more digression, in a more intimate setting, with few partner than a game of road hockey. I’m sure you and the guys don’t get together to strip. It has little to do with your original comparison anyway, as your point was about capitalist exploitation and not non private lifestyle.

Yeah, I know there is a rise in stipperobics etc… They serve as examples of the profit friendly chauvinist values that a complacent society is lazy to critique. Many rather just swallow these hegemonic values, some are lazy enough to call it art and complain about censorship rather than consider whether or not its tasteful.

“You and Bill O’Reilly have so much in common. You must really love him, imitation being the sincerest form of flattery and all. Thank you for answering my question as to why you hate women.”

Yes, I must “really love him”

Please. Bill O’Reilly is a tool of the right wing. I”m a card carrying Liberal Democrat, toots, don’t pretend you know me. I didn’t “answer” your question. I thought your question was a joke, so I answered it with a joke.

Now I see that YOU’RE the joke, so now I “get it”.

Another troll! You, Matt, and whathisname should have a mighty marvel team up.

“You cleared it up quite well and it makes total sense.”

Uhhhhmmmm. I don’t know what you read into my post, but don’t take the brown acid. It’s bad.

“Now, I’m wondering why you hate homosexuals?”

That one’s easy: I don’t want to catch the gay. I heard on the news once if one sneezes near you, you catch the gay.

I’m all man, dammit.

Anthony L

Yeah, I lo

Great info. Awaiting your next one. Gretings from S Dakota.

Fantastic post, very informative. I wonder why the opposite experts of this sector do not understand this. You should proceed your writing. I am confident, you have a great readers’ base already!|What’s Happening i’m new to this, I stumbled upon this I’ve found It positively useful and it has helped me out loads. I’m hoping to give a contribution & help different users like its aided me. Great job.

This is such a huge store that you are providing and you give it missing intended for free.I adore considering websites that know the value of providing a quality supply designed for gratis. It’s the elderly what goes around comes around schedule. Did you acquired heaps of links and I perceive heaps of trackbacks??