The Toronto Star and Entertainment Weekly’s PopWatch blog check in on the fracas over Sideshow Collectibles’ new Mary Jane statue.
The Star’s article, by pop-culture writer Malene Arpe, is more thorough, and less anachronistic weird, than yesterday’s piece in the New York Post. Arpe, who calls the collectible “
Meanwhile, PopWatch’s Gary Susman laments the statue didn’t make the rounds a few weeks earlier, when it could’ve been included among the “Ten Worst Spider-Man Tie-Ins,” alongside the dog costume and boxer shorts.
And, finally, an update of sorts that that New York Post article: The “irate Canadian lass” has been identified as Rachelle Goguen of Living Between Wednesdays, who gleefully embraces the ’50s-esque moniker. “Honestly, have any three more beautiful words ever been strung together?” she writes.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:25 am
This is an issue? People need more fulfillment in their lives.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:28 am
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.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Please. take a look around…is this a real problem? we know comic and comic related things are easy targets because the outside world still views our books and readers as 11 year olds, but its simply not true anymore.
The world is a mess . this statue is harmless style pin-up fun. anyone who finds this offensive needs to really pick up a newspaper or watch the news or open their front door and take a good long look around them . put your energy into important things people, and stop picking on something as trivial as this non-news item.
It’s embarrassing and people that have an issue with this really need to GET A LIFE QUICKLY.
Amanda Conner and I spoke all about this and she agrees with me that its nothing but harmless 50’s style pin-up fun.
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.
JIMMY
May 17th, 2007 at 10:53 am
“…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.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Hey fanboys: GROW THE FUCK UP.
This statue is a HUGE problem. It dehumanizes and objectifies women.
Saying “there are more important problems” is an immature, incomplete argument. Of COURSE there are more important problems.
But this isn’t “blog.starvingchildrenindarfur.com” or “blog.dyingsoldiersiniraq.com.” It’s a COMICS WEBSITE.
When blacks were forced to the back of the bus and had to use different bathrooms and attend different schools, there was still starving, and death, and dying.
When women couldn’t even VOTE, there was still starving, and death, and dying.
It doesn’t diminish the wrongness of those issues.
Furthermore, I DON’T CARE that there are women who think this is okey-dokey. That doesn’t make it okay. That doesn’t make this right.
This is SEXIST. It’s CHAUVINISTIC. And anyone who thinks it’s just “harmless fun” is themselves both SEXIST and CHAUVINISTIC.
When are you fucking people going to wake up and realize that this artform and industry has a huge problem with the objectification, over-sexualization, and monthly degrading of women? It infects every corner of the mainstream comics market and beyond.
This shit is NOT OKAY. I’m sick of everyone pretending it is and apologizing for it and rationalizing it.
Michael Turner’s ginormous breasts on Power Girl cover? NOT OKAY.
Women in refrigerators? NOT OKAY.
It’s just NOT OKAY. It’s DISRESPECTFUL. It doesn’t matter if YOU are not offended by it–if others ARE, and others absolutely SHOULD BE, then we should show RESPECT for these people and eliminate these DISRESPECTFUL images.
Goddamnit, why is this so hard to understand? To me, this is as bad as blackface.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:15 am
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.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Producing sexually provocative statues for a niche consumer market is not a problem, per se. But it becomes a concern when doing so sends a mixed message in stark contrast to the one the head of the company that owns the character claims to want to send.
Quesada and Marvel have made lots of noise over the past few years about separating their “kid friendly” stories form the more so-called “mature” stuff: putting labels on the Two Gun kid mini, refusing to let certain MU characters (including Spider-Man) appear in Max books like Alias. The reason offered for doing so is that they don’t want to send a confusing message (and invite ire and possible lawsuits from parents and watchdog groups) by having one of their kid-friendly icons shown in potentially non-kid friendly environs.
Clearly, this statue (and no, it wasn’t actually produced by Marvel, but Marvel certainly had to sign off on it) flies in the face of that.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:41 am
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.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:47 am
You nailed it on the head, Matt.
This is what I would like to write, if I only I could focus my points better.
Without the f - word, it would be PERFECT.
As for the others, let me give you an example of THE SAME THING, just in a different CONTEXT:
Just because somewhere else a black person is beaten up or even to death by a racist or is in any form actively oppressed, doesn´t make it any less unjust, painfull and wrong for me being called a `stupid n*gger´ by some random guy in the supermarket.
And you, dismissing the points these bloggers make, by saing `hey, get a life, it´s just a statue´ is AS HELPFULL AND RIGHT as the ignorants that tell me and other people in the same situation `hey, what do you care, it´s JUST WORDS, he didn´t really DO something to you´.
So as an advice, try to LISTEN to what these poeple are telling you, because some of them make pretty good points. And try to change perspective. Get out of the privilege to be the one who ´has the right´ to look at something ( in this case women )in this way, and try to understand what it means for someone to BE looked at like this.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:48 am
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.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Matt, it might lend more credence to your rant about respecting folk’s sensibilities if you didn’t use such offensive language yourself.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Okay, Gladiator X, let’s not get personal.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Yes, a cute Mary Jane bending over to show off her breasts and thong (presumably for her husband) is EXACTLY the same as killing a woman and shoving her in a fridge.
So the next time you’re at a mall and see a woman with her thong peeking over her jeans, kill that bitch, because she obviously deserves it.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
HAHA
Anytime you feel you have to resort to comparing something extreme like a hate crime, your argument is already lost.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Let´s see :
Displaying a fictional character in a way that is simply degrading it to an object of SEXUAL FANTASY, instead of giving it a form that is corresponding with ANY trait said character has in the comic, just based on the fact that said character is FEMALE. And even supporting this by contrasting it with a Spiderman statue that is allowed to be COOL.
Yes. Yes, I would say that IS the same thing as killing a fictional character as a motivation for a male hero, so that he could look COOL when he is OUT THERE SEEKING REVANGE, and said character almost always being FEMALE.
( I´ll spell it out for you : Women In Refrigirators is a term coined by Gail Simone, referring to the killing of a female character on the sole purpose of motivating a male hero.
So, when someone compares this statue to women stuffed in refrigirators, it stays in the FICTONAL, an DOES NOT mean a real world `hate crime´. )
May 17th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
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???
May 17th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Jimmy Palmotti, I assumed you were better than that.
You see, most people companing here aren’t comic book fans. They just saw Spider-Man through the movies. And then there being hit with a statue which tells them, essentially “You have to be a MAN to like Spider-Man”.
It’s really sickening. And some of the people here sicken me as well. THis board is infested with shadow demons.
May 17th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
I seem to recall Mrs. Watson-Parker modeling bathing suits & lingerie in the ‘mics when I was a tween. How is this different?
May 17th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
I wonder how many of these non-comics fans would be so offended by this if folks weren’t shoving it in there face and going “isn’t this disgusting?”
Do all these folks so disturbed by this attack the independant publishers of porn comics or the manga publishers that print the cheeky stuff with as much fervor.
Are they trotting all that stuff out?
I doubt it,This is just folks looking for hits on thier websites by riding the popularity of SM3 right now.
This statue (which isn’t all that great in the first place,to tell the truth) wouldn’t have even been a blip on most folks radar if not for all the concerned citizens that feel this atrocity must be stopped.
Guess what?
All you’ve done is give this free advertising which will lead to increased sales which will lead to even more stuff like this being produced.
Bravo!
God.I can’t stand the we-must-censor-everything-except-what-we-think-is-appropriate-PC-crowd.
May 17th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
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.
May 17th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Large busty Mary Jane Parker! I can’t take it, please end me now!-Satire aside, I can’t believe people are still this prude in this day and age. Too bad they have to inject their backwards and old fashioned ultra conservative views out in public with silly comments. Its just a statue based on a comic, get over it. Its not particularly made for those who do not want it.
May 17th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
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.
May 17th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
universal person.
I am entitled to my opinion. You yours. sorry I dont live up to some standard you set for me. honestly.
my opinion is that its a limited statue at an adult price done in a pin -up style of the 50’s.
you say most people complaining here are not comic fans? WELL, this is a comicbook web site with comic fans speaking to each other. some with manners, some not really knowing how to express themselves withoutcursing. guess you are not worried about the children reading this page as well?
Others dismissing amandas opinion, that’s very convenient. a woman weighs in on the subject and because you do not agree, you attack it? wow! thats adult.
I will defend any artists right to express themselves…and in the end, I can choose to buy it or not buy it or ignore it. I love having that choice.
can I really read anyones opinions that are based on hate, spewed with anger and TRY to have an open conversation with them?
no I cannot.
I only talk and converse with people who are willing to look at both sides and make an objectinable Intelligent opinion.
if you dont like the statue, focus on why you dont like it and really…stop comparing it to race and murder.
There is always the chance you can convince me of your point…but the language and tone define you and belittle your opinion every time.
JIMMY
May 17th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
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?
May 17th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
The thing is, you can’t tell the difference between ultra liberal PCers and ultra conservatives who want to censor anything they don’t agree with.
As for the statue itself, it was just bad judgment from Marvel and Sideshow. They assumed people would get the ’50s pinup style reference and put it in that context. They assumed wrong and I’m guessing the “Sue Storm vaccuuming the Baxter Building in a bikini while Reed watches the game in his underwear with a beer” statue to tie in to FF2 has been put on hold indefinitely.
This is only an issue because there’s a Spider-Man movie out. Now the comics industry, with its increasingly closer ties to Hollywood, can also sample some of that spotlight of self-appointed morality police that we’ve been sorely missing since 1954.
May 17th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
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.
May 17th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Actually, my idea for an FF statue sounds more like a beer commercial than a statue. It’s also come to my attention that many beer commercials do, in fact, objectify women to sell beer.
As for a companion piece, how about having Peter have his wallet out to pay Mary Jane 100% on the dollar of what a man would get paid doing the same work? That’s sadly still a very real issue that has a very real impact everyday for millions of people. Certainly far more than any questionable statue or comic cover but I’m getting off topic. We’re talking about a statue.
May 17th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
TD: love that idea.
May 17th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Hey Matt,
If the statue offends you, don’t buy it.
If the pic offends you, look at something else.
God makes women with big breasts everyday.
Many of these women even wear panties, some of them with thongs and yeah, sometimes, just sometimes, those women might have to bend down.
So yeah, you may see some cleavage and you may see the crack of her butt.
You have a choice, you don’t have to buy this statue and if you’re REALLY pissed, again, don’t look.
Don’t buy Spidey comics if Mary Jane really bothers you.
If you ask me though, I think you’re just jealous.
May 17th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
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!
May 17th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
so… let me get this straight: its demeaning for a beautiful woman to do chores such as laundry? or is it just because she’s doing a man’s laundry? come on, people, its a fictional character in a sexy, pin-up style pose. get over it.
“but,” you say, “nessa… you’re a girl. how can you stand by and say that this horrible sexist statue is not offensive?”
it doesnt bother me because i know the difference between reality and fiction. MJ there is fiction. she can do all her man’s laundry, cook his meals, and stand silently waiting for him to need something before she shines his shoes and dusts the knick-knacks. it has no effect at all on reality.
if you’re so offended at the idea of MJ doing Pete’s laundry, dont buy the statue. that’s all there is to it. supply and demand, people - if you dont like something, dont buy it and they’ll eventually stop making it. if something offends you, dont support it. but for crying out loud, quit telling everyone else what’s offensive to you. news flash: Nobody Cares That You’re Offended. get over it.
i think i’ll ask for this statue for my birthday. i think its hot.
May 17th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
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.
May 17th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Oh and Matt,
BTW, people don’t get their ideas from comics.
You say comics put women in a refrigerator and I take it you were referring to Green Lantern’s girlfriend.
Well, at least she was in one piece.
Jeffrey Dahmer was putting men in refrigerators LONG before that issue of Green Lantern.
Kid, take a pill.
Afterwards, you’ll feel much better and probably like the statue too.
May 17th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
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.
May 17th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
some good points kalorama. Its too bad parents cant look after their kids better…internet best example.
As far as comic shop owners getting arrested, than god for the cbldf.
as an adult, I think placement is everything for store owners. god forbid they stop carrying adult books and adult themed books because of random cases like the one stated. I say keep the adult books in a seperate section or top shelf, with the statues and such. it worls in all the stores in l.a. and some in n.y.
freedom of speech is really always a big issue when the majority has a louder voice, but a louder voice isnt always an intelligent one. good points made though.
Jimmy
May 17th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
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.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
“as bad as blackface”
I had a good LOL right there
May 17th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
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.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Ok how ’bout a statue of Peter masturbating in the corner and crying, as a companion piece to that?
May 17th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
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?
May 17th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Matt #36,
So the age 35 white males are off the hook? Phew.
Thanks for clearing that up.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
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.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
jimmy p,
As an adult myself, I’m all for stores carrying adult comics and keeping them inaccessible to younger customers as well. But I don’t think that’s really the issue here. This isn’t about placement or access. It’s about subject matter.
Marvel (and their partners in this venture) have taken a character they own, a character they actively and aggressively market to a worldwide children’s audience and produced an adult-oriented, sexually suggestive, 3-D figure. As a lifelong liberal and supported of free speech and expression, even I have to look a little askance at that. Not with the idea of the statue itself, or even the imagery it promotes (which, while clearly a hormonal chauvinistic male fantasy, is no worse than what can be found on the cover of almost any mass market entertainment mag) but by the casual blurring of the line between their family-friendly and adult-oriented product, and the fact that, by doing so, they’re greasing the wheels for those who want to ride in and tar all of comics culture with the same broad Wertham-like brush.
A louder voice may not be the more intelligent one, but it’s often the hardest one to ignore. And if we want to be able to respond to it, we need a better answer than “just ignore it if you don’t like it” or “we’re adults so we can do what we want” because that argument pretty much always fails to convince.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
I’m still holding out for the Aunt May variant.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
This is ass out stupid. If MJ were fat, her stomach were poking out and her pants were hanging off her butt would people even be complaining? Fat folks have big boobs, what are you going to say then? No, MJ isn’t fat, but she’s washing her husband’s Spider-Man suit. BIG DEAL. She isn’t wearing work clothes. She isn’t speaking to the President. To quote Tyra Banks, “SO WHAT?”
And Michael Turner’s Power Girl? There ARE people who have big breasts and thin waists. Get over it.
Some people need lives.
And girlfriends.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
They should do a piece with Dust in her outfit washing X-Uniforms. See what these prudes say about that…
May 17th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Why don’t you fanboys get all this worked up over heroes murdering each other (or people)? Punisher kills an entire bar of people but that’s ok. MJ doing wash in a t-shirt leaning over is abominable!
Once again in this country violence is good. Sex is bad.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
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.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Marvel doesn’t actively market Mary Jane. They market Spider-Man. She’s barely in the Marvel Adventures Spider-Man line, if at all, which is marketed towards kids. If you’ve picked up a recent Amazing Spider-Man issue, he’s talking about killing people now because of what happened to Aunt May. Not every Spider-Man product is intended for children. Adults make up the majority of Spider-Man sales nowadays. And adults have the decision of whether or not to buy this statue. Not kids.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Actually they do market Mary Jane, to younger girls even, in Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
I’ll dare.
You DON’T have a reason to be upset by this. If you do, you have entirely too much free time.
She’s dressed down washing her man’s clothes in the pravacy of her house…God forbids a dressed down woman who washes clothes. We all do it.
SO WHAT?!!
May 17th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
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.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
MegaGearX,
have you been paying attention? or are you just skimming everything? lol
’cause yeah… clearly i was talking about the fact that “washing clothes” is degrading to women. hahaha
good lord dude… *eyeroll*
May 17th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
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.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
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.
And could people please please please stop comparing the fight against Jim Crow laws to complaints about the offensiveness of this statue? If you must bring up race, how about bringing up the racist images in modern-day manga that some black comic book fans are speaking out against to use as a comparison? That makes much more sense.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
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.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
i think a companion piece should be made and cheryl lynn should help adam design it.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
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.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
SHE is doing HIS laundry. SHE is HIS maid and she’s happy about it. Polishing the warrior’s armour with a smile.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
What’s wrong with being sexy?
May 17th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Quote: “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.”
is it fine? are you SURE you don’t mean “move on” and “get a life”?
because that’s not really what you said in your first post there, Jimbo. You said “get a life”… that’s hardly “fine” or “respectful of other’s opinions”. In fact, it was a fairly jerky thing to say.
Maybe you misread my post, when i said “how dare you?”, i wasn’t questioning your right to free speech… i was telling you i’m insulted that *you* questioned *mine*. You can’t tell me what to think or how to feel… and your initial post made me pretty damn angry that you should dismiss the way people feel about this thing, (going so far as to outright say that we “need to move on”.) and devalue perfectly justified complaints. Even if you don’t share them.
Now… maybe you’ve revised your opinion as this thread has gone on… and the initial “shock and awe” of your first post has lessened. But you still came out swinging aggressively and jumped up saying “come knock this chip off my shoulder” by blatantly telling people they didn’t have a right to be upset.
and i’m telling you i *do* have that right. There are very clear and obvious reasons to BE upset. I accept you don’t share them. I wish you did, but there’s lots of metaphors about wishing and not having… feel free to fill one in there.
maybe you phrased it poorly, maybe i should give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just kneejerked so hard that your keyboard started malfunctioning and you didn’t *mean* what you typed. but then, we could probably apply that same metaphor we used earlier here too. :\
I do, however, also agree with Cheryl Lynn’s companion piece idea. if it was openly funny, and not blatantly offensive, it would change a LOT.
May 17th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
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.
May 17th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
I can’t help but feel that the designers and the company that made this are laughing their asses off due to this free publicity.
May 17th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
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
May 17th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Maybe the real issue that people are upset about, is that she’s washing the Red & Blue costume, not the Black one, and as such, is out of continuity. ZOMG!
May 17th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
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.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
I would like to say that comparing liking big breasts to being okay with hate crimes and racism is ridiculous. It makes you sound like an idiot who’s going for shock value over substance. Also, if you want people to listen to you you shouldn’t go on long vicious rant cursing them out and demeaning them just because they like what you don’t. Is the statue sexist, yeah a little bit. Is the comic book industry as a whole sexist and objectifying, once again yes (definitely on the objectifying part). That’s what you get though when the industry is created and run by men, for the most part. Not to mention the majority of readers are male. Guys like the female form. If that offends some people, too bad. We shouldn’t have to change every little thing just because some people get offended by it. That would destroy any and all art forms.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
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!
May 17th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Adam Hughes’ friend Tom Hodges responds to the controversy: http://tdhartist.livejournal.com/149623.html
May 17th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
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.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Chris said:
“Marvel doesn’t actively market Mary Jane. They market Spider-Man. She’s barely in the Marvel Adventures Spider-Man line, if at all, which is marketed towards kids. If you’ve picked up a recent Amazing Spider-Man issue, he’s talking about killing people now because of what happened to Aunt May. Not every Spider-Man product is intended for children. Adults make up the majority of Spider-Man sales nowadays. And adults have the decision of whether or not to buy this statue. Not kids.”
However, the audience for the Spidey movies and cartoons are kids, who far outnumber adult fans of the comics. This fact further reinforces the general public’s view that the webslinger is a FAMILY-FRIENDLY superhero. So, like it or not, everyone and everything connected to Spidey is expected to be appropriate for all ages.
Hence, you can make MJ statues, but the sex appeal is going to be taken WAY down. Otherwise, the general public justifiably feels betrayed by an MJ statue that is more geared for horny geeks and perverts. It’s no different than how you wouldn’t expect a Disney flick to be full of graphic sex and violence.
By contrast, no one would complain about a sexy statue connected to Sin City. The hit movie made it clear that SC is an ADULT comic franchise.
So, I’m with the protesters on this one.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
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
May 17th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
I find it interesting that so many people bitch about the ridiculous poses/costumes in just about every Top Cow book, but Mary Jane gets a pass.
I also find it interesting that there is anyone who would want this statue. I mean, where does this go in the display case in relation to the statues of Superman, Spidey, Wolverine, etc. doing their thing?
Or is it more likely that it goes in the same drawer as the porn?
May 17th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
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.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
I read tom hodges post on his board and he pointed out she isnt washing the SPIDERMAN suit, but finding it in a laundry basket.
so, she , MJ, supermodel, is finding spidermans suit in a laundry basket not washing it.
is this an issue now that its pointed out she isnt washing the shirt? I am curious…
and templar…the more I read peoples opinions, the more I understood what they were pointing out. still dont agree, but understand it better. thats what we do here, right?
JIMMY
May 18th, 2007 at 1:06 am
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.)
May 18th, 2007 at 8:18 am
I’m loving the “context” argument–”Hey, in issue XXX of Amazing Spider-Man, she actually assumed that pose, so it’s okay!”
Or even better: “She’s FINDING the suit in a laundry basket, not WASHING it! And most women pose like porn stars when they idly flip through the laundry basket!”
Clearly, I don’t know enough about the average woman. Again, my bad.
Off to take my pill.
May 18th, 2007 at 8:26 am
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
May 18th, 2007 at 9:02 am
So lemme see if I get this right:
It’s horribly wrong for a woman to be portrayed as sexy, even if she’s a fictional character that’s been portrayed as sexy (with supermodel looks to boot) for oh, ever since she debuted pretty much. Yeah, she was an underwear model in the late ’80’s/early ’90’s to boot.
It’s wrong for a woman to touch her husband’s laundry, no matter how much she loves him, because gosh darn it that’s so subservient and just strikes a horribly cruel blow against women EVERYWHERE!
And it’s doubly wrong to actually portray such a thing in 3-D form.
Give me a freaking break. If you really think this statue is going to degrade anyone’s opinion about women in general, you’re completely delusional. You can rail and spit and curse and whine that people are trivializing the apparently devastating impact this piece of art with a very limited production run will have on women’s rights -everywhere-, but the fact of the matter is that it’s absolutely true that there are far more important things to worry about. I suggest you run off to China and protest against them drowning daughters in the river because they’re “not worth as much” as men, for starters. Once you’ve solved that problem run off to the Middle East and put an end to those “honor killings.” Because I really doubt anyone that’s engaged in that kind of activity is going to see this statue and somehow think they’re -more- justified in their actions. I doubt they’re going to see this statue at all, in fact.
Personally, I can look at this piece and see it from a completely different angle that makes the “50’s Pinup” aspect all the more appropriate — This is what Peter Parker/Spider-Man has “back on the homefront” to fight for. It’s not a matter of subservience even if she is doing laundry. It’s a matter of support. I know plenty of strong women who do in fact wash their husband’s clothes. I bet somewhere out there there’s even a strong, sexy woman that does the same thing.
People are really trying hard to make a mountain out of a molehill here.
May 18th, 2007 at 9:43 am
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.
May 18th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Wait….I do the laundry at my home. I wash my clothes, my wife’s clothes, and my little girls clothes.
Sometimes I do it in my boxers and a white t-shirt., you know, like on a Sunday Morning when I get up and start laundry.
According to some of the people here, if someone were to snap a picture of me doing that laundry in my boxers and my shirt, and someone found that attractive (can’t imagine who, even my wife would tell me to put some clothes on, but stay with me here..)…that would be objectifying me? that would be sexist? It would be offensive?
Damn. And here I thought it was just doing laundry.
I’m going to have to re-think my whole life now.
Thanks a lot, Newsarama.
Bastards.
Anthony L
May 18th, 2007 at 10:02 am
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.
May 18th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Jmacq1–Ask your mother/girlfriend/sister if they think that statue’s sexy.
I’m guessing they don’t.
That’s why it’s exploitative.
Furthermore, you rightly cite all these great stories in comics about strong women–why do they have to strut around in quasi-porn poses while being strong women? Why does Power Girl need basketball breasts, anyway? Why can’t Mary Jane be a strong woman in comics, instead of having to be a strong woman who also poses like a porn star while doing her husband’s laundry?
You don’t see the dichotomy there–undercutting these strong women by objectifying them?
(And this has nothing to do with finding women physically attractive. Absolutely nothing. There’s lots of ways for women to appear and behave in attractive ways that do not dehumanize and objectify them.)
May 18th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Did she treat it Spray and Wash first?
May 18th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Did she treat it with Spray and Wash first?
May 18th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
And yes, it was totally worth going back and reposting to add the word ‘with’
May 18th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Gosh Matt, would you like to paint yourself into a corner any further?
So anything a woman doesn’t find “sexy” that involves a woman is exploitative? No one’s allowed to market “sexy” to men because it’s eeeevil? Tell me, who exactly are those Victoria’s Secret ads marketing to? Are those evil and exploitative too? If not…why? What’s the difference? One’s a picture of a real person and the other’s a statue of an imaginary one….what’s the greater “crime?”
Who exactly is being exploited here? A fictional character…a person that doesn’t actually exist?
Who are you trying to protect?
A better question would be: “How many sane and well-adjusted women would actually be offended by it?”
Sure, some will, but some won’t, as well. Which ones are right, and who are you to tell them they’re wrong? Are they not entitled to their own opinion or are you just assuming they’d all agree with you? How very liberating and egalitarian.
It’s art. It’s not going to appeal to everyone, and it’s not going to completely repulse everyone either.
Last time I checked, most of the guys in comics were pretty “idealized” too. Are you going to start championing the overweight, un-physically attractive male set the next time a Captain America statue comes out?
May 18th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
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.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
It’s okay, maybe a little on the “skin” side but really, not a big deal. I think that the rage and anger that people get over something like this is amazing and I feel very sorry for you. Living your life with such rage over issues that will be hear due to free speech and human nature. Guess what, they are not going away, and you are tearing yourself up inside. Women have made great accomplishments and you honestly think this is hurting them today? Times are different. They have equal power and the testosterone crazy pigs out there will not change there opinions of women based on getting rid of skin-showing pics such as this. Turning this into a “dehumanizing” and “immoral” act is in the eye of the beholder and in my eyes you are definitely snowballing the event. If that is the case, lets bann pictures of God due to all the holy wars in his “name”.
Some of you need to go back and read you comments with an open mind. You knock others defense of the picture and yet turn around and try to object to the picture on the basis of unrelated incidents.
And finally, to you that state things such as:
“Hey fanboys: GROW THE FUCK UP”
and
“This is SEXIST. It’s CHAUVINISTIC. And anyone who thinks it’s just “harmless fun” is themselves both SEXIST and CHAUVINISTIC”
I don’t even know where to begin on how to help you…you got serious unstability problems and yourself “label” people. Who in the hell made you GOD to decide what IS RIGHT or WRONG on an issue such as this. I have always dreamed of what I would do if someone like you blocked me in some stupid picket line for a cause YOU felt was wrong and I felt was OK. Chances are I would step on you. How dare you label me because I am not bothered by it you hypocrite!!!
Murder, rape, and racism are pretty clear cut…they are wrong. Comparing this picture to them is placing you on a slippery slope.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
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.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Geez Matt, you just answered a lot of questions by revealing your age bracket. You’re too young to remember 1997 or 1987, that explains a ton.
(to all the adults in this thread..you’re dealing with a kid. We all remember what it was like to be a kid, right? When you think you know everything, when you’re outraged about everything in general, and can’t enjoy everything because your part of the nu-generation and it’s just not cool to be happy? C’mon…YOU remember, don’t you?)
And I’m 28. 28 years old, and the voice of reason in a comics thread.
Yikes. I need to go get pissed about something, like, right now.
…DAMN GEORGE BUSH AND HIS CRONIES
Whew! There. Dodged a bullet, I tell you what…..
Anthony L
May 18th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
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.
May 18th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
To Matt (90.)
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.
Lisa Fortuner really nailed this point here:
http://blog.newsarama.com/2007/05/18/just-past-the-horizon-reveille/#comments
In short, the sexist fanboy backlash is the result of desperation, not strength. So, keep bashing away at them since they’re on the ropes.
May 19th, 2007 at 12:42 am
“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!
May 19th, 2007 at 7:16 am
It’s great that Mr. Palmiotti wants me to “get a life” if I don’t like the statue, considering I’ve been supporting his life by buying his comics for some time now. Classy.
[snark]Oh, and Mr. Palmiotti, don’t you think talking about this is a little unimportant when there are bigger issues in the world. Read a paper, I think you should talk about those issues instead of this. [/snark]
May 19th, 2007 at 9:09 am
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.
May 19th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Guess that makes me retarded then.
I’m not angry about this statue, merely very disappointed. For a large majority of spiderman fans, the definitive image of MJ is now Kirsten Dunst. We are talking about the hundreds of thousands - possibly even millions - who have seen the movies but never read a comic in their lives.
We are talking millions of potential newcomers to the hobby people! Millions of people who might be otherwised convinced that comics are not actually just for kids and saddo geekboys who can’t get girlfriends.
Except what do they see in the comic store wndow? Adolescent soft porn crap like this. Plenty of people are going to get offended by this thing (including me, although anyone pointing out that there’s far worse out there are completely correct). Far more are going to just go ‘meh!’ and carry on walking past that comic store.
Well, never mind then. There was me thinking we had a chance to show comics in a better light to all these potential new customers.
May 19th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
[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
May 19th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Anthony–I’m not a “kid.”
I HAVE a kid. A one-year-old daughter. Shit like that will sober you up real quick about the insidious nature of sexism, exploitation, and misogyny in popular culture.
It’s a big problem. Nothing we can solve. And just to satisfy the many Kissinger-esque statesmen in this thread, yes, I realize there are people starving in Africa and women being brutalized in Afghanistan.
I just want to say what I think, and I’m pissed about it, so my language goes over the top.
Nowhere NEAR as over the top, however, as this statue, which I would nominate for Best Outrageous Parody of Sexist, Misogynistic, Dumb-Ass Fanboy Acoutrement of the Year, except that it’s not a parody, it’s apparently real.
I wish I’d had art skills. I’d get some photo reference of Joe Quesada’s mom, sketch her up in this exact same pose, and then bring it to him at San Diego this year.
“Look, Joe! It’s your mom! And she’s doing laundry while posing like a porn star! Better yet, 900 people are paying serious money to bring her into their homes looking just like this! AWESOME!”
May 19th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
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
May 19th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
hmmm, things seem to be getting a tad personal here..
Chill folks! We all have opinions, and all are equally valid.
Anthony, CLEARLY all that Fred meant by his/her ‘critics’ comment was ‘those people who are currently disagreeing with you’. no-one claimed to be Micheal Moore!
here’s another one of mine of my personal opinions: WWMJD?
What would MJ do?
Her husbands identity is now common knowlege. So, imagine a magazine offers to put her on the cover, but they require her to pose in this manner, hand washing her husbands costume making come hither eyes at the readership.(lets be honest folks, she’s not makng eyes at Petey, she’s making them at US)
would MJ (or at least her agent) tell the magazine where to get off? I suspect so.
Look, this statue by itself is small potatoes and no mistake. Its timing (Spiderman 3) has helped the passionate response it has recieved gain a level of scrutiny it would have otherwise not have seen. However, in terms of that response, I suspect - as much as anything else - the statue has become something of a talisman, representing the many ‘little issues’ irking a certain section of comic readership. These little issues happen EVERYDAY.
Damn straight, its just another statue showing a cheescakey image of a hot girl in an impossible pose, who is also being otherwise defined purely by the character she’s married to. No big deal. The trouble is, these dozens of ‘no big deals’ happening on a weekly basis add up. THAT is where this reaction has come from.
May 19th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
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
May 20th, 2007 at 6:22 am
Anthony
Ah, so it was more a reaction to tone rather than content?
well I… can’t disagree on that one. Sorry Matt, but whilst I feel your posts have contained one or two valid points, they have come over as somewhat hysterical, to put it mildly.
But in his defence they were no more hysterical or profane than many of the ‘pro’ arguments I have seen elsewhere.
Like I said, this seemingly ‘minor’ issue seems to have unlocked some serious passions in people that run far deeper than just one statue. As much as I admire Mr Palmiotti, I can see how objectors being told to ‘Get a life’ might provoke further reaction. I myself was goaded into contributing after being informed I was apparently ‘retarded’ for disapproving.
I too would love to hear Ms Simone’s take on the whole kerfuffle, but to be honest, with everything that has gone on surrounding this mess, a ‘dignified silence’ is probably the only sensible reaction from here on in…
…which I think is my cue to shut the hell up…