Cinematical

I could care less about the thong -- my distaste for the statue arises from the implication that the main female character in a comic book is just there to do laundry for her superhero man. Ew.

Reply

Who cares? I care. The bloggers writing about it care. This kind of sex-ified statuette is not a new phenomenon. It is not an isolated instance. The whole comic book industry objectifies, dehumanizes, ridicules, and demeans women. That is a problem.

"Trashy, yet smokin' hot"? Are you kidding me?

"She's not naked, she's not revealing too much" She doesn't have to be naked to be offensive, but she might as well be. She's bent over in a very sexualized position, displaying both her butt and her cleavage. She is, by all accounts, 'asking for it.' And the pearl necklace? Please.

"The majority of folks who buy these statues are geeked-out males" Does that excuse their behavior? The statues sold out, did they not? Who do you think holds the power in the comic book industry? Geeked-out males.

And there is nothing "hilarious" about Hughes' description. Isn't Mary Jane supposed to be an accomplished actress? And this piece of memorabilia shows her doing laundry? Why?

This is an outrage.

Reply

I think what people are reacting to is the pornification of popular culture (especially what's marketed to kids). But hey, as long you say she's 'not showing too much and looks good doin it' then I guess everything's fine.

Reply

A thoughtful feminist has created their own version of the statuette. Funny as hell.

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

http://devildoll.livejournal.com/750924.html

Reply

Hmm, women are furious that women are portrayed in overly sexualized, unrealistic images in comic books? Well, as a man, I guess I should be outraged! Why can't batman wear baggy shorts and college t-shirt while fighting crime? How awful is it that a genius scientist becomes an idiot with his pants around his ankles and no clothes on, as is the case of the Hulk? Spidey, please just wear a halloween mask, you don't have to parade around in skin tight fabric showing off those muscles to sling web. C'mon people, these are comic books, both sides are presented as sexual beings with perfect bodies. If its demeaning to do this to women than it is equally demeaning to men. Please find something of actual importance to complain about.

Reply

Mary Jane is not accomplished in the comics - she is, at best, a struggling actress. She is a formerly accomplished supermodel - sexualization, anyone?

Reply

It's funny to see people get offended by statues of fictional comic book characters.

Reply

Replace the stereotype with another. Say now Mary Jane is a black woman cooking fried chicken. Same thing boys. Just trading one bigotry for another. And don’t confuse outrage for surprise. No one has to be surprised to think something is shitty.

I have to say though, the idea that one should be appeased by knowing it happens every day in comic books has to be the laziest debate technique I’ve ever heard. It’s like claiming no one should be hurt in car accidents because they happen daily. Good thinking! And no one should be offended by an animated character. Look at Little Black Sambo! What’s the big deal?!? It’s just pretend!

I love it when men pretend to be experts in sexism. It’s like watching the retarded kid jump on the trampoline yelling “I’m an astronaut!!!!”

Reply

It's not like it's a Witchblade statue, or Supergirl as drawn by Michael Turner with that oddly elongated belly. It's not even like her outfit or attitude is out of character. It's a cute, retro-pinup styled cheesecake shot, perfectly in keeping with how Mary Jane "Face it tiger" Watson has always been portrayed. Calling something like this "an outrage" just ensures that when something arises that truly deserves our outrage it will be laughed off.

Reply

Sarah, bringing up little black sambo is a straw man argument. Is the portrayal of Mary Jane stereotypical? Possibly. But the fact is, it's completely consistent with how she's always been portrayed, so where was the outrage for the 41 years previous to this statue?

Reply

Some of you femanazis are funny, this isn't MJ from the MOVIE were she sleeping around with one guy but in love with another.
THIS is MJ from the comics who is a super model/actress. She's going to wear things that some concider hot looking.
So her man snuck some of his cloths into her laundry basket, what guy hasn't done that. Ahhh that's right most of you likely don't shave your armpits, wear those ole granny panties and cover every inch of your body. So as not to have a male look at you.

Reply

"Ahhh that's right most of you likely don't shave your armpits, wear those ole granny panties and cover every inch of your body. So as not to have a male look at you."

And there you have it.

How's this for sexist: Men are idiots.

Reply

Yes, case surely wins the head injury of the month award.

As for King Zilch's comments, read my post again. Claiming no one should be offended for something that's traditionally been done for decades is lazy, innacurate and idiotic. Your only defense for this sexism is that it's consistent?!? Are you serious? THAT'S your argument? And with that is the implication that Little Black Sambo was inconsistent with the racism of the time and therefore worthy of outrage?

I guess we all can't get our diplomas from JC Penney.

Reply

When it comes to rereading one's comments, you might want to take your own advice; I never said "no one should be offended by something that's traditionally been done for decades." I said that there was nothing unusual or out of character in the statue; she wasn't exaggerated to Jessica Rabbit proportions, she wasn't wearing a french maid costume, she wasn't submissively doing chores for her man, she was smirking playfully at her husband's cheekiness, while dressed no differently than the girls at your local mall. Does that deserve outrage? Possibly. But where was that outrage before the teapot spewed out this particular tempest?

Were you this up in arms when Todd MacFarlane was churning out endless pinups of Mary Jane in ridiculously revealing outfits, with ever-more-improbable hairdos? Did you speak out about all the lazy writers who couldn't think of anything better than to keep putting her in danger, to be saved by her man? My guess is that you couldn't give a crap about the comics, but you couldn't resist jumping on this outrage bandwagon. Prove me wrong.

As for some of your other comments:

"...has to be the laziest debate technique I’ve ever heard."

Then you should know about the straw man argument:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_argument

Some examples?

"...Say now Mary Jane is a black woman cooking fried chicken..."

"...It’s like claiming no one should be hurt in car accidents because they happen daily..."

"It’s like watching the retarded kid jump on the trampoline yelling “I’m an astronaut!!!!”"

Try to stick to the topic, instead of putting words in other peoples mouths.

Reply

I think some of you are jumping on any excuse to start BS for stupid little reasons. SO WHAT? I'm a female, am I outraged by this? HELL NO. Why is it so bad that men are pleased to see the female form? Is she naked? NO! She's completely dressed!

SO WHAT if she's well endowed and wearing a pink thong. Does this mean none of you complaining women EVER wear thongs or tight clothing? AND DO YOU NOT DO LAUNDRY?! I'm an artist myself and I always draw my women like that.


THESE ARE FICTIONAL CHARACTERS!!!!!!! READ THAT PART FOR HEAVENS SAKE!!

Give it a rest and move on with your lives and onto something that's important- like kids and their lack of education or gas prices.

M.P.Espinola@Hotmail.com

Reply

The thing I love is the outraged comments about sexism from some of the people posting here who then turn around and call all men idiots. Hmm, nobody said that this version of MJ represents ALL women, or even any REAL women, it is merely a representation of a fictional character. What is actually more destructive in this society, a fictional character, or people who insult and attack an entire subset of the population? Sarah Cynthia Sylvia Stout I would argue that the most sexist and insulting this about this post is you.

Reply

This kind of sexist objectification of women is wildly pervasive in the media and society. It runs rampant on newsstands, in high schools, on MTV and the E! network. It has a built-in audience and enormous reach, and new people are corrupted by it every second of every day. This statue (which was probably limited to a run of ~150 pieces and intended exclusively for already inherently misogynistic 30-something nerds with money to burn and no romantic prospects) isn't even the tip of the iceberg. It's not even on the iceberg.

So yeah, it is entertaining that anyone would sit here and argue the numerous and glaring demerits of a dirty little toy with the likes of case.

Reply

"Give it a rest and move on with your lives and onto something that's important- like kids and their lack of education or gas prices."

Yeah, damn kids and their lack of gas prices! :)

(trying to lighten the mood here)

Reply

The real uproar will come when they unveil the matching Peter Parker figure that fits riiiight behind her.

Reply

ROFL!!!!!

Reply