Comic Book Resources

She's sexy and does the laundry! A perfect woman! I must have some kind of sculpted representation of such an ideal!

Blah.

I'm waiting to hear about how the women who object to this are homophobes.

Barefoot? I'm surprised they didn't make her pregnant to boot.

The only part of that that isn't hilarious is that someone will buy it, which makes me sad.

I think it's hilarious, I'd buy it.

Freakin' ageism.

They'd never do an Aunt May statue like that.

The tear on the the jeans to show shes not wearing panties is the really classy detail.

"The tear on the the jeans to show shes not wearing panties is the really classy detail."

She's wearing a thong. You can see it better in other pictures.

Marvel should just go back to doing swimsuit issues. It costs less to produce, costs less to buy, takes up less room, and sad, lonely men can still wank to it. Everybody wins.

Would've been bad enough, but the tear in the pants, jesus christ.

"Would’ve been bad enough, but the tear in the pants, jesus christ."

Hey, at least shes wearing pants.

Actually, the tear in the pants is the least creepy thing to me. That's a hint of sexuality, which Mary Jane has always had.

The whole subservient sex-maid thing is what really creeps me out.

Next month: MJ bakes a pie...in her underwear!

What, like we don't have laundromats in New York City?

Well, if you don't mind the rats tumbling in the driers, we do.

I don't get the whole "subservience" protest. I understand feminism and all, but now it's actually demeaning for a woman to do something nice for her husband?

It's all about scale. If it were Real Doll-sized and appropriately equipped, it'd be a little sad, but at least it would be practical. But this is just sad.

I think one of the most perceptive thing said about this is here:
http://brown-betty.livejournal.com/277820.html, namely...

Marvel: this is what you look like to people who are browsing the windows trying to decide if they want to come in.

As for me, I give up. It's as though the industry has never ever heard of the concept of 'optics'...

Obviously it's ridiculous and sad, but what I don't get is the letter writing campaign that some bloggers are apparently organizing. If some bozos want to buy this thing, why does anyone else care (outside of the making fun, I mean)? It's a fringe product for a fringe group; it's not being marketed to kids.

It’s a fringe product for a fringe group; it’s not being marketed to kids.

The problem is, as discussed in the blog I just quoted Mary Jane isn't just a fringe character. She's played by Kirsten Dunst in the number 1 movie in North America. So people have a lot of interest in the character (and a lot of parents and a lot of kids too)... all of which makes it perfect timing to release a maquette MJ as some kind of porn star version of Donna Reed. The situation has escalated a wee bit from just being some little piece of expensive crap only man-geeks will buy; it's now an example of how the industry is run by frat boys. And they're right.

Yeah, I agree. It's not like it's meant to sit in the Louvre, or anything.

However, taken on its own level…ugh. It’s cheap and tawdry and small-minded and…wholly unimaginative. Were I a male comics fan I would be really, seriously cringing at Sideshow’s - and by extension Marvel’s - implied concept of me. Especially given the $150 price tag.

Maybe the only contextual situation that makes any sense would be if she isn't actually doing laundry, but is feeling randy and pulling the costume out of the laundry basket to ask Peter to dress up for her, with corresponding sexy pose. Or maybe she was going to do the laundry (thus the detergent) but is going to postpone that until the randy fun is over.

Of course, that this puts the fanboy/viewer into the position of being Peter, which is rather sad.

Oh, by the way, apparently (according to at least one site), the statue is currently already sold out.

Curses. Commerce wins again.

The problem is, as discussed in the blog I just quoted Mary Jane isn’t just a fringe character. She’s played by Kirsten Dunst in the number 1 movie in North America.

I find the fact that she;s played by Kirsten Dunst way more disturbing than the statue. So not hot.

"Marvel should just go back to doing swimsuit issues. It costs less to produce, costs less to buy, takes up less room, and sad, lonely men can still wank to it. Everybody wins."

Wow, I'd forgotten about those! That brings me back to many a lonely night in high school...

Dah HawtnesZ!

Oh Adam Hughes, see what you have wrought?

I guess I just did to much physics at university, but the first thing I noticed, the great crime that nobody else has mentioned, is that the center of gravity is all wrong. Unless her head is full of air and her chest is full of helium and her back pocket is loaded down with heavy coins. Ah now I get it...

What I want to know is...what's she looking at? Wouldn't it make more sense for her to be looking at the laundry instead of staring off at...whatever...

This is disturbing on so many levels..... Shame on the people behind this

"The tear on the the jeans to show shes not wearing panties is the really classy detail."

It looks like the jeans are so tight that you would probably be able to tell that without the tear.

The Parkers seem pretty successful to not have a washing machine that they can use to clean the costume.

I hope the next one is her spread eagle sewing his costume back together. And maybe she could prick her finger, and have to suck on it to hold back the blood...

I saw this a little while back. "She's doing his laundry... sexily!" sums it up pretty well. Of all the possible ways to depict the character, they honestly thought that this was the best choice? Really?

I really have to wonder who buys stuff like this. I mean, hooray for those who are excited for the chance to ogle cold, sculpted cleavage, but for the rest of us this is just embarrassing.

...Yeah. That pose is unnatural. Like, painfully so.

Also, and I know the whole 'idealised female' thing but even so, those are some good implants she's packing. =P

I can't believe how prudish you guys are about this. I don't really think it's that bad at all, no worse than a Jim Lee comic or anything. Now that Supergirl statue by DC, THAT is horrendous, simply for horrible grasp of anatomy.

It's not just prudish stuff . . .it's not that it's just stupid cheesecake (which it is). The combination of that with the servile pose really ups the ante for the insult to women.

But I'm sure the head will manipulate the anus of many a purchaser at some point.

Marvel should just bite the bullet and publish a line of porno TPB's featuring their characters. Print it on cheap paper, sell them only through their website (credit card only), and charge $75.00 each.

They would make so much money that they could afford to make a kick-ass "Nova" movie.

"Blue Blazes!"

My wife sat down and manipulated this a bit last week.

http://home.mindspring.com/~suntyger/mj1.jpg

It's more intellectually honest!

I've seen the tempest in a teakettle that other blogs are trying desperately to stir up, and it was just as ridiculous there as it is here.

1) there is no question that this is fully intended to be a sexual object. Just look at it.

2) And? In what way does a statue of a fictional character holding laundry demean anyone? Do no women launder? Do no women stand like that? Is it outside the realm of possibility that were this character non-fictional, she might stand like that while laundering? Quite possibly with the intent of arousing sexual desire in her equally non-fictional husband?

3) Who on earth is going to look at that not as a sexual object but as a model around which to form expectations?

The way you choose to represent things is a political statement, whether you like it or not. Mary Jane is not presented as a model, an actress, or a stand-alone character or really as anyone other than a sex object and servant.

It's also retarded and ugly.

When did the comics community become such rabid Republicans?

If some conservative politician had condemned this, you'd all be frothing at the mouth and calling them fascists.

I don't know what's worse... People buying this statue or people's righteous indignation about it.

Superhero comics are a sexist medium, just like any medium that caters mostly to only one of the genders. If you look at romance novels, another medium that caters to only one gender, many of them have Fabio-lookalikes displaying their manly bared chests on the cover. It's the same principle at work here.

Girls don't read comics because of blatant cheesecake like this, or it's more a case of Marvel and DC including blatant cheesecake because few girls are buying their products anyway, for a myriad of other reasons?

Rene - I'd say it's kind of an ourouboros thing; they feed into each other. Which is a nice metaphor for superhero comics as a whole at the moment, too.

Streaker - I'm a registered Democrat. One doesn't need to be of a certain party, or even be a social conservative (I'm not), to find something sexist.

"Superhero comics" are a more of a genre than a medium, and there's nothing inherently sexist about it. Many romance novels are marketed at women, but many are not - what are Nick Hornby's books if not romance novels for guys?

That said, the majority of Marvel and DC's superhero books are aimed at men. Or boys.

I think a good portion of the outrage stems from the fact that the statue sort of makes people feel funny. Let's be honest. It's an overtly sexual image and holds true many of our American society's ideals of sexiness. So for the average person, large breasts, cleavage, submissive face with a "gee shucks" type eye, arched back, and every other detail of this piece would equal some form of arousal. It's just that this is a depiction of a cartoon character, so somehow our sensibilties of what is and what isn't sexually appropriete start getting out of whack.

Is this something I'd proudly display in my home? Probably not. Will the majority of people who buy thsi be sexually repressed comics fans and not just fanatics of Adam Hughes's art? Probably. But that doesn't take away from the fact that this piece is a nice sculpt and is sexy as hell. And it's no different than any Abercrombie and Fitch advertisement you might see, nor is it drastically out of character for MJ.

And does it set back women's rights by fifty years? Come on, who's going to see this besides us comics fans? And let's cut ourselves some credit. We're not idiots. We know a woman's place isn't in the laundry room. But that doesn't mean they can't be sexy once and while.

OK, feel free to start remarking about how creepy I am.

Best,
Adam Jones

My bad, Ryan. "Comics" are a medium, "superhero" is a genre or a theme. Anyway, I agree that there isn't anything inherently sexist about the idea of superpowered champions for justice, but it's the way the industry evolved. Superhero comics didn't have to be sexist, but they are.

This Mary Jane statue is just the tip of the iceberg. I knew a woman that was reading superhero comics for the first time, with almost no prior experience with the genre, and she said: "The stories aren't bad, some are quite good, but why almost every single superheroine is dressed like a prostitute?"

But I'm not sure just getting rid of cheesecake will draw female readers. I always felt one of the corners of the industry with more female readers were the X-Books, and usually there is a lot more cheesecake there than in the Avengers or the Fantastic Four. But the X-Teams also are one of the few places in comics where you have many women in central roles and/or as the most powerful in the team, and more of a focus on relationships than other comics.

I'm I the only one who find the washing more objectionable than the sexual pose? If she were, say, leaning on a wall, it would just be a sexy figure with bad anatomy. Silly perhaps, but not necessarily demeaning. Its the combination of sexuality and subservience which I find obnoxious.

But that doesn’t take away from the fact that this piece is a nice sculpt and is sexy as hell.

It is? I mean, seriously, there are guys out there with that little self-respect that spending like $150 on this thing represents either erotic or artistic fulfilment?

...wait, I think I just answered my own question. Sorry, Adam, but, yeah, that's kinda creepy.

I agree with Dan K.

I don't object to the pose. I don't object to the cleavage. I don't object to the ripped jeans or the G-string.

I object to that extreme sexualization combined with doing the laundry. In bare feet.

I agree with Dan and mapletree . . .I mean, I'd still think it was retarded without the laundry, but it would be a bit less demeaning.

I once saw an honest-to-gawd female do laundry once.

Also, I did laundry last night. It was sexy as hell!

And let’s cut ourselves some credit. We’re not idiots. We know a woman’s place isn’t in the laundry room. But that doesn’t mean they can’t be sexy once and while.

No, that's the thing. If I must include myself with the rest of you, simply by medium-association, then we are idiots. There are those of us who DON'T know that a woman's place isn't in the laundry room. There are those of us who believe that Michael Turner draws the female form accurately. There are those of us who write erotic fiction about Jean Grey and Rogue, together.

There are more stupid people in the world than smart ones. That's been proven a thousand times over. So, I'm afraid I can't give folks the benefit of the doubt on this one. It's not like it's uncharacteristic of comic fans to have a skewed view of women and to portray them in a sexist manner.

We need to STOP giving ourselves credit. We're not that great.

I once saw an honest-to-gawd female do laundry once.

I bet she wasn't trying to seduce you at the same time, though. I bet she was too busy taking care of her own shit to make come-hither faces while balancing impossibly.

"Barefoot and doing laundry"

to be entirely honest about it (and this is something I overlooked myself), she's not doing laundry. She's pulling something out of a laundry basket. We're all just assuming that she's done her man's laundry, because that's what we want to assume. It makes the indignation easier. As far as you know, she's digging around trying to find some socks. Because, you know, she's barefoot.

Which isn't wrong, either - if it's warm enough that she can wear that shirt (and believe me, if she was cold, you'd know it), it's warm enough that a woman might conceivably be comfortable without wearing fuzzy bunny slippers...

yo go re said:

"2) And? In what way does a statue of a fictional character holding laundry demean anyone? Do no women launder? Do no women stand like that? Is it outside the realm of possibility that were this character non-fictional, she might stand like that while laundering? Quite possibly with the intent of arousing sexual desire in her equally non-fictional husband?"

Women do launder, but most of them have washing machines by this point in human history, and those that don't generally go to a laundromat. (And don't trot out "Oh, they can't take Peter's Spider-Man costume to a laundromat because of secret identity issues," because I've just read 200+ issues of Spider-Man and I can tell you they most certainly did.)

Women might stand like that, but not for long, because it's painful and uncomfortable. Think about it. If you have a job that requires you to stand, bent at the waist at a 90-degree angle, you try not to do it for long periods of time because it hurts your back muscles.

Is it "outside the realm of possibility" that a woman might hand-launder her husband's clothes, bent over in an uncomfortable position, all the while forcing a come-hither look to arouse her husband? No. But it is outside of the realm of probability, and it's certainly out of character for Mary Jane Watson-Parker. And to have a character be represented in statue form doing something out-of-character and associated with a woman's stereotypical roles of housework and sex is, well...sexist.

Argue that you don't care if you want to, but trying to argue that this isn't a sexist statue is like arguing that the sky is green.

I'm sorry, I have to go with Adam Jones' comments on this one. The statue is just a bit of cheesecake. Nothing more, nothing less. All this righteous indignation about how "sexist" or "demeaning" the statue is is just crap. Do you people really need to be upset about something THAT badly? She's doing the laundry. So what? She's in a sexy, albeit unnatural, pose. So what? And to Apodaca, I say yes, you DO need to give people more credit than that.

I've seen one blog going on about how sexist this is while actively running a "Hunk Of The Week" segment. I see female comic readers upset about this but I don't see them complaining about the unrealistic Fabio-lookalikes on romance novel covers. I see people complaining about female superheroes looking like "prostitutes" and sporting unrealistic breasts, but nobody complains about the men being in costumes that are just as skintight and feature unrealistically imagined ab muscles. If you're going to complain, don't be a hypocrite and have a double standard.

Would people be happier if she was holding a gun and covered in blood, since we seem more comfortasble with violence than sexuality in this country...?

If you’re going to complain, don’t be a hypocrite and have a double standard.

Uh, yeah. Sorry, but from the female POV that's something akin to arguing that African-Americans claiming racism don't get any credibility until they stop ragging on the white folks.

The scales are just too unbalanced. While there are degrees (I still don't buy that this is the End of the Feminist World as We Know It) there's just no room to argue that there's no harm done.

Hey, Collins, you're setting up way too many strawman arguments there. It's showing how thin your case is.

For example, Brian has complained about male cheesecake, and even got called a homophobe for it. You can't cry double-standard on him. And your complaint about the lack of balance between sexism protests and violence protests is totally out of place, here. It's a desperate try to find something to blame us for.

And to Apodaca, I say yes, you DO need to give people more credit than that.

Why? I gave reasons why I don't, let's hear yours for why I should. And I expect something better than "because people aren't stupid".

By the way, it's not righteous indignation. It's disgust and derision.

Sincerely.

Well, Apodaca, my comments weren't necessarily aimed at Brian. And I thought the Homophobe comments were silly just like I thought people making a big deal of the Alex Ross cover was silly too.

My comments about violence were sort of thrown in at the last moment but I don't necessarily believe they're out of place. We live in a society where people seem to get so much more upset about sex and sexuality. Here we have an MJ statue that features her in sexually suggestive pose and people are calling it, to paraphrase your last comment, "disgusting." Men are visual creatures, and something like this is obviously meant to arouse or entice to a certain degree, but I don't see it as 'disgusting' anymore than I see old-school cheesecake as disgusting. It's playful, sexy, and done with a wink. I'm not trying to "blame" anybody for anything, but I strongly believe this isn't as bad as people are making it out to be.

What reasons for not giving people credit do you give? You just say people are stupid and leave it at that generalization. Your argument is both thin AND non-sensical. While even I groan at some comics out there, like Lady Death and that ilk of titles, I think more of my fellow men that their whole attitude and opinions about women aren't going to be formed by one cheesecake statue of MJ, especially considering how many times her particular character has been presented as smart and well-rounded, such as in the recent movies.

And my name is Andrew, not "Collins."

The statue is as sexist as they come. It's not even pretending not to be.

And no way does Apodaca need to give people more credit.

But, I'm not sure what some people want here. Msking fun of this kind of thing and hopefully shaming people who think it has any value whatsoever is useful as it helps socialize clueless people to modern norms of acceptable behavior. But some of you seem to be wanting this thing censored. Really? You really want to tell people what fetish items they can and cannot buy? Is Tipper Gore your hero?

To be honest, I wouldn't have much of a problem with this if it was a panel in a comic book. MJ washing Peter's costume for him in a pair of ripped jeans? Sure that could happen. But the fact of the matter is this is a STATUE. This is Marvel saying "Here, this is the definative image of Mary Jane. Spidey swings between buildings, Hulk smashes stuff up, MJ does Peter's laundry. That's who she is." Well I'm sorry, but that's an insult to everyone who has bought these comics because they love the characters.

It would be the same as DC putting out a stutue of Lois Lane washing dishes with a look of contented bliss on her face. Sure, Lois might do the dishes, but it doesn't define her and Marvel shouldn't be defining MJ like this.

In and of itself, the statue really isn't that bad. It's certainly better than those godawful DC statues. Frankly, it's not even as bad as the cover to Mighty Avengers #3.

Marvel's mission statement is pretty clear on this issue: Men are powerful, badass heroes. Women are in comics to look hot. Sometimes they can be powerful and badass, but they have to look hot while they're doing it. Mary Jane exists a) for Peter to rescue, and b) to look hot.

Once you realize that, I think the statue is pretty tame by the standards of Marvel & DC superhero merchandise.

km said:
"Uh, yeah. Sorry, but from the female POV that’s something akin to arguing that African-Americans claiming racism don’t get any credibility until they stop ragging on the white folks.

The scales are just too unbalanced. While there are degrees (I still don’t buy that this is the End of the Feminist World as We Know It) there’s just no room to argue that there’s no harm done."

Well, I don't think we need to get into a racism discussion, that has no place here. But my point is that I think people are picking and choosing their battles too much. There are plenty of examples of both men and women in sexually suggestive (or depending upon your opinion, sexually demeaning) poses. Why is THIS one so upsetting to people? Because she's doing the laundry? Something millions of women do? Not to mention millions of men?

And what harm is done? That men will have a fantasy about MJ or any other woman while they're doing laundry? Uh...okay. Sure...

"to be entirely honest about it (and this is something I overlooked myself), she’s not doing laundry. She’s pulling something out of a laundry basket. We’re all just assuming that she’s done her man’s laundry, because that’s what we want to assume. It makes the indignation easier."

You must have missed the container of laundry detergent by her feet.

"In and of itself, the statue really isn’t that bad. It’s certainly better than those godawful DC statues."

I agree, the DC statue for Supergirl IS bad. More for the awful anatomy then anything else. It's like she has two abdomens stacked on top of each other...

"Well, I don’t think we need to get into a racism discussion, that has no place here. But my point is that I think people are picking and choosing their battles too much. There are plenty of examples of both men and women in sexually suggestive (or depending upon your opinion, sexually demeaning) poses. Why is THIS one so upsetting to people? Because she’s doing the laundry? Something millions of women do? Not to mention millions of men?
And what harm is done? That men will have a fantasy about MJ or any other woman while they’re doing laundry? Uh…okay. Sure…".

Yes. Because she's doing the laundry (more specifically, Spider-man's laundry). That's exactly it. Many people object to overly sexualized images of women but that's what makes this statue different from and worse than other statues of female characters.

To pretend that you think it's objectionable because men might 'have a fantasy about MJ or any other woman while they’re doing laundry' is disingenuous.

I think Marvel should do a special edition cover of Joe Quesada extending a big middle finger (with forced perspective of course) to female comic book readers. That or they could do a statue of Monica Rambeau half-naked picking cotton.

The problem isn't that the statue might *create* attitudes and opinions so much as that it's reinforcing existing ones. It's buying wholeheartedly into the status quo; confirming ideas that are at best disrespectful and at worst openly misogynistic.

Again, no matter how you try to frame it, you just can't argue that it's harmless. Old-school cheesecake was only ever consequence-free fun for the male of the species, trust me.

Besides, this statue isn't at all in that style, as far as I can tell. It's far too anatomically improbable to be cute, it's far too demeaning a pose to be fun, and the way it splashes it all out there for the world to see nobody can say it's winking. The lack of imagination is actually pretty appalling.

There are plenty of examples of both men and women in sexually suggestive (or depending upon your opinion, sexually demeaning) poses.

Not in comics, there aren't. Seriously, how many images can you find of men in sexually suggestive poses in Marvel or DC superhero books? Can you find me a cover like that Mighty Avengers with the genders reversed?

Not that I find this particularly worthy of being upset; mostly, statues like this are just big, flashing lights warning me that I want little or nothing to do with these publishers. They can't let things like "art" or "story" interfere with titillation.

"The problem isn’t that the statue might *create* attitudes and opinions so much as that it’s reinforcing existing ones."

Like what exactly?

Why is THIS one so upsetting to people? Because she’s doing the laundry? Something millions of women do? Not to mention millions of men?

OK, without getting into a treatise on Male-Female Attitudes 101: Because - lacking any other available context - she's being portrayed as not only a sex object, but as a wholly subservient one. Her man is the big bad superhero...she's the maid.

As someone above pointed out, were she to be posed casually leaning against a wall in that getup, it'd still be icky, but I think you'd find the pure outrage would be much less. Were this clearly part of a scenario in which she and Peter were getting a kick out of laundry day, sans the implants, thong and Hustler-style posing, it could even be a sweetly funny little scene.

"Why is THIS one so upsetting to people? Because she’s doing the laundry? Something millions of women do? Not to mention millions of men?"

Did you just land on Earth from a different home planet? Do you understand that only in the past 30-40 years have women in general been able to move beyond being viewed as simply servants for men?

Mary Jane could have been portrayed in a million other ways - she's a supermodel and an actress! - but instead they chose to have her pose as Spider-Man's sexy uniform washer. Stupid and silly.

"And what harm is done?"

It perpetuates comics as a nerd cult. Do you WANT comic book fans to be associated with this image? I certainly don't.

"Not in comics, there aren’t. Seriously, how many images can you find of men in sexually suggestive poses in Marvel or DC superhero books? Can you find me a cover like that Mighty Avengers with the genders reversed?"

Honestly, I know what images I personally would find sexually suggestive of female characters. Of men, it's harder for me to quantify as my heterosexual orientation, tastes and attention usually lead me to glossing right over them. But I don't disagree with you that female superheroes are much more sexually posed and oriented in American comics, though. Like I said, men are very visually oriented creatures, so in a vusual medium like comics that have a very male-dominated customer base, it's natural that you would get more of that. Just like something aimed at female customers will feature things such as relationships, sex, and sexuality done in a way aimed at/more palatable to a female consumer.

And bringing in Frank Cho as an example is just dirty pool.

“The problem isn’t that the statue might *create* attitudes and opinions so much as that it’s reinforcing existing ones.”

Like what exactly?

OK, I am officially giving up now. I don't wish to insult, Andrew, but either you're deliberately playing dense, or...well, see Ditko Hands' comments above.

Ok, to km and especially Ditko Hands, I'm well aware of male-female relations over the course of history. I know the old "barefoot and pregnant" line. I'm not for one second arguing that her doing the laundry is 'empowering' but I don't feel that it needs to be. It's a wife doing the laundry for her husband. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. My Mom does my laundry for my Dad, does that simple act mean she is being demeaned? (And please spare me any juvenile jokes about how my mother poses while doing the laundry.)

"Of men, it’s harder for me to quantify as my heterosexual orientation, tastes and attention usually lead me to glossing right over them."

You said: "There are plenty of examples of both men and women in sexually suggestive (or depending upon your opinion, sexually demeaning) poses." Sounds like it was easy to quantify before you were called on it. Do you have any examples or not?

It’s a wife doing the laundry for her husband. That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less. My Mom does my laundry for my Dad, does that simple act mean she is being demeaned?

Well...if she's doing it in an outfit resembling the statue's, you might want to worry just a little. If she - or more to the point, your Dad - is peddling pictures of her in the act, especially to a demographic traditionally composed of horny frat-boys who might use her pics to gratify urges a real live woman won't...well, hey, it's your family, but I think I'd be staging an intervention but pronto.

km said:
"OK, I am officially giving up now. I don’t wish to insult, Andrew, but either you’re deliberately playing dense, or…well, see Ditko Hands’ comments above."

No, I'm not dense, or playing dense. I was trying to discuss why you thought the statue was so harmful to men's attitudes. None of the men in my life (Father, family, friends) feel a "woman's place" is in the laundry room doing laundry for her husband. So, I'm trying to understand your point of view better. If you want to give up, then, hey, whatever...

"It’s a wife doing the laundry for her husband. That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less."

The statue portrays a woman doing something for her man: serving him. Somehow I doubt we'll get a Spider-Man statue where he's cooking dinner or making the bed.

"You said: “There are plenty of examples of both men and women in sexually suggestive (or depending upon your opinion, sexually demeaning) poses.” Sounds like it was easy to quantify before you were called on it. Do you have any examples or not?"

I belive I already used the example of the men on the cover of romance novels if you bothered to read all of the above posts.

(And please spare me any juvenile jokes about how my mother poses while doing the laundry.)

D'you know, it's suddenly occurred to me that I could've spared myself that whole explanation above and just asked you to think a bit more about this statement.

"Well…if she’s doing it in an outfit resembling the statue’s, you might want to worry just a little. If she - or more to the point, your Dad - is peddling pictures of her in the act, especially to a demographic traditionally composed of horny frat-boys who might use her pics to gratify urges a real live woman won’t…well, hey, it’s your family, but I think I’d be staging an intervention but pronto."

Wow, mature comeback. Sigh...

"D’you know, it’s suddenly occurred to me that I could’ve spared myself that whole explanation above and just asked you to think a bit more about this statement."

Again, I've already commented that I think MJ's pose is unnatural. Certainly not something a woman could stand in for too long.

"The statue portrays a woman doing something for her man: serving him"

Which could be a matter of interpretation, in my opinion. Or semantics, really. I see it as her doing something FOR her husband. Not serving him.

Now, if there's a companion statue of a wifebeater-wearing Peter Parker, with thick stubble and a beer bottle in his hand standing over his wife's shoulder forcing her to do the laundry, then hey, I'll go with the subservience angle then too.

and it’s certainly out of character for Mary Jane Watson-Parker.

Wow, no.

Flirting with her husband is out of character for Mary Jane? No. In no way, at no time.

Women might stand like that, but not for long, because it’s painful and uncomfortable. Think about it. If you have a job that requires you to stand, bent at the waist at a 90-degree angle, you try not to do it for long periods of time because it hurts your back muscles.

That... really isn't much of an argument.

Staute? 3D snapshot. We get a statue of the Hulk raging, no one thinks he walks around all day with his arms raised above and behind his head, with his hands balled into fists and one leg extended way behind him. Snapshot. So saying MJ's pose would be hard to maintain for long periods of time?

Silly.

Needless.

Of course it would be hard to do that. But then, she's not - the statue is.

You must have missed the container of laundry detergent by her feet.

Not even close; do you only bring your laundry basket and your detergent near one another at laundry time? I don't. In fact, one's usually near the other...

"I see it as her doing something FOR her husband. Not serving him."

I'm not beating my head against this wall anymore, so I'll have to quote my namesake for my final statement: "A is A"

If nothing else, this has been an interesting observation on how mobs form and grow.

Where does it stop? Are you going to start letter writing campaigns every time you're offended by a booby? A call for the return of the Comics Code Authority seal of approval on every comic? Congressional hearings?

Get a grip on yourselves. It's a stupid statue that no one will care about in six months, except for the the people who bought them.

"You must have missed the container of laundry detergent by her feet."

Storing the detergent near the basket is not particularly illogical. Perhaps the basket and detergent are standing next to a Maytag washer/dryer, which were not sculpted because't that'd be overkill (an not economical, really).

I figure if she *was* hand-washing his outfit, she'd do it in the sink, not in a bucket.

Seems to me the whole washing/not washing question could be answered if we had a view down into the bucket. If it looks like a bucket of water and suds, then she's washing. If it looks like a basket of laundry, then she's pulling the costume out of it.

Wow, mature comeback. Sigh…

It wasn't so much a comeback as a reflection of my sheer disbelief that you even asked the question in the first place.

Seriously, Andrew, it's wonderful you and yours are so enlightened, but it doesn't negate the wider issues you yourself neatly summarized above.

Which could be a matter of interpretation, in my opinion. Or semantics, really. I see it as her doing something FOR her husband. Not serving him.

As I say, it's possible this little scenario is about playful, mocking fun. Unfortunately, the statue itself isn't helping. At the least, if we assume this is actually MJ deliberately beckoning her Tiger hither, we also have to assume she's got some serious self-esteem issues. Oh, plus she's really stupid.

Again, I’ve already commented that I think MJ’s pose is unnatural. Certainly not something a woman could stand in for too long.

Uh-huh. Try again, wise guy.

I belive I already used the example of the men on the cover of romance novels if you bothered to read all of the above posts.

Except romance novels are all about a male power fantasy, in no way demeaning - the strong, virile hero subduing the willing-if-not-actually-helpless woman.

yo go re: Why this snapshot, as opposed to some of the others suggested (i.e., leaning against a wall)?

That's the issue for me, at least.

What a dumb statue.

I'd buy it if she was, like, making dinner or something. I'd come home from a long day of work and be all, "Hi, Mary Jane. What's for dinner tonight?" And it would be the same damn thing every night. And we'd laugh together, because that would be our little joke.

***I’m not beating my head against this wall anymore, so I’ll have to quote my namesake for my final statement: “A is A"***

Sounds like as good an exit line as any. I've already given this stupid statue way to big a chunk of my life.

km said:
"stuff"

I referred to the romance novel covers as sexually suggestive, not demeaning, but I also said it's a matter of interpretation.

Look, now it's my turn to give up. We just have to agree to disagree. You find the statue offensive. I don't. To sum up my argument up, it is a very silly looking statue and I have no plans to buy it, but I also interpret it as playful not demeaning or subservient.

I've enjoyed this little debate. I appreciate your comments and thoughts on it, km. Now, I'm going to go back to watching my Netflix'd copy of DaVinci Code. Have a good night.

From the official description of the statue:

"The consummate "girl next door," Mary Jane discovers that her superhero husband has slipped some of his laundry into the mix, but she's not looking too displeased about Peter's naughty little transgression."

You know, I was okay with it until it got to "naughty little transgression." That pretty much makes it porn.

(actually, I wasn't okay with them confusing "who's" and "whose", but that's just a nerd problem I have.)

"Seems to me the whole washing/not washing question could be answered if we had a view down into the bucket. If it looks like a bucket of water and suds, then she’s washing. If it looks like a basket of laundry, then she’s pulling the costume out of it."

I think when we begin to debate the difference between a basket and a bucket, its time to call it a night. Goodnight Everybody!

@ Sean Whitmore

Heh. Good one.

Also, this flame war got out of hand really fast....

Seem's like I was on the wrong side of this Comics Should Be Good Civil War!

Wocka wocka. Give me those ribs.

You know, I was okay with it until it got to “naughty little transgression.” That pretty much makes it porn.

I think you are using a non-standard definition of porn. He snuck something of his into her laundry load, a "naughty little transgression," and that is somehow porn?

That's as silly as chuckling when a mother calls her child a "naughty boy."

I like pin-up style art. This strikes me as a fair example of that sort of thing.
The whole 'doing the laundry' thing is so they can get the spidey costume in there... so it's not just some woman, it's definitely Mary Jane Watson-Parker.
Yes, it's sexist... and dumb... but does everything HAVE to be smart?

"You know, I was okay with it until it got to “naughty little transgression.” That pretty much makes it porn."

Um, no.

A 'naughty little transgression' that is 'porn' would be if he splattered radioactive spooge all over her laundry.

Sneaking his costume in there is naughty in the 'Leave it to Beaver' sense, and I'm not using a euphemism.

"I think when we begin to debate the difference between a basket and a bucket, its time to call it a night. Goodnight Everybody!"

Well, it's not like we're arguing over whether a basket and a bucket are the same, topologically. ;^)

Torus!
No way!

Eh, what the hell. This may very well be a milestone.

100!

"yo go re: Why this snapshot, as opposed to some of the others suggested (i.e., leaning against a wall)?
That’s the issue for me, at least."

Somehow I think if she was leaning against a wall, some would take that as some kind of display of submission: THEY'VE GOT HER BACKED UP AGAINST THE WALL! WTF!?

km wrote:"At the least, if we assume this is actually MJ deliberately beckoning her Tiger hither, we also have to assume she’s got some serious self-esteem issues. "

Are you honestly suggesting an actress and model would be unfamiliar with acting and posing in unusual, even awkward, ways to elict a response? Why, some of the poses would be completely unworkable, ergonomically.

Oh, another thing - I'm surprised at the apparent shock and revulsion at the idea that two young, fit, good-looking newlyweds are sexual creatures. Come on - you *know* Peter and Mary Jane totally borrowed a Quinjet for a trip to join the mile club.

Why, they might even have bought some furry handcuffs. Shocking!

It would be frankly *weird* if they didn't get randy. Rational consideration would suggest that Peter occasionally even grabs a boob, and that it's okay with MJ. (Unless you're one of those 'all marital sex is rape' types.)

Anyway, consider the bullet that MJ dodged - she could have been shown handling Deadpool's uniform, with all the slutty implications *that* would carry.

i'm loving this statue, i don't see what the fuss is about.
so she's washing the uniform. it's cute, she looks sexy, there's a whole air of 'ah!' in the design, a kind of pointed blatant over-sexuality. 'we're camp and we thrive in it'

and why is it demeaning for mj to be washing the costume anyway? I'm coming in from a totally outside the 'battle of the sexes' thing, not being str8 and all, but i don't see the fuss in spiderman's wife washing his uniform, and certainly don't see why she can't wear anything she pleases when she's doing that.

"and certainly don’t see why she can’t wear anything she pleases when she’s doing that."

You--you do realise that she's a fictional character, and not an actual human being with drives and desires and will, able to choose what she wears, right?

"Face it, Tiger -- you just hit the jackpot!"

Eh, what the hell. This may very well be a milestone.

100!

Those posts that got stuck in the spam blocker screwed you over, Adam!

Those bastards!!

There's a spam blocker? I suppose I thought we were just lucky enough to avoid that kind of idiot. Shatter my dreams why don't you, Brian?

Why this snapshot, as opposed to some of the others suggested (i.e., leaning against a wall)?

Because, like Pol said, they wanted the costume in there. A laundry basket is then simply expedient, and offers more of a narrative than if she was just standing around holding his mask or a boot something...

I wish there was a hi-res image of this. You can hardly make out her pearl necklace.

There’s a spam blocker? I suppose I thought we were just lucky enough to avoid that kind of idiot. Shatter my dreams why don’t you, Brian?

Is there any way to make it more known? Because I'm sure there are plenty of folks whose posts have gotten caught in the spam blocker who think that I am, like, trying to keep them from posting here or something.

Heck, Joe Field got caught in it today!!

You–you do realise that she’s a fictional character, and not an actual human being with drives and desires and will, able to choose what she wears, right?

You can ask the same of the people who wrote the first 100 comments!

When did the comics community become such rabid Republicans?

Nnnnnno. Being an uptight PC prig is pretty much rabid liberal behavior.

Marvel should have added a topless Peter Parker in a sexy pose too.

[/blockquote]

I like how when you disagree with something some nerds like then you're a rabid mob beating down the door of their beloved comic company.

People expressed disdain for an ugly, stupid statue, one clearly demeaning to women, no matter how dumb you play. Unless you yourself sculpted it or find the statue to be a brilliant work then there's nothing for you to be upset about other people being upset. Certainly not enough to completely misrepresent them and their problems with it.

"clearly demeaning to women" is a huge stretch, no matter how indignant you play. So's calling it ugly and stupid, but name-calling is just opinion anyway...

I just stood in as close as I could get to that pose. It hurts after about 5 seconds. Back, thighs, calves. Also, she's got to be at least a G-cup, which has to hurt seeing as she doesn't appear to be wearing a good bra.

I don't know about demeaning, but it surely isn't a good representation of women. It's bad anatomy, bad posing, bad positioning, and generally a bad idea.

Jon H demeans Peter & Mary Jane by saying: Why, they might even have bought some furry handcuffs. Shocking!

Hello....he has webs! duh!

I've wondered about the folks complaining about the bare feet....what shoe choice would be appropriate? Should she be borrowing the White Queen's boots to do the laundry in?

I'm 80% sure that if I had a book of Vargas art, I'd find this picture in it (minus the spider-stuff).

One must ask oneself, is "demeaning, stupid, and ugly" really that much of a stretch?

yes, yes and yes.

Then I'm even sorrier for you than before.

By the way, my wife just saw this and was completely disgusted.

Like, oddly, so many others. But, clearly, we're prudish Republicans on a censor binge . . .even though no one's said anything like that.

The interesting thing is, some (female) friends of mine who thought this statue was disgusting and demeaning found it much more disturbing about the 'zombie wedding statue' which has Mary Jane in a wedding dress with her throat torn out, or the Carnage Action Figure with 'Dead Teenage Girl' Accessory.
hrm.

It may not be Gil Elvgren, but that hardly makes it Anton Drek.

By the way, my wife just saw this and was completely disgusted.

and hey, whaddya know - mine saw it, and wasn't. Funny how that works, isn't it?

Not really funny, and I totally understand it. It doesn't bother me that some people aren't offended by this or that some people don't find it laughable. Why does it bother you that so many do?

it's not that people find it offensive - that's a matter of opinion. They've got whatever wire bent in their brain, and it offends them. Fair enough. The problem is really the people whose attitudes are less "I find this offensive" and more "this is offensive independently of my own opinions, and anyone who thinks different hates wymyn." The discussion here has been positively mild compared to some going on out there, where people have stopped looking at a statue and started looking for reasons to get their panties in a bunch. So to speak...

Gotcha. I think there's a lot of worse things in the world than this statue, even as far as feminism in superhero comics goes.

I just think it's a fun piece to make fun of.

And, listen, sorry about the "sorry for you" crack. I was a bit inebriated when I wrote it and I honestly had bad dreams about it last night.

What I've meant to say about this to the people that seem to express bewilderment that some would be offended by this, think of it this way. They chose THIS VERY MOMENT to freeze into a statue. Of decades of comic images and with all the talent at their disposal, they chose a subservient laundry pose. Sure, sometimes women do laundry, even for their husbands, and maybe even sexily.

But that's the moment they chose and it says something.

Sure, sometimes real black people really do eat fried chicken and watermelon, but if they chose that specific image to portray Luke Cage, it would be pretty much the same kind of offense.

I'm a homophobe babeee! Any men looking for a foot rest?