Comments on: There's Something About Mary Jane

By: Apodaca

Apodaca — Thu, 17 May 2007 19:51:17 +0000

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

By: Joe Rice

Joe Rice — Wed, 16 May 2007 21:37:52 +0000

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.

By: Joe Rice

Joe Rice — Wed, 16 May 2007 21:34:22 +0000

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.

By: yo go re

yo go re — Wed, 16 May 2007 17:26:12 +0000

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...

By: Joe Rice

Joe Rice — Wed, 16 May 2007 10:55:56 +0000

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?

By: yo go re

yo go re — Wed, 16 May 2007 05:41:46 +0000

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?

By: PÃ³l Rua

PÃ³l Rua — Wed, 16 May 2007 02:14:55 +0000

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: Joe Rice

Joe Rice — Wed, 16 May 2007 00:38:55 +0000

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.

By: Joe Rice

Joe Rice — Wed, 16 May 2007 00:37:54 +0000

Then I'm even sorrier for you than before.

By: yo go re

yo go re — Wed, 16 May 2007 00:31:32 +0000

yes, yes and yes.

By: Joe Rice

Joe Rice — Tue, 15 May 2007 22:34:38 +0000

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

By: Scavenger

Scavenger — Tue, 15 May 2007 18:59:03 +0000

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).

By: Scavenger

Scavenger — Tue, 15 May 2007 18:54:00 +0000

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

Hello....he has webs! duh!

By: Eriata

Eriata — Tue, 15 May 2007 17:51:07 +0000

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.

By: yo go re

yo go re — Tue, 15 May 2007 16:25:14 +0000

"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...

By: Joe Rice

Joe Rice — Tue, 15 May 2007 11:11:03 +0000

[/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.

By: Denn

Denn — Tue, 15 May 2007 09:27:06 +0000

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

By: T.

T. — Tue, 15 May 2007 09:26:35 +0000

When did the comics community become such rabid Republicans?

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

By: T.

T. — Tue, 15 May 2007 09:22:01 +0000

Youâ€“you do realise that sheâ€™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!

By: Brian Cronin

Brian Cronin — Tue, 15 May 2007 07:52:03 +0000

Thereâ€™s a spam blocker? I suppose I thought we were just lucky enough to avoid that kind of idiot. Shatter my dreams why donâ€™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!!