...A Hive Alive With Storybees!. all this and brains too! : comments.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
|
2
|
|||||
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21 |
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Company Invoice
I hear you on the "shut up and suck it up" part, but in her own post she basically says everyone who disagrees with her are either misogynist, completely stupid, or trolls. I'd like to think I'm none of the above...well, maybe slightly misogynist. :P
And it wasn't meant as faint praise, I'm saying that 'sexifying' Mary Jane and vague sybolism in a limited run collectible statue targeted at a niche market is nothing compared to, say, what happened to Sue Dibney in the comics, or even such portrayals of women in comics in general which are read by a wider demographic. As I said, collectible statues are a niche market, and to said-market, that is thier Mary Jane. If it was "Spider-Man Loves Mary-Jane" Mary Jane or even movie Mary Jane doing that, I'd be with you on this..even if it was just a statue. I just think of all the things to get riled up about, this particular bit seems trivial and silly.
Desensitized to over-sexification of women in comics? You know as well as I that this is hardly limited to comics. Hell, remember "News if Wanna F@CK". If someone sees this statue and goes "My god, rabid comic collector view women as sex objects!?!", I'd have to say they're a trifle naive. I'd like to see this change. If I'm lucky it may happen in my lifetime, but I don't think it'll happen by making a stink over a limited-run collectible statue.
And yes, the Adam Hughes sketch is awesome. It's a pity no one (not even DC Direct) can seem to do his style justice in statue form. ~_~
Hmm...and the more I think about it, a "Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane" statue would be really cute.
Company Invoice
I don't really agree with everything she writes - it just seems like at this point (post movies, comics going mainstream, etc) that Marvel (and similar) needs to make better business decisions. The statue will surely turn a profit, (niche market of course) but I wonder how much potential continuous profit has been lost from people who were interested/receptive to the medium b/c of the movies - only to see this and be scared away by something they naively didn't expect.
But just b/c sexism is a part of comics doesn't mean that it should be.
There's a difference between a sexy pose for a female character, and a sexually available/suggestive pose. Same for outfits. Male and female in comics tend to both be in skin tight costumes - but the females are the ones generally posed in a method that presents them as sexually available.
For the record - I do my laundry and house work wearing NOTHING but a thong and possible a sports bra (and I'm damn good looking). B/c it's comfortable and I'm too cheap to use A/C unless I'm sweating while naked. So a sexy woman...looking sexy while doing chores isn't really all that out of the realm of ridiculous.
Company Invoice
So a sexy woman...looking sexy while doing chores isn't really all that out of the realm of ridiculous.
But a sexy woman doing chores and looking sexually available while doing it - while not sexist - is objectifying her. But then again she's pretty much like that in the comics anyway (at least when I was collecting long ago, I doubt there has been a change of philosophy since).