Eye of the Beholder

[qos]

I've been thinking a lot about my own reaction to the statue I posted about last night. The fact is, I have plenty of sexual images in my own collection -- including one small statue of a scantily dressed female pirate -- which many people would find as offensive (if not moreso) as the Mary Jane statue.

So what is is about *this* statue that bugs me? And what does the answer say about me? And why am I disgusted by bent-over MJ when I have far more explicit images that I enjoy?

I'm still working on good answers to these questions, but I intend to post about it when I do. There will be images involved, so it will be posted under my General Sexuality filter.

Just wanted everyone to know this topic is not yet closed for me.

Comments

[crownofviolets.livejournal.com]

I saw a link to the statue in another blog early yesterday and had to ask myself the same questions... I think it isn't the statue that bugs me itself, but the fact that it's the quintessential of how that industry treats women... That that statue in of itself is their primary image of women: oversexualized for men.

But, while I like comics - I've never taken them seriously so I'm not too upset about it - and I'm not sure what that says about me.

[a-belletrist.livejournal.com]

The comic industry is what it is. Not all heroes and their girlfriends are portrayed thus, and not all heroines and their men-folk are either. So I don't think the statue can really be called a commentary on the industry, though the industry's art does heavily lean toward the impossible anatomies and the improbable relationships. That's its job. It's total fantasy. And, over the years, the industry is slowly changing to include women's fantasies as well. It's a slow change coming to a male-dominated industry.

The statuette is one artist's fantasy vision. And that vision is objectification.

I actually snorted, then laughed when I saw it.

To me, there's no eroticism in that statuette. It's a Playboy pose, which I've always found to be hilarious ... and a little juvenile, to be honest.

But then, I've been reading comics since I was a little kid, and I rather shrug off the sexual objectification with a stereotypic comment of my own. "Oh, it's another boy toy." It's not as if we women don't have our eye-candy. We just package it a little less blatantly (usually).

As an aside, if you ever want to read a history (of sorts) of the early comic book industry, I highly recommend Michael Chabon's The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay.

[crownofviolets.livejournal.com]

I agree, not all heroes and women are treated the same - but I feel its the primary vein that was carried over and over-sexualized and idealized continues to be the main image. Obviously because comic books were pure fantasy. Changes are happening, definitely, but the majority of their heavy hitters continue to portray this idea. They're the ones that have been around the longest, they're well-loved and while their characters and story lines can be updated to make them less fantasy and more diverse, they still carry the fantasies of the past in their physical appearances. It's still quintessential in my mind. It may even be because of how long I've been reading comics that it's going to take more than the recent changes to dislodge what I think about them and their art.

I'm not morally offended, condemning the statue or the industry. It bugs me, because this is the majority of what I see as I flip through Previews magazine and look at the covers, toys, and other merchandise for various comic series. Some of the stuff is very cool, some of it is really interesting, some of it is completely different - but this statue still reminds me of the majority of what I see. The type of comics I prefer are those that use the medium as another art form or story telling form, so that might be another reason why I personally want more than idealized fantasy from my comics and merchandise. Personal preference. For me, it is a commentary on a crucial part of the industry that I would like to take a back seat to more innovative stories and storytelling. Maybe that's just *my* fantasy ;)

While it does bug me, like I said, I'm not too upset about it. They are fantasy, I don't take them too seriously, and while I wish there was more to most comics than there is, I generally just shrug it off after my initial sigh. I kind of wonder about this, because if I were more passionate, more upset, maybe I'd take the intiative to do something different. ;)

[a-belletrist.livejournal.com]

You're absolutely right. Over-sexualized and idealized is still the norm. Like you, I prefer the medium when it is used for other types of innovative storytelling, and that's what I gravitate toward when I browse the stacks these days. Happily, there have been some amazing uses of the medium in the last twenty years, and hopefully there will be much more to come.

To be honest, I see the comic industry writing for the same demographic that the majority of RPGs are created for. I wonder if they realize how much money there is to be made selling something beyond romance to women. Most of the women I know would love some non-sexist portrayals of heroines in butt-kicking situations. After all, we love to save the world just as much as the men do. :)

[a-belletrist.livejournal.com]

Upon re-reading, my post sounds a little smug with oh-so-superior overtones. I truly didn't mean it that way, I'd like to state for the record. :/

That sort of thing just makes me shake my head and laugh. I don't know why it doesn't bother me ... I just know it doesn't. I understand why it bothers others though.

Like the previous author, I wonder what that says about me.

[crownofviolets.livejournal.com]

I don't think it did. ;) I think you made some very good points. The Comics industry is fantasy.

I don't think it's a bad thing that it doesn't bother you. I mean, it sounds like you keep fantasy in its place. It's meant to entertain and make money. And really, there's nothing wrong with that in of itself.

Funny thing is, I saw this on a Feminist blog I read a lot. What I always kind of wonder though, is while I hands down agree there is a ton of media out there that's degrading to women - which I think their main point about the statue was (which is open to debate) - they focus on pointing out what's messed up, instead of using that energy to portray images and ideas of women that they see and like. I don't think they're going to accomplish what they want by pointing all that's wrong... I think it might be a better strategy to make what they feel is right.

[oakmouse]

What I always kind of wonder though, is while I hands down agree there is a ton of media out there that's degrading to women - which I think their main point about the statue was (which is open to debate) - they focus on pointing out what's messed up, instead of using that energy to portray images and ideas of women that they see and like. I don't think they're going to accomplish what they want by pointing all that's wrong... I think it might be a better strategy to make what they feel is right.

Ooooh... WAY good point. Although pointing out the crap has its virtues, if you don't balance it with some counter-examples of what works or is good, then you just look like you're whining. That accusation (whining) comes all too easily to the lips of the anti-feminist hate-speech types, but sometimes it's not entirely unearned.

Yeah. We need to come up with some good examples to counter the bad.

[crownofviolets.livejournal.com]

I had a really hard time identifying as a feminist, because a lot of what feminism seemed to be about was getting angry about things and pointing fingers. And there really are some things to be angry about. But you can't make people change their minds. If an artist, male or female, truly believes that this is all a woman is, it's up to men and women who believe differently to provide media, jobs, art, entertainment, whatever that says different. We live in a world of choice, and that means taking the good with what we feel is bad. We need options and choices, not more pointing fingers or condemning. And we need to be the ones to provide those options and choices. We can't rely on other people to do it for us. That for me has become what feminism is about. :)

[oakmouse]

You go!

I decided in the mid-80s to stop calling myself a feminist because it seemed to me that feminism had deteriorated from an attempt to right very real wrongs into a "can you top this" contest hellbent on identifying how many elements of special disadvantaged status someone within the feminist community could claim in an attempt to take on maximal status and credibility. ("I'm more disadvantaged than you are because I'm an ethnic minority feminist." "Well, I'm a lesbian feminist." "I top you both, I'm a disabled elderly impoverished feminist former housewife with no job skills who was ditched by my husband for a younger woman.") I also had real problems with the apparently universal blind rage toward all males which had taken over much feminist rhetoric. I decided back then that my credo would be that feminism is the radical notion that women are people, and added to it the equally radical notion that men are people too and that ALL PEOPLE deserve to be treated well regardless of age, sex, race, religion, etc etc etc. Because the only way to ensure that women are treated well is to treat everybody well, people. No point in dethroning one privileged class to set up another. And I felt that the best way to bring this about in reality is to try to live it myself. So that's how I try to be a feminist. *g*

[crownofviolets.livejournal.com]

That is awesome! :) I completely agree with you.

[professor-mom.livejournal.com]

I love this. Count me in. *nods*

[oakmouse]

What bothered me about it was that it feels dishonest, and blatantly so. Cheesecake per se isn't necessarily bad. Some cheesecake figurines of women are overtly sexual in a brassy, "hey honey, I got the hots, wanna do something about it?" way. There's nothing exploitive about Betty Page when she so clearly enjoys being sexual, and nothing wrong about making figures of women who revel in their sexuality.

But this one...can't put my finger on it, but it's FAKE somehow. Maybe the sly expression on her face, maybe the idea of her doing his laundry (by hand yet), maybe the baboon-butt pose. It just feels dishonest and fraudulent. And *that's* what bothers me.

[rachel-y.livejournal.com]

I've skimmed some of the commentary on the sites you linked to in your original post on the MJ figurine. What comes to my mind is the old obscenity rubric (How do you define obscenity? "I know it when I see it!") and the porn/erotica delineation (if it turns *you* on it's erotica, if it doesn't, it's porn).

Bad art...

[rojagrl.livejournal.com]

Aesthetically, it is just an ugly piece. Beyond the sexist portrayal of the anatomically impossible female who joyfully handwashes her partner's costume and becomes aroused doing so (now there's a stretch -- the orgasmic female who gets off on waiting on a man)...but I'm losing my point.

The art stinks. It's ugly.

I don't know what you have in your collection, but I am guessing it is more aesthetically pleasing...

[athenian-abroad.livejournal.com]

So what is is about *this* statue that bugs me? And what does the answer say about me? And why am I disgusted by bent-over MJ when I have far more explicit images that I enjoy?

Here's the thing: the statuette is meant to be funny. But not in a nice way.

Whoever put this together undoubtedly thought it would be a hoot. ("MJ as a combination Daisy-Mae sexpot and adoring laundress? It'll be a laugh riot!") But it's (allegedly) funny precisely because it invites us to view her with contempt. It's the kind of humor that's meant to diminish its object. And I suspect that it's this "intent to diminish" that provokes your reaction.

Of course, this kind of humor, the humor of diminishment, isn't always a bad thing. There's a long and honorable tradition of using this kind of humor to cut powerful and frightening people down to size, as when lampooning, say, Henry Kissinger or Stalin.

But it's another thing entirely to train the guns of caricature and satire on a more vulnerable target -- a traditionally disadvantaged group or a more or less ordinary individual. That's called "bullying." It's the same sensiblilty that gives us Rush Limbaugh calling the teenaged Chelsea Clinton the "White House dog."

It's even more troubling when we stop to ask why in the world anyone thinks that MJ (or Chelsea Clinton for that matter) needs to be "cut down to size." MJ!? This isn't Margaret Thatcher! It's hard to avoid the conclusion that anyone who regards MJ as "powerful and frightening" is simply unprepared to accept any woman in any role that is not explictly subservient.

Now, there is a possibilty that I'm misreading the intent here, and that the statuette was genuinely intended to satirize the depiction of women in comic books. If so, it misses the target; women in comic books almost never do laundry. (Alfred does the laundry.) But I want to leave room for the possibility. (I can dimly remember a "cheesecake" issue of Bill Willingham's Elementals from many years ago, that more successfully satirized both the portrayal of female heroes in comics and the slick celebrity magazine; so it can be done.)

[qos.livejournal.com]

You sum this up very well and help me clarify my own thoughts. I think you're right about it diminishing MJ in a very real way -- whether or not there was a conscious intent to diminish.

I don't think it was meant as satire. If it was, the comments on the forum probably wouldn't have been deleted. And I doubt the intended audience sees it as satire either.

Thanks.

[amqu.livejournal.com]

I don't read comic books. Therefore, I'm not sure how she is portrayed in that venue. My experience with MJ is from the Spiderman movies. Personally, she annoys the crap out of me. I believe there's a man that can actually spin webs and fly around the city more than I believe he would actually love MJ.

So I guess to me, this statue doesn't diminish her so much as embody her.

[southernselkie.livejournal.com]

I'm actually glad to hear that. hug

[qos.livejournal.com]

Glad to hear what?

That I haven't forsworn all sexy images?

[southernselkie.livejournal.com]

No, that you were willing to think again about what some people find sexy as well as what you or I feel is sexy. I agree, the statement about women should be "yadda yadda..." was not cool, but the image itself may not be such a horror. I have to say, there are times that Sean has walked in when I've been bending over laundry or a load of dishes and he has made comments, and vice versa. Just a thought. You are just usually not so judgemental. It startled me. And, I have a friend who has a very similar statue because he finds it sexy, and he is a man who shows women all respect and honor.

[qos.livejournal.com]

I think that for me it's the reduction of a woman's character and meaning to a sexually-available menial. And -- and here is where I had to really start deconstructing my own response -- it's the hand-washing the costume combined with the fuck-me pose that pushes the image across my personal 'yuck' threshold.

Perhaps it's that the overall impact of the statue is to reduce a character who doesn't act this way in the comic to a caricatured bimbo that appeals to the lowest common denominator of the adolescent male crowd. They could have made a sexy MJ image that didn't (as athenian_abroad pointed out above) diminish her in this way.

I've had the same experience as you of having my partner come in and enjoy the view of me bent over doing chores. But I don't think either of us would like to have that pose captured, our clothing reduced to the bare minimum, and have that version of us published as the image of who we are.

[southernselkie.livejournal.com]

True. And that's a valid point. Again, I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just saying I am glad to see you deconstructing and thinking about it. I think that remains important for both of us. And the point that there are images we both enjoy that other people would find grossly demeaning,(my current icon is an example) is a perspective to note. Again, I just like seeing the deconstruction and thinking about where things come from. Make sense?