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

[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.