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.

[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.)

[southernselkie.livejournal.com]

I'm actually glad to hear that. hug