There’s been a fair bit of discussion (and quite a bit of ranting) about some recently announced comics merchandise, such as the new Supergirl statue and one of Mary Jane Parker hand-washing Spider-Man’s costume while leaning over in a provocative pose. Some see it as harmless fun of the old naughty seaside postcard variety, some argue it offers the main readership (younger males) what they want, others think it is an awful degradation to all women and simple pandering to male fan’s fantasies. Well, it certainly does pander to fantasies, but that’s what many characters from fiction do (so too do superpowers, after all) and it also pre-supposes that some women don’t also take pleasure from looking at such stylised images of attractive female characters, which isn’t the case. Or indeed, that some of that male readership may be gay and enjoy looking at the very idealised physiques of the male characters (if one kind of ‘male gaze’ is wrong, is the other? Is the ‘female gaze’ wrong too? Should we all wear dark glasses all the time? There’s one for media students to ponder while trying to keep a straight face reading Laura Mulvey, especially in today’s media climate).
(the offending – or delighting, or simply silly fun, depending on your view – statue of MJ)
I find it interesting that the reverse doesn’t happen too often though – I remember passing past an enormous billboard of a well-muscled naked Scotsman holding a plate of Scottish beef to cover his modesty with the text reading something like “take home a hunk of prime Scots beefcake tonight.” Strangely enough there were no floods of complaints by men about being degraded and objectified; personally I wasn’t offended as I have now learned to live with being viewed as a sex object… (okay, maybe not…). And many women’s magazine carry even more stylised images for their readers to supposedly aspire to. So, as I said, I can’t see any clear settling of this; however, whichever side of the argument over body and gender depictions you come down on, Boing Boing has come to the rescue by balancing the scales with this re-interpretation of the MJ statue:
(this image was created by Logasrogue, appearing on the Devildoll Live Journal and, to my mind, cuts through both sides by using that wonderful device – humour. Some people seem to lack that faculty.)
August 1st, 2009 at 10:03 am
I would think that men don’t get upset over the ‘female gaze’, as women are unique in that they have been subjected to decades, if not centuries (millenia?) of degradation, bigotry, exploitation, and the rest, leading to the ingrained attitudes of men and institutions that women are a commodity, etc.
Had the roles been reversed, then yes, I imagine men would be today bristling at the ‘female gaze’.
So, dear subscriber above, I hope you can understand why your comments on types of gaze don’t really hold any weight.
Best wishes.
September 4th, 2009 at 12:13 am
>>Sumerboy: I’m in total agreement with you. Had our society been matriarchal (like Indus Valley Civilization in Ancient India, according to some historians), the wheel would’ve turned in the opposite direction entirely. But either way, it’d have been as much despotic and oppressive as Patriarchy.
>>Author of the post: “And many women’s magazine carry even more stylised images for their readers to supposedly aspire to.”….this in fact is a patriarchal policy to shape and ‘dress up’ the female into what is most sexually appealing to the male eyes!
February 1st, 2010 at 3:28 am
People get upset over some of the strangest things. Gettin upset over this statue is one of those things. If someone wants a statue like that in their house…WHO CARES!! It’s not anymore your buisness than what some guy choses to read for a magazine. This is what America is all about. Besides I’ve seen far more sexually provocative statues in local stores of made up characters, and you don’t see women walking around in front of those doorways with protest signs. Women need to understand what makes men tick. Men aren’t going to change their basic instincts anymore than women will stop acting the way they do about shopping for clothes.
February 14th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
I guess the big issue people seem to be missing in this conversation (maybe you’re all boys) is that she’s washing his superhero suit (stereotypical unpaid drudgery activity of the historically woman-centered domestic sphere). The reclining Scottish stud described sounds like he’s just holding the beef up. That would be the key difference about why it might be offensive guys. To my mind, in a modern world and in my own family, Spidie would be considered more than old enough to wash his own duds and would be expected to do so.
That said, the Logasrogue response to it is completely hilarious. Thanks for posting it.
March 8th, 2010 at 5:44 am
Wondergirl, the issue on this statue didn’t concern the fact that Mary Jane is washing Spidermans uniform, what women are upset over was the idea that she’s bent over wearing tight jeans a thong and a tight shirt while washing Spidermans uniform. What I think people are trying to say about that is…SO WHAT. What the Mary Jane statue is wearing is the same thing you see young women wear while shopping or just hanging out every day. So why is it wrong to make a statue depicting a modern day female look for a comic book character?
And just to reply to the thought about the Mary Jane statue depicting a sterotype; if Spiderman is all worn out after fighting all the criminals in the city, why wouldn’t Mary Jane want to help him out by washing his clothes so he can rest up? Would that be so wrong? In my family, chores are shared not assigned by gender. One hand washes the other so both hands can wash the face.