Women in comics

Comic book coloring isn't particularly known for its subtle distinctions of skin tone.
YES.

I wish people would actually pay more attention to the differences between 'evoked verisimilitude' and 'artistic license'. Seriously.

Also, Spaniard + Asian = Filipino. But that doesn't mean Spaniard + Japanese or Spaniard + Chinese = Filipino. 'Asian' is a broad ethnic category, and doesn't take into account the fact that Filipinos are also descended from various percentages of Negro and Indo-Malay stock.
 
It doesn't count when you're saying to stall for time because you're only repeating what they said because you don't have a witty comeback prepped.

And I wasn't really teasing him for his use of the word.....so much as I was teasing the statement "the kids say" portion. We Kings of the Days of Yore might use it in jest amongst one another or to make ourselves seem superior o those around us.....but the kids today ain't saying "tawdry" or "trollop".

And if they are.......I'd check to see if they were posessed by some 87 year old trapped in a nusing home.

Angel Reference FTW!

I didn't say kids talk like that?
 
I didn't say kids talk like that?

You know what----you're right. My bad. I went back and re-read your post....and you're right. You said the kids say "hot". You say "tawdry" and "trollop".

So I was wrong....and Mavericker has corrected me.

Domo Arigatto Mr.Roboto.



Domo.
 
I personally find the image distasteful, if only because there are so few other options about how Mary Jane is portrayed in mechandise that don't emphasize either her sexuality OR her domseticity. It feels limiting and restrictive, because there are few other options out there.

I think it's totally healthy to depcit a character as being sexual, and having homemaking skills. But when you make those two characteristics into the ones that *define* her (as the statue does), you're flattening a perfectly well rounded characrer into an one dimensional image.

Mate, I gotta disagree.
68181_press01-001.jpg

(from the site)

I'm lucky enough to have a higher-res pic of this and you can't see it too well, but I think the picture isn't flattening the character. It would be if she was just vacant shock look, or what-have-you. The expression of her face gives you a huge indication to the character as a party girl that MJ is. Hell, I think the thought bubble should be, "I just hit the jackpot!"

It's not making her a sexy housewife - it's showing you the many sides of Mary Jane. The sexy housewife, and the irresponsible party girl.

That isn't flattening her character. It's expressing it.
 
Mate, I gotta disagree.
68181_press01-001.jpg

(from the site)

I'm lucky enough to have a higher-res pic of this and you can't see it too well, but I think the picture isn't flattening the character. It would be if she was just vacant shock look, or what-have-you. The expression of her face gives you a huge indication to the character as a party girl that MJ is. Hell, I think the thought bubble should be, "I just hit the jackpot!"

It's not making her a sexy housewife - it's showing you the many sides of Mary Jane. The sexy housewife, and the irresponsible party girl.

That isn't flattening her character. It's expressing it.
I agree. It's a lot tamer than the controversy suggests. And as you point out, it's the expression that makes everything.

I might be more inclined to agree with compound had the facial expression been something more like the 'puckered lips and bambi eyes of shock' faces that has been utilized in similar sculptures and artwork, but it's not.

compound said:
I personally find the image distasteful, if only because there are so few other options about how Mary Jane is portrayed in mechandise that don't emphasize either her sexuality OR her domseticity. It feels limiting and restrictive, because there are few other options out there.
That might have been true back in the 1990s, but generally speaking MJ has been consistently portrayed in merchandise in a wholesome fashion, largely due to the fact that John Romita, Sr --- co-creator of MJ --- has been responsible for art direction at Marvel up until the early 90s and has always spoken about his preference for the wholesome image of MJ and it shows.

In fact, I find that people who think that Mary Jane is portrayed in merchandise as sexually/domestically focused are those whose most 'memorable' image of her as coming from the 90s which is precisely when they sexualized the hell out of her.
 
In fact, I find that people who think that Mary Jane is portrayed in merchandise as sexually/domestically focused are those whose most 'memorable' image of her as coming from the 90s which is precisely when they sexualized the hell out of her.
... which probably includes the cross-section of the buying public with both the interest AND disposable income to want to buy it, in the first place.

And since when have I suggested that a more 'wholesome' MJ was the ideal? I don't find the statue 'immodest', nor am I suggesting to put a ****ing burqa on her (though I suspect Moony will do so anyway, if he reads this).

I'll give you 2 possible statue ideas that I'd like to see, both of which convey different aspects MJ's personality, as well as the Spidey branding:

* MJ dressed up in the cocktail waitress/jazz singer garb (similar to the third movie), posed as if she's mid-performance, with a spotlight in the shape of the Spidey mask below her (and perhaps a webbing motif on her dress); her expression is coquettish and playful; her stance indicates that she's definitely her own performer, but we know who her show is dedicated to

* the Ultimate version of MJ in functional casual wear, (comfortably but non-suggestively) hunched over a Macbook, with the desktop graphic of the Spidey logo, and a mounted webcam pointed in her direction; we get the impression she's assisting Peter in his research, even as he enjoys the view on the other end

Now, if you see designs like those alongside the tongue-in-cheek vintage pin-up homage, you have a more well-balanced variety of representations of the character. It doesn't underplay or negate her sexuality, but at the same time, it can't be misconstrued as retrograde fanboy wank material.
 
And since when have I suggested that a more 'wholesome' MJ was the ideal? I don't find the statue 'immodest', nor am I suggesting to put a ****ing burqa on her
Never said you did.

Don't attempt to put words in my mouth saying that I put words in yours.
 
The theory that dressing dowdy makes you safe and dressing sexy gets you killed doesn't seem to have much basis in our source material. The worst thing to be is the hero's (reasonably respectably dressed) girlfriend. Hot babes seem to have more staying power. (Not that Katma Tui and Gwen Stacy were not hot, in their upright, straight-laced ways.)

That's my impression anyway. But backing it up is complicated, because:
1. Villains die a lot, and come back from the dead. This doesn't prove that wearing armor like Doctor Doom does gets you killed; it's just part of what villains do.
2. The same character can wear different costumes at different times.

Jean Grey can illustrate both these points. She's worn a lot of different outfits. You could take a picture of her in her 1960s green mini-skirt Marvel Girl outfit and say "well of course she got killed". But Jean Grey as Marvel Girl did fine; it was in her full-coverage though form-fitting outfits that she got caught in a revolving door of deaths and resurrections. Then again, maybe a "get out of the grave free" card is an improvement in merely not happening to die?
 
Well, I'm playing mod, and I'm repeating what Victor said.

Stop.

The reason this thread is still open is because Dr. Strangefate and I have been yanking off-topic posts and keeping a close eye on this discussion. Mavericker's personal views on sexuality are off topic. The fact that you find some comic book "chick" to be "hot" adds nothing to the discussion. Zombipanda, if you've got a point about how a person's views on sexuality have an impact on his or her perception of women in comics, please make it in an academic manner, without targeting Mavericker or anyone else.

Seriously, guys, it's a valid topic and there's been a lot of intelligent discussion, but like so many threads here at UC, it's on the verge of deteriorating into a round of dirty jokes and people nattering about their reproductive organs. If you can't add anything that furthers the discussion, please don't post.

Thank you- I don't want Dr. Strangefate to infract me.

Anyway, getting back to topic, when I was at the DC Comics Message Boards, someone posted a topic called, Raven has Nice Legs:

http://dcboards.warnerbros.com/web/thread.jspa?messageID=2003606034&#2003606034

I don't like the character, and I have explained why I don't like the character in other threads, but I think it was sick they way they were discussing the character and objectifying the character.
 
What's the deal with Phantom Lady's outfit? I thought Power Girl's costume was bad.

Seeing Invisible Woman in a bikini was a big turn-off.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top