Marvel’s demeaning Mary-Jane comiquette
In the wake of Spider-man III, Marvel have released a 'comiquette' of Mary-Jane. 'Comiquettes' are small sculptures depicting the character in a particular situation1 and the Mary-Jane depiction is causing quite the stir. With good reason.
Most comic-book artists and writers are, for whatever reason, male. For this reason you find a large number of thin-ish male superheroes who look relatively realistic - if the average guy went to the gym all day every day for a year, he could probably get a similar physique - and female superheroes who definitely don't. Finding actresses to play Wonder Woman is really, really difficult, because no woman actually looks like that. Plenty of people object to this. I'm rather conflicted. Sometimes I think it's harmless fun and that the average comic geek is perfectly capable of understanding it's all fantasy, and sometimes I think it's a bit much. I just read what seems to be a reasonable position: there's no problem with any particular female superhero being permanently sexy and dressing in revealing outfits, but there's a problem when they're all this way
So what's the fuss with the Mary-Jane figure? Firstly, she's posed like a Playboy model. With incredibly long, vertical legs and bending over with low-riding jeans and visible thong, Kylie has nothing on her. Move around to the front and she has a cleavage that looks like she's kidnapped Right Said Fred. If it stopped there I'd think it was tacky. It's excessive and they'd get some deserved criticism - even if your aim is openly to make a sexy sculpture, you could be far classier about it - but I could possibly be convinced that your average teenage boy would get some entertainment out of it without thinking real women hang around in such poses. It might make an amusing joke-present, too. But it doesn't stop there. There's a reason she's bending over: she's washing Spider-man's costume.
I'll say it again: she's washing Spider-man's costume. Barefoot. Pictures here.
Clearly, you can't defend that. There's nothing inherently wrong with fantasising over looks - even if every comic geek is in fact only attracted to non-existent Supergirl-lookalikes, that still needn't imply a lack of respect for women2 - but adding a clear element of subservience to the fantasy is unambiguously demeaning. I'm aware there's worse out there, but this isn't some small company run by some guy with a broken sense of humour, it's one of two major players in a huge industry. What were they thinking?!
Hello!
Hey, thanks for coming! I'm Andrew, and this is where my headthinks come to breed. They often meander around humanism and photography, but they're flighty and you can't trust them, so anything is possible.
Do feel free to email me - I get lonely:
Your hair looks swish, by the way - have you done something new?
Recent Comments
- vicky: going up this weekend having done all the welsh peaks except 4 snowdon, cant wait
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: what, how can u live in the 21 c and say that, probably a sexist thing
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: da iawn laura, cant believe what im hearing, all this fuss, anyway love the site, and i agree, normal people who swear and curse clomb mountains cos we live in the...
on Climbing Snowdon. - Andrew: Did a few quick test shots to check the light levels, then balanced the camera on the arm of a bench, set it for a 20s exposure and hoped for the best
on ISS. - lynsey: Wow, how did you take that photograph?
on ISS.
May 15th, 2007 - 21:37
With the greatest level of respect, is this whole thing not being somewhat blown out of proportion? I hardly think that the existence of these figures is suddenly going to cause widespread belief among fans, that a woman’s place is, in keeping with the old-fashioned stereotype, in the kitchen. Quite honestly, I doubt if many would give the situation in which the character is being depicted, a second thought.
I don’t honestly see the problem with every female superhero being depicted as being ‘perfect’, aesthetically, either. Okay, so it’s shallow, and I’m actually a fairly unshallow person, but such is life; let’s not overlook the fact that good-looking men are overly-represented in the media etc, too. As for her being barefoot, is that really of any significance? I’m fully aware as to the cliche, but I don’t see that a connection necessarily should be made.
Just to point out: I say this as someone who does NOT believe that a woman’s place is in the kitchen, and who goes for personality over looks, in women.
May 15th, 2007 - 21:49
Plus, I was under the impression that most male superheroes were depicted as being extremely muscular; which is not any more realistic-looking, than is the female figure. Not any more unshallow, either. Mind you, I admit that I don’t know too much about superhero characters, so maybe I’m not in the best position to judge.
May 16th, 2007 - 10:14
Oh and she’s wearing a pearl necklace too… this is also a contributing factor that I’m unwilling to explain to the confused.
May 18th, 2007 - 22:02
Many people seem to be completely ignoring the fact that Adam Hughes, the artist who rendered the image this statue is based on, has specifically stated that this dipiction is of Mary Jane is finding the Spiderman costume in the wash. This was noted prior to the statue’s release too.
So now that we’ve removed the “demeaning” factor, I’m afraid I fail to see what the problems is. Okay, so she’s wearing a pearl necklace; is toungue-in-cheek adult humor a terrible thing? Especially coming from a company who won’t let anyone under 18 purchase product from their website (I’ve done my homework)… Where’s the issue? We’re all adults here, right?
(If it helps to put this comment into perspective, I’m a 25 year old female; I live happily with my boyfriend of three years… and I have this statue on order- for myself)
September 2nd, 2007 - 17:27
Someone apparently has way toooooooooo much time on their hands to be complaining about a “cheesecake” statue!
September 2nd, 2007 - 17:30
Can’t deny that
What does “‘cheesecake’ statue” mean?
September 2nd, 2007 - 17:55
I’m referring to the pin-up art done in the 30′s & 40′s by artists such as Charles Dana Gibson, Alberto Vargas & Gil Elvgren.
Artists such as Olivia De Berardinis, Hajime Sorayama & Adam Hughes, their pin-up artwork is sometimes called “Cheesecake”.
Drawings or photos of beautiful, shapely and scantily clothed women are often called “Cheesecake”.
Hughes’s MJ statue is considered “Cheesecake” by some.
September 2nd, 2007 - 18:44
I didn’t know that – interesting! Thanks for the info.
November 29th, 2007 - 19:41
I totally agree, i have no idea what the writer of this article was thinking, for one the average guy does not look like superhero’s depicted in comics, nor is aas easy for us to obtain that look. There are men and women that do look very “fantasy” out there so why complain? Do these people haveto try and ban everything so that they can feel more comfortable with themselves. if a statue of a comic book caracter is threatening something in your life then you have bigger issues to deal with. She could be just in a bikini, bending over, who cares you don’t like it don’t buy it, or look at it.
Everyone knows comic books are mostly read by men so if they make the girls look fantasy then who cares, the men aren’t exactly slim jims either, you don’t hear an uproar that batmans tights are to tight and making me feel inatiquit, or that he gets to pick up hot women everywhere. People who have a problem with this or any other form of art should sit back and reflect on whats wrong with their own lives, cause that seems to be the only problem with this statue! Can’t wait for mine to come in for Christmas.
February 10th, 2008 - 23:50
Get your info right, the statue isnt of her doing his laundry. The statue is her finding his costume in the laundry hamper. do some research first, and dont jump to conclusions.
February 11th, 2008 - 00:28
Whatever it’s meant to be, I think it’s pretty open to interpretation…