I know (from reading the LJ linked to) I'm supposed to post a response of outrage, but really, the best I can do is just roll my eyes a little.

Then you're part of the problem. That statue is outrageous. Admittedly, I can think of at least two ways to make it worse*, but this is not a case of boys-and-their-toys: That statue is a hypersexualized rendition of a woman placed in a regressive social role and enjoying it. It is a tool designed to exploit and reinforce the image of women as servants and sexual playthings of men.

*Pregnancy and humiliation.

Yeah, uh, Greg....lighten up. Human sexuality is fair game for artwork. The statue depicts a married woman preparing to do laundry. Yes, it's a classic pin up pose, but it's not even the most sexualized image I'e seen today.

Look, it's a dumb statue, not like I'm going to buy it, but there's more important things to go on about. Frankly, it's just hypocritical to go on and on about it if you're still buying products from dc and marvel and image and harris and .....

It's Anti-Feminist Bingo time!

That's three squares from Mike and two from Scav, I'm well on my way to a win!

I find the statue nauseating. I know that DC has been bad lately, but this strikes me as another instance of Marvel being willing to whore their oh-so-valuable IP in any way that will sell. I'm embarrassed to be in the same market segment as the people who would buy this thing. Really, how many degrees is this away from a Gwen Stacy Blow-up doll? Hey, you know that silicon-vagina-in-a-flashlight? The should brand one as the "Susan Storm Invisible Woman Simulator!"

Okay, first, I don't actually see how point out that a statue of a fully clothed, married woman who was a professional model bending over at the waist preparing to do her husband's laundry is not necessarily hypersexalized except to the extent that it plays on whatever bizare, geeky fetish Greg morow might be interested in even gets me one square. I don't see "It comforms to the general standards of art of a human practice" anywhere on the board.

Second, I was at the ERA march on Washington in 1978 and the 1980 march in Chicago. Unless you and the person who wrote that bingo thing have similar feminist credentials, you can both go shove a fully clothed statue up your collective ass.

You know, there are enough real giants out there in the world that you have to tilt at the windmills. And that statue is not even a pinwheel.

She's barefoot, washing her husband's clothes, sculpted to in-human proportions, oversexualized in those proportions and presenting her rear in the air like a mandrill.

The difference between the open sexuality of a pin-up and this sculpture is the allusion to two different misogynistic archetypes - the lil' woman barefoot in the kitchen [or wherever she's got that bucket full of her man's clothes], and the pearl necklace, harking back to the good old days when women did housework in heels and a pearl necklace.

It goes over the line between objectification of women [which we all agree is wonderful!] and outright biased anti-feminist portrayal. MJ's supposed to be his wife, not his hooker slash housekeeper.

Horrible. Absolutely horrible.

I suppose there are three things to consider here, well, four:

1) Is the image meant to be sexy. Well, yes, obviously.

2) Does that fact, by itself, make it "anti-feminist" or "evil" or even "hypersexualized?" No. I mean, why would it? It's just a statue of a fully clothed woman preparing to do launrdry. Bending over? Yes, but that's been a pin up pose since forever, and the idea that doing laundry and wearing pearls somehow invokes a different archetype that eliminates the fairness of using a pin up pose such that this is now evil is, frankly, bizarre and stupid.

Cleavage? Well, yes, but so what? I see women in lower cut tops every day and so do you. Thong showing? That outfit is actually less revealing than most of the outfits I see on young women these days because the whale tail isn't showing.

3) The top three most anti-feminist things Greg has ever seen in comics stuff. I don't know what Greg has seen and what he hasn't, and that might cause a more prudent poster to hesitate in posting, but what the hey? No, it's not. Lady Death? Warrior Nun Arreala? Angela? Black Canary being depowered? Do me a favor...

4)The problem here is that the male establishment has always been afraid of female sexuality. This attitude has led to thousands of years of female oppression. Muslim women have to wear berkas lest men be enticed by their evil appearance. In the Victorian era, they didn't even carve shapes on furniture legs, in case the shapes reminded men of the female form and led to sinful thoughts.

Perhaps, Nyx, we should just lock the women in a harem until you need them. Or maybe you're of the John Ashcroft school, and we can just have them drap the statue's tits when you come to the store. How many squares does that get, Greg?

Mike, the reason I'm calling that statue anti-feminist is that I believe that the artistic statement that it makes is "Women are the servants and sexual playthings of men", and that offends me to the core of my identity as a human.

Hypersexuality doesn't disturb me. I like sexy women, and I like lookin' at 'em. What disturbs me is hypersexuality in connection with servitude. This isn't naughty teasing in servant costume, like, say, a French maid outfit; this is actual barefoot-doing-hand-laundry.

Why isn't Power Girl, with the focus on her enormous breasts and her peekaboo cleavage window, anti-feminist? Because she doesn't take any shit from men; she considers herself the equal or superior of most of the men she meets, and she acts like it.

Oh, and David Horowitz was in Chicago in '68; that doesn't mean that his opinion about liberalism today gets automatic credence.

As for tilting at pinwheels, superhero comics is a small enough world that there's actually a non-zero chance that I can help make a difference.

So wait, Spiderman's costume isn't machine washable or dry clean only? I tell you what. When we solve the equal wage
issue, I'll start worrying about this one. Everyone who actually reads the comics knows that Peter does his own laundry and sewing.

When do they announce the companion piece of Peter in his skivvies on the couch with his feet up cracking a beer?

Damn, with Lewis's post, that's the third time that I've drawn "there are bigger things to worry about". Spread out a little, guys. I really need a "this girl I know thinks it's fine", hint hint.

Since Nyx is my wife, Mike, she'd probably find your statement about locking her in a harem until she needs herself to be nonsensical.

The reason for the misogyny of the artwork in question is contextual: it's not that her breasts are on display, it's not that she's in a thong and ripped jeans and barefoot, it's not that she's supposedly washing clothes (and I dare anyone to wash something in a bucket in that pose, I double dog dare you even), it's context. It's taken all in all, the statement that the artwork makes and its relationship to other, similar artworks throughout history. The pearl necklace, the rip in the back of the pants, and the fact that no one at Marvel seems to have been able to look at this piece and realize that it would offend people, both female and male, for its regressive statement and hypersexualized posing.

The idea that "there are worse things to worry about" is foolish because it is self-defeating. There are worse things in the universe to worry about than sexism in comic books in the first place, but that's not an excuse to allow sexism wherever you find it. It neither obligates you to care about it nor obligates me NOT to care.

Hello Greg,

I also see the statue as pretty poisonous stuff. Thanks mostly to my influence, my 8-year-old daughter is very into Marvel comics characters, and Peter and MJ are some of her favorites. I generally like the character of Mary Jane, particularly when portrayed as a strong, fun, unpredictable, independent woman - beautiful as well, but much more than just a pretty face (which is why I consider her more interesting than Gwen Stacy, who generally lacked MJ's spark).

McKeever and Straczynski have both written MJ very well in recent years, I thought, and I've heard the novels by O'Brien were decent as well. She was also great in that recent annual by Fraction and Larroca in one of the Spidey titles.

This statue completely fails to capture what the character is all about. There are some great statues of Peter as Spider-Man. I don't buy them, but I think they look pretty cool - heroic, strong, all the usual superhero stuff. But for her statues, as with 90% of statues of female comic characters, MJ is relegated from heroic character or even sexy icon to subservient/oversexualized status (yes, there is a difference!). It's just a cheap, stupid portrayal, kind of a 12-year-old male fantasy of a sexy woman.

It may not be women's suffrage or wage disparity we're talking about here, but that doesn't make it unimportant. Marvel's all ages line contains some surprisingly strong work designed to draw kids into the Marvel world. And with the megahit status of Spider-Man 3, these characters are culturally relevant at the moment, and Marvel should take care of them. Misogynistic cheesecake like this statue sends the wrong message to boys and girls alike. Yes, it is just a statue, and since I don't like it I won't buy it; yes, it's one small drop amongst a deluge of such influence in our society, but every drop counts.

I'm certainly not saying I want all female characters in ankle-length dresses or something, but why does sexy have to equal subservient and ridiculous? I'm also not saying that Marvel has to raise anyone's kids, but they would do well to consider how they portray Mary Jane--who has not always been handled perfectly by various writers, but remains one of their best, strongest characters, within what has become their flagship franchise (FF lost capital due to the mediocre first movie, in my mind).

The character deserves better than this statue.

She also deserves better than to be killed off.

Thanks for another great topic and post.

Cheers,
TB

In re: harems, Matt I presume your wife actually reads the blog or she wouldn't have posted. Should I direct my response to you because I can't address your wife, or should I wait and she if she says she finds it nonsensical so I can point out that harems were established for dynastic reasons to make sure the father of a child was established, thus making them useful to the women as well as the men in question? (This information included in, e.g. The Cartoon History of the Universe.)

Greg: As for the context, I saw that exact outfit (jeans come pre-torn these days) on a clerk the other day. (Got your back, Greg. Need any other squares?) Well, okay, no pearls and sandalls, but her bra was showing. Additionally Mary Jane has always been presented as a sexpot. From her very first appearance. That's exactly how she would dress. But I suppose that just means she's a filthy whore. I know: the next statue can have her dressed in sack cloth, perhaps with a whimple and a scarlet "A."

Servitude? So Mary Jane should never do Peter's laundry? Or she should not be depicted doing it? Or just not his costume. Or she shouldn't wear pearls? Or not bend over but squat down?

Finally, save me from people without a classical education. Don Quixote tilted at windmills because they might be giants. They were large and impressive looking, but they were not, in fact, a danger. This statue is neither large nor impressive, and it's certainly not any sort of danger or even a particularly anti-feminist statement. It's not a windwill, but rather a a pinwheel. It's not that it might be a giant. It can't possibly be a giant. There's enough real sexism in comics that you don't have to manufacture it. That statue is a nothing. It's not even a particularly good statue, actually. I saw more overtly sexual images of Mary Jane in every single issue of Spider-Man drawn by Mark Beachum. Those weren't antifeminist either. They were in-character drawings of a beautiful young woman who was a professional model and thus very fashionable.

It's not that there are bigger things to worry about. There are other things to worry about. In facts, it's not that there are other things to worry about. There are things to worry about and this is no thing. Hmm, is there one word in English that means "no thing." This is a huge non-issue. It's stupid and silly and not worth your time. I might add, as with the Roy Lichtenstein thing from a few months back, stop listening to these morons on the other blogs, they don't have a the vaguest clue what they are talking about. Roy Lichtenstein was not stealing from comics artists, and that statue is not an anti-feminist statement. It's nothing.

"Face it Tiger, you hit the jackpot."

In this statement "Tiger" has hit the jackpot because:

a) Mary Jane shares many common interests with Peter Parker.

b) Mary Jane is a fully realized human being.

c) Mary Jane is going to take him to Atlantic City and teach Peter Parker her blackjack system.

d) Mary Jane can bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, and never let you forget you're a man...

e) Mary Jane is a hot red-head.

How is Mary Jane meant to be portrayed again?

What I really meant to say is a I like it and the maquettes you find offensive and hope they keep producing more of the same. Feel free to be offended, though. The same 1st amendment that allows your offense allows the figures. As a result, as long as there is a market they aren't going away. (Does that fill in your There's nothing to be done square?)

Greg, you go see Spider-Man 3? You still buying Marvel comics?
I didn't see any declarations of you throwing your comic collection out.

I believe that the artistic statement that it makes is "Women are the servants and sexual playthings of men"

See, that's where you're mind went. Mine went to: oh look, Mary Jane's washing Peter's costume.

The nothing to be done and probably the censorship one as well, although we'll have to go to a judge on the last, I think.

Honestly, there's something in my brain that doesn't allow me to visually process the image of that statue without incorporating loads of irony that I'm almost certain on a rational level that the maker never intended.

Mike, it's not whether or not you can address my wife, it's whether or not you can take five seconds to figure out that some people in this world are women when you address them. Since you can't be bothered to do that work on your own, I thought I'd help you out. As to the origin of harems... since we're not planning on having children and I don't cheat on her or she on me, I fail to see what benefit she'd get from being so confined. But thanks for applying a cultural concept from another place and time and acting as if it had any sort of relevance - it kind of proves the point about your worldview more eloquently than I could have imagined.

Matt: As I said the issue of harems is non-gender specific. Sheesh.

Besides, I'm now supposed to account for a person's gender before responding to an arguement from them? Nope. Doesn't work that way.

Given the signature, "Nyx," how was I meant to determine gender? Ask? What does it matter what the person's gender is? Either the person has a valid point or not.

What I said was:

The problem here is that the male establishment has always been afraid of female sexuality. This attitude has led to thousands of years of female oppression. Muslim women have to wear berkas lest men be enticed by their evil appearance. In the Victorian era, they didn't even carve shapes on furniture legs, in case the shapes reminded men of the female form and led to sinful thoughts.

Perhaps, Nyx, we should just lock the women in a harem until you need them. Or maybe you're of the John Ashcroft school, and we can just have them drap the statue's tits when you come to the store. How many squares does that get, Greg?

So, I am basically saying that the person I am responding to has taken an untenable view of female sexuality using the hyperbolic examples of a harem and John Ashcroft. Your response that she would have no use for a harem is sheerest pedantry. The point I am making is that the statue is a sexualized respresentation of a character that has always been portrayed sexually. Whether the particular example in my response applies (and frankly, it's hardly meant to be taken seriously as the John Ashcroft and the bingo remarks in the very same paragraph indicate) is irrelevant to the real point: the Mary Jane statue is not particularly sexual in comparison to any other firmly established standards of the medium. Elmo's complaints are based in his own insecurities regarding female sexuality, and I would submit the same is true of anyone who similarly objects regardless of gender.

"The point I am making is that the statue is a sexualized respresentation of a character that has always been portrayed sexually."

Mike, if you don't see the difference between the character as a character in a narrative and this statue, I can't help you.

"Elmo's complaints are based in his own insecurities regarding female sexuality, and I would submit the same is true of anyone who similarly objects regardless of gender."

Dude, you have crossed the line. Even if you were qualified, psychoanalyzing your friends to win an argument is going too far.

In my opinion, Greg's complaints are based on the fact that he's completely right, while you're not and simply being obstinate.

Uh-huh. yeah, Chris, I don't need your help. If you can't see how a statue is meant to represent a narrative reality in three dimensions, then you have no business discussing the artform. Look at Michelangelo's David and Pieta. Look at Rodin's Gates of Hell. Sculpture is a form of character representation. Mary Jane in the statue is shown as a supporting character of Spider-man reflected in her role as Spider-man's wife/girlfriend/whatever. That's the point of the costume.

To say that the mere fact it is a statue somehow removes the narrative aspects of the character is ludicrous. I'd commend your attention to Phydias' Statue of Zeus at Olympia as an example of narrative sculpture, but I'm not sure it would do any good.

As for crossing the line... Don't be a fool. Greg dismissed the objections we made as part of a bingo game without considering them at all.

I am merely pointing out that the possible underlying insecurity responsible for his view of the statue makes it every bit as dismissible as any predictability in my point might be.

Your opinions regarding the correctness of his complaints about putting a supporting character in a servile role are, of course, your entitlement. But please don't tell me sculpture is divorced from narrative and then expect me to take your opinion about a scuplture based in narrative seriously.

Hmmm.. you know, this is the first response that's actually pissed me off.

That being the case, I'm going to lecture. Let's take a closer look at the Mary Jane statue compared with a truly great female statue, say the Winged Victory of Samothrace.

That statue was damaged, so we don't know whether she had a crown for the victor or a trumpet, but she is in flight, descending. Her clothing is form fitting as though the wind blows her cloak around her body. Her wings are in flapping motion. You can see her descent to the victorious fleet. Why? Because we know how Nike was portrayed in Greek Mythology. We know her role. We therefore know what the sculptor was trying to convey.

Now, Mary Jane. What's her role? Well, she's in Spiderman's supporting cast, so some indication of Spidey would be nice. Oh, look, she's holding a costume. Now, what is her role in Spiderman? Well, she's not the damsel in distress. That's Gwen. She's not the sidekick. That's Black Cat. She's not the first love. That's Betty. She's not Mom. That's May. She's the wife. Hmm, I wonder how the artist chose to portray a domestic relationship? Maybe that's why the whole laundry basket theme is there. Finally, what's her job? Model, and, oh, look. She's in a classic model pose.

Now, why do I think it's a bad statue? Mary Jane is a confident character. I don't think the over the shoulder Playboy pose is the best fit. Additionally, her breasts are too big the proportions of the statue. The pose is sexy enough by itself without the huge breasts. Plus, the sculpting of the female form is just too cartoony for my tastes. I think they'd have been better off just putting her into a Spiderman themed swimsuit with a wedding ring. Also that would enable them to put her into the head on Mary Jane in your face pose. "Face it Tiger, you hit the Jackpot."

Bad statue, yes. Sexist, statue, well, mixed vibes, but only to the extent that all such portrayals are inherently sexist. Antifeminist statue? Don't be silly. All the aspects of the statue have a good, obvious reason to be there. Calling this statue antifeminist is like calling a Punisher statue which shows him shooting an Uzi "pro-violence."

I find the statue repugnant, but I can't get angry about it. I'm just disappointed.

Mike, you think Don Quixote is part of a Classical education? I thought that would involve the Classics, like Homer, not a modern writer like Cervantes.

One of the reasons I've been pretty dismissive in this thread is that claims that this is a classic pin-up pose don't hold up. We're looking at a bent-over, straight-legged, back-arched pose that no real person could hold for more than a moment (look at where her center of gravity is; it's about a foot in front of her hips).

I happen to have a variety of pin-up books on my shelf. Let's have a look at Let Them Eat Cheesecake: The Art of Olivia. Page 19; the model is bent over at about a 45 degree angle, not the near-90 of MJ; and her legs are not straight. Page 21; highly fantastic pic, with an arched back near MJ's, but not bent over and not straight-legged, and she's seated, so the legs are not the key support. Page 37, arched back, not bent over, sitting on heels. Page 53 is about as close as you could get to the MJ pic, but the model is bent over only about ten degrees, because her weight still has to stay above her hips.

Ah, page 76! The model is actually bent completely over, with legs ruler straight; but the back isn't arched at all, and the arms are supporting the weight of the torso.

How about Julie Strain's Greatest Hits? We've got about a dozen Penthouse covers here, but even when the back is arched, the legs are shifted forward to get under the center of gravity. OK, here's Julie bent over 90 degrees on a bike, but her back's not arched and she's resting on her forearms. Hmm, plenty of Heavy Metal art, but when she's bent over, she's holding herself up with her arms, and when she's not taking weight on her arms, her torso is above her hips.

Nothing remotely similar in my copy of Art of Patrick Nagel; when Nagel does full figures, they're of women in standing straight up.

But all that verbiage is to get to this point: That's not a classic pin-up pose, Mike; it's an exaggeration of a classic pin-up pose, and that's one of the reasons why I quite specifically call it hypersexual.

"If you can't see how a statue is meant to represent a narrative reality in three dimensions, then you have no business discussing the artform."

Thanks again for the broad pronouncements, God.

With all due respect, I've actually taken sculpture classes in art school -- I have in fact actually sculpted as a serious endeavor -- I have taken art history classes, classes on art and psychology, and I've taken anthropology classes on art and the development of human cultures (where sculpture plays a somewhat significant role), so I think I get it.

In fact, I get it enough to know that there are many, many differences -- strong, important differences -- between the way a character is created, crafted, and developed in a piece of narrative fiction and a statue of a character -- whether it's Nike, David, or Mary Jane Parker.
Incidentally, your Nike example reinforces, not contradicts, this point. And along the same lines, it should be obvious that I am not saying that sculpture is divorced from narrative.

"Bad statue, yes. Sexist, statue, well, mixed vibes, but only to the extent that all such portrayals are inherently sexist. Antifeminist statue? Don't be silly. All the aspects of the statue have a good, obvious reason to be there."

Okay, now I'm trying to figure out what you think would constitute antifeminism.

"Calling this statue antifeminist is like calling a Punisher statue which shows him shooting an Uzi "pro-violence."

Actually you could do just that, although doing so would, in fact, carry a completely different host of cultural values and understandings -- which is kind of the point.

Let me add a couple more thoughts about this. It seems that a sticking point in the thread now is the term "anti-feminism." Mike, you say that it's a bad statue and that it can be construed as a sexist statue, at least from a certain point of view. But anti-feminist is "silly."

This is something that bothers me -- not because you said it, but because it gets into this fuzzy cultural area where I honestly don't know what the right answer is, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong. :-)

I'm a white, male, Christian -- my world experience is not one of cultural, racial, gender, or religious bias, discrimination, or victimization. I do not believe that I have, for instance, issues of white liberal guilt (as Billy O'Reilly uses the term) when it comes to race, nor do I believe that I have whatever the gender equivalent of white liberal guilt is.

But if a group of reasonable, intelligent women tells me that they are offended by something along the lines of this statue and believe it to be anti-feminist, at the very least it gives me pause. Before I tell them, "No, you're wrong. I know feminism better than you do," I better have some rock-solid reason and logic in my back pocket -- and even then I wouldn't attack their position with bully-like certitude. I would be inclined to err on the side of their judgment unless I felt very strongly otherwise.

Now, of course just because some random sample of women, no matter how wise or intelligent, says something is anti-feminist doesn't make it so, just as you and I have both seen issues of race raised in sports by black athletes or journalists when it was completely unwarranted. But if it's a close call at all, then just as a tie goes to the runner in baseball, I'm willing to defer to those who know what the particular bias, discrimination, or victimization actually feels like. I'm not going to tell a Native American who's offended by the Washington Redskins helmet logo that he's wrong, no matter how smart I think I am.

So let's talk about this actual statue again. Is it a bad statue? Enh. Technique-wise it's fine for what it is, although it's so aeshetically plain and unambitious I don't really know what to do with it in that sense.

Is it sexist? Well, here's where you are absolutely right about narrative and sculpture -- this is absolutely a narrative, a narrative of symbols, and they're all negative or sexist, or can easily be seen as such, as others have amply detailed previously in this thread. It is true that parts of this narrative coincide with similar sexist narrative from the actual comic book stories in which MJ is a character? Sure -- and that's a bad thing for the comics and this statue. It's also a narrative that has nothing positive to say about, well, anything -- culturally, narratively, or specific to the character herself.

Does that make it anti-feminist? Well, I'm not a card-carrying feminist -- I don't go to their meetings and I am unfamiliar with their brochures. I would guess that the cause of equality -- or at the very least, fair and mutual respect of a non-sexual nature -- is not served by sexist iconography, so I would assume that a feminist would say, "Hey, this statue expresses and drives enculturation that is at variance with my beliefs and goals!" So I would, therefore, assume that, well, it ain't exactly pro-feminist, nor does it fall into some grey area where it has nothing to say on the matter.

If I can be demolished on these points, then by all means, demolish away.

Carl: if you prefer, you can pretend I used whatever word other than "classical" floats your boat.

Greg: Mixed vibes. Mary Jane is not merely holding a hypersexualizd pose, if you will, but rather is in a certain position because she is picking up a costume out of a laundry basket. It is sexy, and in the context of audience response it is obviously meant to be sexy, but within the "mind" of the character, it is meant to be sexy?

Let's take a step back from this and look at a couple other images. Here's a picture of Carole landis. Obviously, she's showing a lot of leg. And very nice legs they are, in my opinion. And no woman actually sits like that looking in a mirror. She's probably about to slide off the chair. She's been posed. But the story the picture tells is of a woman fixing her hair captured in a moment of thought.

Now, look at this image of Jane Seymour. Obviously in this cover for a book on home design(?!) Jane is showing just as much cleavage as Mary Jane, albeit perhaps not as dramatically given that she's a real person who has not had dramatic breast augmentation surgery --remember, please, that I actually think the statue is bad.

Sexy? Hell yes. And actually, this book is probably antifeminist, but what is the picure conveying? Is Jane Seymour saying, "Look at my breasts. Now rip my dress off and screw my brains out?" I doubt it. I think they were trying to convey, "Look at how elegant I look in my nice home, and my coffee table matches my dress, and the sofa costs enugh to feed a family of four on Honduras for 237 years."

This might actually be the worst cover for any book I have seen, at least recently. Don't these people read In Style? Or Martha Stewart? All I see is Jane. I like looking at Jane Seymour, but since the book is about home decoration, shouldn't we be directed a little toward the decoration of the home rather than a semi-close up of Jane and the girls? She should be standing in a wide shot like this. But I digress...

I'd say that there's a story in the statue too. I think that the Mary Jane staue is meant to convey not her bent over with the "Come hither look" but rather "Yes, dear, what do you want? I'm sorting the laundry." As for the bent over at the waist, well, there's an old sory about Bronko Nagurski. A scout was driving throuh the back roads, and asked a young teenager who was plowing, "Hey do you know where the nearest town is?" The strapping young lad picked up his plow with one hand, and pointed, "Over there, sir." The scount said, "Hey, kid, do you play football?" Well, surely picking up and pointing with a plow isn't the easiest thing to do, but I coul certainly picture a 16-year old kid doing it just for the heck of it. And yes, that pose is next to physically impossible for longer than about three seconds, but I can see Mary Jane doing it to show off for Pete. And the angle? I'd say that's splitting hairs a tad fine.

Chris: Since I actually explained, in fair detail, what I meant, whereas you just said "I have taken a number of art classes" and didn't bother to explain a goddam thing, I agree that one of us is engaged in broad pronouncements...

As for what I think constitutes antifeminism:

Well, an attempt to force women back into traditional roles from their new position in traditionally male oriented sectors of society. So, for example, taking Jane Seymour who is a well-known professional tv producer/actress and holding her out as a homemaker with a great rack on the cover of her latest book is probably anti-feminist.

Taking Mary Jane Watson who is a model and wife, and showing her in a pinup pose doing the laundry is, on the other hand, not so much putting her back into the role of model and domestic partner, because that's just exactly what she is. She is a model and she is a wife. Unless you take the position that no woman should ever be both a model and a wife, and therefore, Mary Jane is not properly put into that role to begin with, I don't see how portraying her in the role where she actually is situated constitutes antifeminism.

As for the Punisher carrying an Uzi... He's a supervillain. They get violent on occasion.

Chris, I love you like a brother, but Greg didn't just coin the word "antieminist" because it sounded neat. Or at least I hope not, because otherwise now a bunch of people think I'm being a jerk because Greg didn't know which word he was using. (Right. Like I need his help with that...)

"Antifeminism" is an established word and political ideology with an established meaning referring to the natural roles of women in society and the role feminism has had in subverting those roles. It is, in other words, a reaction to feminism. Get it? Antifeminism. That's a different position than sexism (women are inferior) or male chauvinism (men are better than women).

Antifeminism's got a whole other deal going on. This movement goes back to Nietzsche, but Camille Paglia and Christina Hoff Sommers are amongst the people accused within modern feminist circles of holding the position. (You, Chris Maka, might remember Sommers from an argument I had with Elayne on Usenet in the 1990's. I quoted _Who Stole Feminism_ and Elayne killfiled me. That's right. You are now on Elayne's side of the argument! Just kidding.) Sommers calls herself a "gender feminist," if you are familiar with that term.

So whether out not Mary Jane is shown realistially or sexually or whatever in the statue, it does, in fact, portray her in a manner consistent with how she is actually portrayed in the comic. It is not a reaction to her lifestyle choices in the same way it would be to show, e.g. Lois Lane, a reporter, in the same way. Mary Jane is a model who does, in the comics, flaunt her sexuality.

In any event, I am not going to address the rest of your point, because I now suspect that -- as regards to the disagreement you and I are having -- it is a semantic thing, and you were using "antifeminist" in a different way than I am.

I think this is more like a Punisher statue which had him shooting an African-American thug drawn like Ebony who was wearing a "Nation Of Islam" T-shirt (but all those elements could have a narrative reason to be there ... which doesn't excuse their baggage).

Pin-up pose is one level. Pin-up pose at the same time as doing laundry crosses the line from appreciation of the human form into really disturbing fantasy.

A maried women bending over to do laundry crosses a line into disturbing fantasy? I'd speculate as to what that says about the audience but apparently that also crosses a line...

Mike, every time you describe the statue, you are minimizing every bit of exaggeration present, when it is precisely those elements of exaggeration that are causing such strong reactions. Do you see why that's not productive?

" the artistic statement that it makes is "Women are the servants and sexual playthings of men""

Or maybe it says "We know women are not the servants and sexual playthings of men, but gosh we sure wish they were"

ie, y'know, it's fantasy, not prescriptive.

I disagree with you that I am "minimizing" the exaggerated aspects. I said the breasts were too big. I think there's a good reason, narratively, to have her at the angle you discuss. I mean, I can see why you think that the pose is hypersexualized, I suppose. I just happen to disagree with you that it is.

Btw, settle a point that came up at Manny's today. Jim and I think she's meant to be dealing with dry clothing. Doug thinks she's washing the clothes in a tub. That looks more like a laundry basket than a washtub to me?

It is passing peculiar a basket in either wise. I think she's washing it in a basin.

Having looked at the statue again instead of relying on my memory of it, I now think it's clearly a laundry basket, not a washtub.

Following Greg's link, which he described as Mary Jane doing hand laundry, that's what I saw, too. Taking a second look, I agree that it does indeed look more like she's taking a clean uniform out of a laundry basket to fold it. I guess further underlining the idea that sometimes we see what we want to see, this afternoon I remembered (and described) that the tub had wooden slats and that suds were visible. Ooops.

Following Greg's link, which he described as Mary Jane doing hand laundry, that's what I saw, too. Taking a second look, I agree that it does indeed look more like she's taking a clean uniform out of a laundry basket to fold it. I guess further underlining the idea that sometimes we see what we want to see, this afternoon I remembered (and described) that the tub had wooden slats and that suds were visible. Ooops.

You want to see Mary Jane doing hand laudry? Sorry we ruined the statue for you, Doug...

"Taking Mary Jane Watson who is a model and wife, and showing her in a pinup pose doing the laundry is, on the other hand, not so much putting her back into the role of model and domestic partner, because that's just exactly what she is. She is a model and she is a wife."

It's interesting, but not surprising, that you automatically believe that the act of doing his laundry is what identifies her as his wife. On top of that, if these statues are representations of characters as a whole in the series, well then this statue is saying that all MJ has to offer as a character is sex and housekeeping, which is disturbing.

The statue is offensive to women for the hypersexualization of her body and clothing and for the submissive nature of her activity. It is objectifying and marginalizing a woman and you can argue that all day but the more you yammer against the reality of the situation, the more you show you're part of the problem.

As to your belief that the small things shouldn't be fought for, well, that's one of the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It's the going along with the small things that numb us into accepting larger problems. This statue normalizes the image of a submissive woman who is at the beck and call of a man sexually and domestically. If people don't speak up about this one, the next statue could be even more ridiculous and the fight will be harder.

This statue isn't meant to honor a character, it's meant to give men of all ages something to fantasize over. This was designed for the male gaze and the creators of the statue might as well be telling women to f**k off. It's not the sexy pose that is the problem, there are ways to be sexy and empowered, it's the insanity of the body combined with the scenario that pushes it over the edge.

It's interesting, but not surprising, that you automatically believe that the act of doing his laundry is what identifies her as his wife. On top of that, if these statues are representations of characters as a whole in the series, well then this statue is saying that all MJ has to offer as a character is sex and housekeeping, which is disturbing.

Well, yes, it is unsurprising that I think laundry in the context of the statue represents a domestic relationship, since, if you look at how laundry is poratyed in movies, literature, teletivision, radio, painting and everything else, it tends to portray a domestic sense except in terms of mass operations and the like. I would direct your attention to how they sell laundry detergent in 99% percent of the commercials selling such on television.

If you are interested in whether I think that laundry is a good way of portraying such a relationship or indeed whether the statue is any good at conveying MJ's strengths as a character, I also answered that question, but no, you're interested in taking offense at the evil, horrible person who is defending the staue as the height of modern artisitc acheivement.

The statue is offensive to women for the hypersexualization of her body and clothing and for the submissive nature of her activity. It is objectifying and marginalizing a woman and you can argue that all day but the more you yammer against the reality of the situation, the more you show you're part of the problem.

I believe that women will find the statue offensive. I am, however, engaged in a discussion with Greg, who is not a woman, and if you want me to inquire as to gender before doing so, I already know he's a man.

As to your rather offensive suggestion that I am part of the problem:

Her clothing and posture are not hypersexual. They are sexual. I can find you several dozen hypersexual images in any given comics store to demonstrate the difference. This image could only be construed as hypersexual to people like the religious right and the Victorian British. If you have a poblem with the human body, I suggest you take it up with the manufacturer in church on Sunday, Mr. Ashcroft.

She's fully clothed, albeit in torn jeans and with a thong exposed, and bending over to pick something up. If that's hypersexual, than the local shopping mall should charge an admission fee.

Indeed, as for my being part of the problem, right back at you. In your case, however, the problem is a lack of intellectual discernment.

I'm starting to feel like David Howard.

As to your belief that the small things shouldn't be fought for, well, that's one of the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It's the going along with the small things that numb us into accepting larger problems. This statue normalizes the image of a submissive woman who is at the beck and call of a man sexually and domestically. If people don't speak up about this one, the next statue could be even more ridiculous and the fight will be harder.

My nonexistent belief that small things should not be faught for? I do not hold such a belief.

1) Greg called the statue "antifeminist." That has a specific meaning which I do not believe applies. He didn't call the statue "sexist." No, this is not a small thing. It is a non-existent thing. It is like boycotting McDonald's to protest veal.

2) The statue portrays a supporting character in a comic book. She is already is subordinate to Peter. I don't think it does portray her as submissive. Well, only in the most primitive sense that offering the hindquarters is submissive in lower primates, but let's pretend that it's a tradional pin up pose, and that the tiny percentage difference in our genes from the chimpanzees is the important percentage. That should be an easy thing to pretend, since it is, in fact, the case. We wouldn't want to tax your imagination to hard, so we'll start with reality. To humans it is not necessarily submissive.

3) As for the next statue being even more ridiculous...

Are you insane? This is probably in the 5th%-ile in terms of sexist, submissive portrayals of women in statues and artwork in comics. Of course, the next one will be worse. The last fifty were probably worse. That's ninety percent of pinwheel analogy.

It's not that you should not fight for the small things, but a boxer shouldn't fight a sumo wrestler either. You have to be able to recognize genuine issues and their classification in order to fight effectively. This statue is not antifeminist. It's sexist, but not deliberately so.

It's sexist due to the institutional sexism of the comics industry. It's not sexist because Marvel (or whoever has he license) decided to make a statue that was sexist. It's sexist because Marvel decided to do a sexy statue of Mary Jane and this is the pose they chose due to their preconceptions of the characer. Those preconceptions are entirely justified in the portrayal of the characer for the last forty years, although I personally happen to think they got the character wrong in the statue.

It's that institutional attitude which is the problem, not this statue.

Greg is complaining about someone throwing a cigarette butt on the ground when two feet away a raging forest fire burns.
Compared to some of the statues I see, MJ's wearing nun's habit, holding a rosary and kneeling at an altar.

And the statue as it stands now is not antifeminist.

This statue isn't meant to honor a character, it's meant to give men of all ages something to fantasize over. This was designed for the male gaze and the creators of the statue might as well be telling women to f**k off.

Ya think? Gee, I wonder what would give anyone that idea? You've apparently missed 5,000 years of human history if you think that's unusual in any way. The Sports Illustrate swimsuit issue is still on the stands around here, btw. Or you can tune into VH1 or whatever television.

The statue is not meant to tititlate, either, btw. It's meant to sell. I would not be in the slightest surprised if the sculptor was woman, btw, given the demographics of art school.

It's not the sexy pose that is the problem, there are ways to be sexy and empowered, it's the insanity of the body combined with the scenario that pushes it over the edge.

I agree the statue is a bad portrayal of the character. I do not think it is antifeminist for the reasons I have already given. I think the statue misrepresents the character. However, I do think that a person could generate a reasonable argument for the pose and scenario being appropriate to the character of Mary Jane, specifically.
I just happen to disagree with that argument.

The Hughes original concept art makes it somewhat more likely that it's a laundry basket, but, man, does that detergent bottle confuse the issue, and most laundry baskets of my experience are not solid-sided.

It is within the realm of possibility that my use of "antifeminist" is not appropriate because of the word's use elsewhere. I intended it to mean "opposed to the ideals of feminism and tending to promote pre-feminist ideals". Which I think is still an apt description of this statue.

Mike:

I believe that women will find the statue offensive. I am, however, engaged in a discussion with Greg, who is not a woman.

I think that I am pretty thoroughly offended at the implication that I cannot be offended by the same things and for the same reasons as a woman.

(Aside: this is not a one-on-one conversation.)

I do not understand why you think this statue is not exaggerated sufficiently to be "hypersexual".

Greg, of course you can be offended. In fact, that would have been my response to Chris on the whole "defer to women on sexism" thing. Sexism is not bad bcause it demeans women. Sexism is bad because it demeans people in general. However, Billie seemed to be approaching the whole "women know best, so shut up, you filthy man" thing, and I was pointing out that I was addressing you, for the most part.

As for "hypersexual." Well....

As I said, it is a traditional good girl art pose. She's fully clothed. There's an in context, in character reason for her to be in such a pose. I think it is a bad interpretation of the character, but it's a defensible one.

As for your sudden equivocation on "antifeminist:" Pat, that you? What have you done with Greg?

PS: I hate you, I hate you, I hate you. I hope you DIEDIEDIEDIEDIE!!!!!!!!!!!

But big ups for coming clean on it.

Apologies to Greg for the length of this comment.

Well, yes, it is unsurprising that I think laundry in the context of the statue represents a domestic relationship, since, if you look at how laundry is poratyed in movies, literature, teletivision, radio, painting and everything else, it tends to portray a domestic sense except in terms of mass operations and the like. I would direct your attention to how they sell laundry detergent in 99% percent of the commercials selling such on television.
I didn't say laundry wasn't domestic. I said you automatically assoiciated it as a wife's job. That's sexist.

If you are interested in whether I think that laundry is a good way of portraying such a relationship or indeed whether the statue is any good at conveying MJ's strengths as a character, I also answered that question, but no, you're interested in taking offense at the evil, horrible person who is defending the staue as the height of modern artisitc acheivement.
I wasn't interested in taking offense at anything you said, frankly you haven't said anything of substance to take offense at. All you've shown is ignorance. You stated that you don't think it's the best representation of the character and yet you still can't see why the way they have chosen to represent her is offensive. The rest of us are a few steps ahead of you.

I believe that women will find the statue offensive. I am, however, engaged in a discussion with Greg, who is not a woman, and if you want me to inquire as to gender before doing so, I already know he's a man.
So you're fine with women being offended by the statue as long as they don't act up about it? In your mind the statue is sexist and demeaning but not a big enough problem for people to question the creator/distributor about why this representation has been chosen? Also, this is a public forum, if you want a private conversation move it elsewhere.

Her clothing and posture are not hypersexual. They are sexual. I can find you several dozen hypersexual images in any given comics store to demonstrate the difference. This image could only be construed as hypersexual to people like the religious right and the Victorian British. If you have a poblem with the human body, I suggest you take it up with the manufacturer in church on Sunday, Mr. Ashcroft.
Maybe your brain is addled, hypersexual means "exhibiting unusual or excessive concern with or indulgence in sexual activity." I think that statue is more than a little indulgent as there isn't one angle that you can look at that statue without picking up on the overt sexuality of it. If she were posed like that in unripped jeans, a shirt with cleavage, and the coy smile, that would be sexual. The rip on her ass, the thong, and the amount of breast on display push the figurine into hypersexuality. That statue projects the notion that she is there, with a smile, to service her man in every way. By the way, I don't have a problem with the human body and the Ashcroft situation was completely different from this. Your argument on that front is baseless, offensive, and blatantly stupid. If you can't tell the difference between the two situations, well then it's a wonder you haven't been eaten by wolves.

She's fully clothed, albeit in torn jeans and with a thong exposed, and bending over to pick something up. If that's hypersexual, than the local shopping mall should charge an admission fee.
A free woman may dress herself in any way she pleases as she is entitled to choose if she wants to put herself on display. This is a statue designed by a man, for other men, in order to titilate.

Indeed, as for my being part of the problem, right back at you. In your case, however, the problem is a lack of intellectual discernment.
Your ability to miss the extent of my discernment is the only lack of intellectualism on display here.

My nonexistent belief that small things should not be faught for? I do not hold such a belief.
You're right, I misinterpreted what you said there. I looked again and you said that you think this is a non issue. Of course you said later that it is a sexist depiction, which means that even you see there is an issue. The difference is that some of us think that issue should be called into question.

1) Greg called the statue "antifeminist." That has a specific meaning which I do not believe applies. He didn't call the statue "sexist." No, this is not a small thing. It is a non-existent thing. It is like boycotting McDonald's to protest veal.
As you so nicely pointed out, I wasn't involved in your conversation with Mike, so what he says isn't my concern. I didn't say the statue was antifeminist, I said it was hypersexual and offensive due to it's depiction. Do I think the guy who created it set out to make an anti-feminist statement? No, but he certainly ended up making a statement that incorporates the very images that a lot of women find highly offensive. I don't see why that shouldn't be pointed out and paid attention to.

2) The statue portrays a supporting character in a comic book. She is already is subordinate to Peter. I don't think it does portray her as submissive. Well, only in the most primitive sense that offering the hindquarters is submissive in lower primates, but let's pretend that it's a tradional pin up pose...
Why? It's not a traditional pin up pose. And the pin up pose isn't widely regarding as something women take pride in.

...and that the tiny percentage difference in our genes from the chimpanzees is the important percentage. That should be an easy thing to pretend, since it is, in fact, the case. We wouldn't want to tax your imagination to hard, so we'll start with reality. To humans it is not necessarily submissive.
Wow, nothing you've said in all that b.s. does anything but disprove your own point. Her bending over is not necessarily submissive to humans but the way she's doing it here is. We wouldn't want to tax that crack intellect of yours too hard, so lets break it down into tiny pieces. A woman bending over and removing laundry from a basket is not, in fact, a submissive pose. A woman pulling out her man's laundry with her ass in the air and her breasts on display, looking over her shoulder coyly while wearing an exposed thong, a pearl necklace, and no shoes is.

3) As for the next statue being even more ridiculous...Are you insane? This is probably in the 5th%-ile in terms of sexist, submissive portrayals of women in statues and artwork in comics. Of course, the next one will be worse. The last fifty were probably worse. That's ninety percent of pinwheel analogy.
Thanks for helping to prove my point. For you this statue isn't bad enough to be offended by and you're fine with the next one being worse. That's your opinion, doesn't mean it's the right one. People have to start somewhere in order for things to change, this is a good launch pad.

It's not that you should not fight for the small things, but a boxer shouldn't fight a sumo wrestler either. You have to be able to recognize genuine issues and their classification in order to fight effectively. This statue is not antifeminist. It's sexist, but not deliberately so.
So accidental sexism is okay? Wow. That's possibly more offensive than the statue. If no one points out this blatant ignorance that you are talking about, how can anything change? Also, a boxer just might kick a sumo wrestler's ass.

It's sexist due to the institutional sexism of the comics industry. It's not sexist because Marvel (or whoever has he license) decided to make a statue that was sexist. It's sexist because Marvel decided to do a sexy statue of Mary Jane and this is the pose they chose due to their preconceptions of the characer. Those preconceptions are entirely justified in the portrayal of the characer for the last forty years, although I personally happen to think they got the character wrong in the statue.
Look, there has to be a time to take the industry to task and why shouldn't this be the catalyst? You feel they got the character wrong and so do those of us that find it offensive. Preconceptions don't warrant a free pass when creating new conceptions, they should be examined and discarded when they no longer apply.

It's that institutional attitude which is the problem, not this statue.
Again, this statue is a symptom and ignoring it doesn't help the situation. Remaining silent is the only way to insure that things continue the way they are.

Greg is complaining about someone throwing a cigarette butt on the ground when two feet away a raging forest fire burns.
But one fights a forest fire one section at a time, in small pieces that are manageable, and if you don't stomp that cigarette butt out another section of the forest could go up and then the blaze is even bigger.

Compared to some of the statues I see, MJ's wearing nun's habit, holding a rosary and kneeling at an altar.
No one is saying that there aren't other things that could be even more offensive that need to be fought concurrently. What you're saying is to ignore it which only means that things will continue to spiral downwards.

And the statue as it stands now is not antifeminist.
To you.

Ya think? Gee, I wonder what would give anyone that idea? You've apparently missed 5,000 years of human history if you think that's unusual in any way. The Sports Illustrate swimsuit issue is still on the stands around here, btw. Or you can tune into VH1 or whatever television.
Again, you're only showing your own ignorance. You are content to allow the denigration of women to continue simply because it's been acceptable in the past. It's not acceptable in this statue and it's not acceptable on VH1 either. It's the past 5,000 years of human history that show us that we have to fight sexism wherever we find it. Ignoring it only leads us to where we are now.

The statue is not meant to tititlate, either, btw. It's meant to sell. I would not be in the slightest surprised if the sculptor was woman, btw, given the demographics of art school.
It is certainly meant to titillate because the titillation is what will sell it. Also, who gives a rats ass if a woman sculpted it, it would still be offensive. I don't see why the sex of the sculptor would make a difference. Actually, if it were a woman it just shows that by not fighting these "pinwheels" as you like to call them we have normalized this representation of women to the point that a hypothetical female sculptor wouldn't refuse to make something that was undermining her own place in society.

However, Billie seemed to be approaching the whole "women know best, so shut up, you filthy man" thing, and I was pointing out that I was addressing you, for the most part.
It may have seemed that way to you but that wasn't what I was doing. I didn't tell you to shut up, I never said that women know best, and I was approaching the argument from the position that you were stupid, not filthy. Pay attention.

It's awful. It's got as much rationale for being anything but a fantasization and masturbation aid as the typical movie Showtime would air late at night, with "oh dear I'm so hot" and "please I'll do anything to keep from getting a ticket" as setups for sex scenes. It's about a well-endowed woman in a menial position and available for the viewer's use.

Logansrogue nailed it precisely: this image is the male equivalent, and may illustrate some of the problems for those not quite getting it.

I do hope, by the way, that I'm not hitting up against site standards by bringing actual real people's sexual practices into this. But seriously, if you look at comments on the manufacturer's forum, there's no wiggle room (so to speak) left. This is a thing for guys to jerk off to. It's not like this is the first time anyone ever used a superheroine for that, and it won't be the last. It's just an unusually tawdry and direct example, at least based on my sporadic experience of comics-related merchandise. If I've missed comparable sutff in the past, well, I'll be happy to say disdainful things about them too.

I am, actually, by no means opposed to self-gratification or to the use of whatever range of stimuli it takes to bring relief sometimes. What's bugging me is how many guys are dancing around it and apparently expecting women interested in comics not to notice or care how much of the supers market's use of female characters is this kind of thing.

Katie: if you don't care about the distinction between "antifeminism" and "sexism," why are you trying to engage in a discussion about it? It would sem an odd choice, particularly since the discussion had already become rather heated by the time you joined it.

However, since that's the only part of the conversation I do care about, feel free to think I'm as stupid as you want to.

Bruce: Now that I might buy. As Dwayne Wade says, "Sexyyy."

Bruce: We have standards? Well, intellectual standards, maybe.

Mike: The only reason I'm even slightly equivocating on antifeminism is that you assert it has a pre-existing meaning distinct from its morphological components, and I was using it as a nonce coinage. Nonetheless, it certainly seems from your description that my intended use of the term and the actual use of the term are awfully similar.

Also, probably you mean "Billie" instead of "Katie" in your last comment.

Mike, you madman, you made me laugh out loud. And thanks for the link.

Billie touches on something I wanted to address, too, the whole "why this one/why now" issue. Those who say there's been worse and that there's about as bad out there right now are right But what happens with semi-coordinated expressions of disgust like this is that people who share an interest who've only relatively recently started talking to each other pool their various outlooks and concerns, and then a tipping point comes.

It is very, very much like the exhibit I used to see at the LA Museum of Science and Industry, where grains of sand slowly trickled out of a narrow opening. The heap builds up until it gets to be too steeply slanting, and then it slides. The point was to show (as with a box containing rows of pegs past which rubber balls dropped, forming a bell curve) how individually unpredictable events add up to a predictable overall outcome. This kind of reaction to the Mary Jane figure is the kind of thing emergent online communities do in response to a shared concern, enthusiasm, or annoyance, when it keeps manifesting in their shared experience.

Greg: Yeah, feel free to edit the name to correct it.

Bruce: All those commercials are funny. "Is this your dad?"

Greg: I'm always up for blog management saying things like "I just don't want to see arguments about that here" and stuff like that, and wankery of the most literal sort is one of those things I could really understand not wanting to post much about. Just signalling that I'm cool with being told there's a limit sign I missed, should a Howling Curmudge wish to do so.

Katie: if you don't care about the distinction between "antifeminism" and "sexism," why are you trying to engage in a discussion about it? It would sem an odd choice, particularly since the discussion had already become rather heated by the time you joined it.
I'm going to respond seeing as there isn't a Katie around. Once again, you have no idea as to what I was saying. I never said I didn't care about the difference between sexism and antifeminism. I also didn't try to engage in a discussion about it, as I wasn't addressing both you and Greg. The context of Greg's argument made what he was trying to say very clear even if the word he used wasn't exactly correct. Right or wrong, in the American vernacular antifeminist has come to have two meanings, one that is the political and sociological view that feminism is destroying our civilization, and one that means something goes against the ideas of feminism. It may not be right, but if you were to ask people what antifeminism means I'd guess that the majority of people would define it as the latter. Regardless, what caught my eye in your conversation with Greg was your repeated opinion that this was a non issue that didn't deserve to be addressed. I was pointing out that you were wrong about that.

However, since that's the only part of the conversation I do care about, feel free to think I'm as stupid as you want to.
I never asked for or needed your permission on that front.

Bruce: We've sort of tried to base our paradigm on the classic Usenet model where what one says is a merit-based indicator of how seriously they are taken.

I mean, say what you want, but I provided enough support and examples and links that one could at least follow the trail of reasoning.

Works for me, Mike. I was thinkign partly of some discussions I'e had with friends lately about the specific warning signs of trouble that any community or sub-community builds up - "oh, yeah, we found that if we talk about spoon hanging, the nose fetish guys get upset, and since we like what they have to say about everything else, we just don't bring it up here" and so on.

Bruce: yeah, but anyone that sensitive, we don't want. Besides, someone got upset that I went into statuary analysis, so there's always someone...

In other news: dog bites man.

I find that people getting insulted by a maquette of all things is pretty freaking funny. A maquette of a comic book character of all things. From as far back as I can remember comic book girls are all about "hypersexuality". Really, people come on! By the way I like the statue, So, I guess this makes me "antifeminist", or maybe an uneducated brute.