I like the Spidey drawing a lot more than the statue.

1. It at least has the benefit of being funny- he's doing the laundry wearing his mask! Hee.
2. He's got a proper center of gravity.
3. His body is less oddly proportioned than MJs.

I'm surprised (but glad) about how much steam this story has picked up. It's everywhere.

Who does laundry in a small bucket on a little table?

Well, the small bucket I can understand, but a little table?

I know, this is not the important issue. I'm just sayin'.

Does this mean that nobody's interested in my 300-page paper critiquing Mannequin 2: On the Move from a radical Marxist perspective?

I have way more patience with the Spidey movies because they basically hover on the edge of self-parody anyway, so I just assume all the dubious parts, like Spider-man heroically posing in front of the American flag, are supposed to be funny. I may be wrong, but it is more fun for me that way.

(That statue is just gross though.)

Maybe I'm just stating the obvious here, but it seems to me that the juxtaposition of the figurine with the drawing of Spidey really highlights dynamics of submissiveness that underly the inappropriate patriarchal sexualization of women.

Look at Spidey: he's hand-washing MJ's lingerie. Okay. Hand-washing is unusual, but for lingerie I'll buy it. Men don't often hand-wash lingerie, so that conveys a certain nonconformity subject to a bunch of interpretations. But the big deals are his attire and position. He's dressed in nothing but bikini briefs and his mask, and he's bent over, sticking his ass in the air and showing his abs, back and arms. It's a highly sexualized pose. So, he's not just doing laundry there. He's doing intimate, labor-intentive laundry in super-sexualized attire and position. Obviously, this only happens for one reason. Obviously, he's adopting an attitude of sexual submission because it turns his and MJ on. Good for them.

Now, obviously the same is true of MJ. Leave aside the unnatural proportions and incorrect center of gravity of the figure. She's hand-washing his costume, in a thong and low-riders, with her ass deliberately stuck in the air in a pose she would not adopt except for sexual purposes. So obviously she, too, would only do this as part of some sort of sexual dom/sub play.

Except the latter only reads that way when a bunch of feminists point it out. Because in patriarchy, women doing uncomfortable and bizarre things to be both subservient and sexually alluring to men isn't automatically seen as explicit BDSM. In fact, it's seen as "normal," or "sexy." Being servile and hypersexualized is the expected role for class woman when they are under the thumb of patriarchal oppression, and therefore it's nothing to remark on. So only feminists are pointing out that the figurine is wierd and remarkable, rather than "sexy", which is what non-feminist fanboys seem to be saying.

maybe completely from left field, but remember that statue of britney spears that came out a while (long while?) ago? she was giving birth on her hands and knees, something about celebrating her return from sexual deviance to being maternal?

this reminds me of that. and that scares me.

maybe completely from left field, but remember that statue of britney spears that came out a while (long while?) ago? she was giving birth on her hands and knees, something about celebrating her return from sexual deviance to being maternal?

this reminds me of that. and that scares me.

maybe completely from left field, but remember that statue of britney spears that came out a while (long while?) ago? she was giving birth on her hands and knees, something about celebrating her return from sexual deviance to being maternal?

this reminds me of that. and that scares me.

wow...sorry about that. repeating, my browser's giving me some trouble.

Thomas?
You rock.
Brilliantly said.

It's great that BoingBoing picked this up, but if by "taking it to the next level" you mean doing the Spiderman illo, that wasn't BoingBoing, it was an artist named Nancy Lorenz. Her LJ post about it is here: http://logansrogue.livejournal.com/947905.html

'b, I do remember the Britney Spears sculpture you mention. While it got a lot of attention in the media, no one seemed to "get" it as a joke. The artist wasn't actually praising her as an homage to motherhood or pro-life or whatever. But that's what everyone in the media seemed to take it as. Check out the artist's other pieces featuring Kate Moss and the Paris Hilton bust. Google "Kate Moss Sculpture" or "Paris Hilton Sculpture" for more examples of his work. You'll see what a dig that Spears sculpture really was.

I could see how this would remind you of that. That artist's work is misogynistic as hell in that he (I think it's a man) shows pretty clear disdain for the women he bases his work on. But what I got from that that artist's work was a very tongue-in-cheek reflection of our cultural values or a critique of pop culture rather an actual (and accurate) presentation of a male sexual fantasy.

As a comic book fan I have often had to ignore some of the blatant sexism within comics, like the huge boobs, tiny waists that are usually depicted. I would get myself through it by telling myself that the artist is a male who probably didn't get too many dates in high school and that usually the male characters are often exaggerated in the muscle department which balances out the big boobed thing.

But with this? With my beloved Spider-Man no less? Shame, Marvel, shame.

I'm not saying it's not sexist, but this just seems to be the trend in comics given life in a different medium. Comics (and this seems to be true in related geek-genres) always seem to massively exaggerate the desirable sexual characteristics of all its characters. That means women get huge knockers and 12-inch waists. Men get more muscle than a professional bodybuilder and a package that the FedEx couldn't lift. Just as a random example, this Batman comic. To see it in a figurine like that, though, is uber-creepy.

"As a comic book fan I have often had to ignore some of the blatant sexism within comics, like the huge boobs, tiny waists that are usually depicted."

Isn't that more a superhero comics and shonen manga thing than a comics-in-general thing?

It's not so much the ridiculous body proportions. It's the ass-up position, the gleeful servitude, and the pearls. I like Spidy okay though I've never been a big comic book reader, but I had a different impression of Mary Jane than this.

Isn't that more a superhero comics and shonen manga thing than a comics-in-general thing?

It is but it's not limited to them. I've got some independent/underground comics that do the same thing. Typically you'd have to buy something from a female comic artist if you wanted to see some semblance of realism, not to knock the guys but just from what I've seen/read.

That means women get huge knockers and 12-inch waists. Men get more muscle than a professional bodybuilder and a package that the FedEx couldn't lift.

I don't really buy this. The muscles aren't sexually desirable characteristics--they signify the superhuman strength and power that male superheroes are often endowed with. Wonder Woman's and Power Girl's giant boobs don't signify similar power at all. I've been an avid comics reader for years, and I've never noticed any discernible bulges at all in the men's tights--but I have noticed that women's costumes often, for some reason, are so thin that you can see their belly buttons through them. Very irritating. I and the woman who works at my local comics shop often spend time mocking the way women are drawn in the books.

A lot of the disgust I've seen stemming from the sculpture is due in equal parts to the horrible proportions/sexism of the piece, and also the fact that it's not true to Mary Jane as a character. MJ isn't a woman who would stand (awkwardly!) with her thong hanging out and wearing the pearl necklace (which has a sexual double entendre in some circles).

I have to say, Spidey has a great ass.

Speaking of messed-up anatomy in comic books, has anyone seen Sequential Tart's Bizarre Breasts columns? (They're not solely about breasts, either.)

I am also a huge Spidey fan and this is really awful. I agree that this is not true to MJ's character either. Even a braless, gauzy shirt wearing, rain soaked Kirsten Dunst is not on this overt level of sexualization.

Interestingly, no one has mentioned how queer Spidey looks. I think Thomas came close to that conclusion, but I would like to put it out there. Spidey looks hella queer. I think that is his lingerie, and MJ is just a beard. All of the male super heroes with bulging muscles in tights have been read as queer by scholars and young gay comic readers, alike. This illustration really takes that to the next level.

Whether Spidey is getting topped by MJ or another boy, the sex ain't vanilla.

Erm, perhaps some clarification is needed here? The accompanying Spiderman illustration was not done by Marvel, but by another artist as you would see if you clicked on her LJ link above. It's in the style of (and has now been added to) http://www.girl-wonder.org/galleries/Costumes%20and%20Poses/
these drawings, which show how comic hero men would look if shown in the same poses/attire that comic book women are.

Dykerson, you raise the interesting subject of how much sexual minorities are like queers, even if nominally het. I've always thought that the answer is that all of us are dissidents together and have a whole lot in common.

I just have to plug this awesome comic that I'm really into now. While I hated season 6 & 7 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I am loving the season 8 comic that Joss Whedon & Dark Horse have just put out. It basically deals with the consequences of what happened at the end of season 7. Each issue is in full color, the drawings are awesomely rendered, & the dialogue is really true to the show. Plus, no bulging boobs!
I've also heard that Runaways is really awesome.

Everyone does know that they never actually drew spider man like that, right?

I thought at first, what is the big deal if they were satirizing the two figurines. But that spider man was the work of a someone on the web, for comparison.

That is sickening to me. Only because I enjoyed the Spidey series as much as the next person, and so did my children. But unfortunately, I dont think I will be taking them to see spider man 3. At the very least, they should preserve the empowered super female role. I dont even know if they should have been married.

In a perfect world, they would have been super individuals who created good through equal team involvement. So much for positive underlying messages these days(cmon, do it for the kids at least)...

Hmm. My husband's take on the figurine wasn't that MJ was hand-washing Spidey's costume in an awkwardly-balanced bucket -- he thought that she was taking his costume out of the laundry basket and turning to make a joke about it. Possibly laughing about the event in Spider-Man 2 in which he pulled all of his clothes out of the dryer and they were stained pink.

Scilian, you're late. Weetz already pointed out that the Spider-Man illustration was not from Marvel. In fact, the artist's name is Nancy Lorenz.

Scillian, are you proposing that in a perfect world Mary Jane would have super powers and would fight alongside spidey?

Because that would be bananas. The long time spidey fans would have a shit.