11 Responses for "Mary Jane Statue designed by Adam Hughes starts HUGE Controversy"

1. J Alan Erwine

   May 23rd, 2007 at 4:27 pm

   1

   You have to love living in America in the 21st century!

2. Brian Larter

   May 24th, 2007 at 12:49 am

   2

   This sort of thing isn’t new. These sort of action figures have been around for ages.

   http://www.armchairempire.com/action-figures/dorothy.htm

3. Thomas van Zuijlen

   May 24th, 2007 at 4:41 am

   3

   Hey guys, not to fan the flames any further, but perhaps there is more to this controversy than you’re willing to see here. Though Adam Hughes’ initial sketch might have been of MJ finding Peter’s costume in the laundry basket, the statue has clearly turned out differently – Mary Jane looks like she actually IS doing the laundry, there, and the qualms many people (and not just the rather vague category of “feminists”) have with the statue is its sexualization of (women) doing the laundry. While the statue is indeed an obvious play on 1950’s pin-up images, one might still wonder (as many vocal bloggers have, to great length) whether or not it’s a tasteful thing for Marvel to release. I recommend reading former Vertigo editor, journalist Heidi MacDonald’s comments on the statue and the surrounding issues. I find them to be more enlightening than Hughes’ comments on Newsarama. See here: http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/05/17/night-of-the-feminazis-pt-1/
   and here:
   http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/05/21/2563/

4. The Dude

   May 24th, 2007 at 8:04 am

   4

   Call me crazy, but I see NOTHING wrong with that!

5. Michael

   May 24th, 2007 at 9:52 am

   5

   @Thomas

   I refuse to think that there is anything WRONG with a woman doing the laundry. If you want to get right down to it, the idea that there IS something wrong it portraying a woman doing the laundry is an insult to MILLIONS of hard working women who bust their ass as homemakers.

   I will not look at my grandmother, or my mother, or my wife, and tell them that there is something WRONG with them doing the laundry. That is ridiculous.

   If you want to take issue with the bust, the cleavage, the ass sticking up in the air, then by all means, take issue with it, but this bullshit – and that’s what it is – that it is somehow demeaning for a woman to clean up after herself and (God forbid) wash her husband’s shirts while she’s at it, is absolutely infuriating.

6. Viewtiful

   May 24th, 2007 at 10:13 am

   6

   Where could i buy one? I want one out of spite for this controversy.

7. Michael

   May 24th, 2007 at 10:18 am

   7

   @viewtiful

   The ironic thing is you CAN’T buy one anymore…Sideshow Collectibles has sold out of it’s entire production run.

8. Loz

   May 24th, 2007 at 10:24 am

   8

   I think you’ll find they’ve all sold out. ‘When Fangirls Attack’ has been monitoring the controversy, so go look there for links.

   It’s a context thing, as already noted the original drawing did make it clearer that MJ was going through the Parker dirty clothes hamper and had noticed that Peter had sneaked a dirty costume in there and it was all very ‘that man’s going to be in so much trouble when he gets home!’. Here, the sexuality is ramped up to 11, she’s wearing a thong and barefoot and now looks very much like “There’s nothing I enjoy doing more than cleaning up after my man!”

   The relationship between comics and women is a problematic area, from the ‘good girl art’ to Power Girl to sad fanboys living in their parents basements for whom this statuette will be the closest they ever get to a woman.

   If there’s nothing wrong with MJ doing the laundry, why not have a statue where she’s sitting at a desk with her head in her hands trying to work out how to claim for Peter’s superheroics on their tax-return form? Why chose this image and then make out that there’s nothing sexist intended?

9. links for 2007-05-25 « insignificant thoughts

   May 25th, 2007 at 3:27 am

   9

   [...] Mary Jane Statue designed by Adam Hughes starts HUGE Controversy (tags: comics spiderman stupid) [...]

10. Jill

    May 26th, 2007 at 8:23 pm

    10

    Oh, this definitely looks like it was originally supposed to a witty, ironic piece. The concept of parodying 1950’s pin-ups is definitely a concept to explore. The controversy, however, shows that the comedy of this statue just didn’t come across correctly. Mary Jane Watson is supposed to look like she’s finding her hubby’s costume in the laundry; instead, it looks like she’s washing it for him.

    Don’t point the finger expressly at femminists, PLEASE. Hughes unintentionally crammed MJ into a stereotype, and a pretty darn offensive one, at that. Now, I hope he won’t lose, if he hasn’t already lost his job becayse of this, but this statue came off with a rather unfortunate message, and that’s a big problem.

11. Mak

    June 1st, 2007 at 4:40 pm

    11

    There is nothing wrong with a woman doing the laundry – or a man for that matter. It’s all about the context of the situation. And the way this is portrayed is not okay. The message that is being sent is not okay.
    I would ask on how people could look at that this comiquette and not find it lacking, but it seems that said commentors are those of the male gender who don’t mind gawking at a nice piece of ass. And that is all MJ is in this – a piece of ass.
    She’s standing there in skintight pants with a rip that just so happens to show off a portion of her ass while her “cute” little pink thong is riding unrealistically high on her hips. Not that any part of the portrayal is realistic in any sense of the word.
    As she stands there washing Spidey’s suit barefoot and on the verge of popping out of her clothes all she is lacking is a large pregnant stomach to be the epitomy of the stereotype that women have been fighting against for years.
    So if Parker wants his suit washed he should get down on his knees and scrub it for all he’s worth because no woman she be reduced to handwashing her husbands suit while he sits on his fat ass.