It's sort of like limbo, but with less dignity
"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity."

One of the biggest reasons I like the Intarwubs so well is its utility as a communications tool. The ability to raise and discuss issues is left directly in our hands without the gatekeepers inherent in, say, a comic book letters page. Thus, a collection of blogs and 'Net communities to discuss sexism within the comic book industry. Naturally, when one hears of this, the first question begged is whether the industry and its products are sexist.

The answer, of course, is "Yes. Yes they are. Are you fucking retarded?"

The objectification of female characters is a problem that has long plagued comics. This isn't exactly groundbreaking news - I'm not revealing anything that isn't immediately obvious. When one of Marvel's flagship titles crams as many ass shots into 22 pages as it can, it becomes hard to argue that there's a problem.

And yet, Marvel and DC (and many of their defenders) attempt to argue otherwise. Accusations of sexism do tend to put the accused on the defensive - no one likes being called a misogynist. Do those of us who see rampant sexism in comics, they ask, really think that they're trying to present women as nothing more than sex objects?

Well, no. Most feminist bloggers don't claim there's a deliberate movement toward objectification and misogyny. Rather, it's an undercurrent of obliviousness (which is beginning to border on willfulness) - the editors, writers and artists simply don't think about how they're portraying female characters. They don't consider the implications of presenting Ms. Marvel's backside to the reader as often as possible, while at the same time lamenting the lack of female readers. Stupidity, not malice. The problem is that by now, they should know better.

And yet, as bad as the actual comic books can be, the merchandise is regularly even worse. Marvel and DC's collectible statue lines are apparently marketed toward dirty old men with a good deal of disposable income. Sadly, that seems to be a viable market, because they actually keep getting worse.




First, let's take a look at this offering from DC, depicting Power Girl and Huntress.

Now, Power Girl and Huntress are female analogues to Superman and Batman, respectively. For a thought experiment, let's slot their male counterparts into the statue in the women's place, in the same poses. How's it look?

Well, Batman still looks cool, because Huntress is in a dynamic, heroic stance. She's about to hand out an ass-whupin' to somebody - possibly a giant clown robot, because these are Silver Age characters. But, how does Superman look in Power Girl's pose? Fucking stupid? So why's it okay for Power Girl?

In retrospect, it isn't actually that bad. Relative to the others, it's just fairly ridiculous rather than total bullshit. Let's call it par for a very pathetic course and continue on.

No, what's total bullshit is what was announced next - these awful godsdamned things. I think these speak for themselves. Probably for a buck a minute.




Naturally, someone at DC Direct had to wonder how they could possibly stoop any lower. Thus, this recently-announced vinyl statue. Notice that the statue's costume is even more revealing than the barely-there outfit she sports in the actual comic book. Also notice the character's age. Also note that DC editorial is actively trying to pursue a female readership for Supergirl's solo book. Without changing her costume.

No, they really don't know what they're doing anymore.

Now, however, Marvel has decided to join DC in the race to the bottom of the barrel. You see, DC has commissioned a series of busts entitled "Women of the DC Universe", based on art by Adam Hughes. Not to be undone, Marvel has also enlisted Hughes for a line of statues for their female characters. The second "comiquette" has just been announced.








Yes, brethren, it's MJ in a laundry-themed Playboy shoot. I mean, that's got to be the context, right? Peter went public with his identity, MJ gets an offer to do a spread, she decides to do something kind of fun and silly. That's the only way this polystone abomination actually makes any kind of sense. Otherwise, it's a really fucking creepy fetishization of domesticity.

On top of the already problematic subtext, it's just a bad statue. It looks like the former supermodel has finally succumbed to an eating disorder, and it's done something horrible to her spine. But that's okay, because you get a good view of her tits and her thong. Objectification? What's that?

Hughes' control art isn't so bad. I'm still not sold on the concept, but from the art you get the feeling that Peter's just off-panel and he and MJ are just screwin' around. This statue? Lifeless. I'll grant that the face isn't the Maxim/Michael Turner pseudo-sultry vaguely concussed look, but it's still a terrible work.

This thing actually beats out Big Barda, Apokalyptan Coat Rack as the worst thing based on Adam Hughes' work.

I'd really like to know what the suits are thinking when they approve this shit. And yet, editorial wonders why comic books are still the ghetto of the publishing industries.

(Originally found thanks to devildoll's post here. For more on this monument to bad taste, check out When Fangirls Attack)