geekent’s stuff’n things

Superlady statues… are they cheesecake or offensive, or both. Powerful and attractive or pornography and ugly. Being a red-blooded male who likes to look at women (but LOVES women for their personality and character) I’m not likely the best person to answer these questions for everyone, but I shall try to look at these as objectively (and not as object-ly) as possible.
Offense scale:
MILD - eh, really, nothing to get too worked up over, acceptable for most
MEDIUM - okay, you’ve got a point, they could have changed a few things
HOT - it’s just about tits and ass and bad art
HAWT - well, I like it.. sue me.
Catwoman vinyl statue: Unfortunately it seems that Selena forgot to zip herself up when she went out for a night on the prowl, and wearing that leather catsuit without anything on underneath, skin to leather, well, she’s going to fill up her boots with sweat, I’m sure. By the Japanese sculpting co. Kotobukiya (who has done such respectable designs in the past as featured on the inside back cover of Previews this month…NSFW)
MEDIUM
Batgirl bust: the classic costume, classic Barbara Gordon, a powerful pose, and hot… reminds me of Aden (probably because she uses Batgirl as an avatar on occasion). Beautiful without being flaunty.
HAWT
Big Barda bust: I’d much more appreciated her in her classic costume rather than the Kirby-thong Adam Hughes put her in (I was informed that this is what she wore in the Justice League Unlimited episode she appeared in). Quite obviously she’s posing as the escape artist’s assistant, judging by the hand positioning, but, I don’t actually recall Barda ever being Mr. Miracle’s apprentice, so it’s more inaccurate rather offensive that she’s holding his cape. That’s Oberon’s job.
MEDIUM
Black Canary bust: scary. I normally find Black Canary pretty foxy… I mean bustier and fishnets with that 1/4-length coat, the sensitive but tough as nails character… and yeah…when she’s in her “canary cry” pose, you’re in for a world of hurt mate. But are we supposed to see this as insinuation? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more. Accurate but slightly bothersome.
MILD - eh, really, nothing to get too worked up over, acceptable for most
Supergirl vinyl: UHGLEE. Disturbingly so. It’s all disproportionate and tacky and, well, Supergirl is a teenager. Leave the dirty teen statues to the anime nerds. Gluh.
HOT
Wonder Woman vs. Superman statue: rock on, Wonder Woman looks very powerful and Clark seems to be on the defensive. She looks great and in control. Perfecto. From a purely practical standpoint though, I just wonder how she’s supposed to stay in the air like that.
HAWT
Donna Troy bust: I was walking Aden through the various “Women of the DC Universe” busts yesterday, and when I told her that this is the one that most reminds me of her, and she was offended, because she LOATHES Donna Troy. But it’s true. Though Donna’s perhaps got way too much makeup on, the hair and the body just remind me of my special lady. Red spandex sweetie… :) I don’t know why Aden hates Donna so much. I’m a little fond of her because Phil Jimenez likes her so much, and Phil’s a cool guy.
HAWT
Power Girl and Huntress Legacy statue: well, Huntress looks fierce and Power Girl looks… well, not so much like her usual tough-girl self. I’m bothered by the position she’s found herself in because it doesn’t seem like her at all.
MEDIUM
Wonder Woman Lynda Carter statue: oy, they tried but failed to properly capture the likeness and Lynda is painted up something ugly. Not offensive, just bad.
MILD
Supergirl statue: ACH. Michael Turner… GROSS GROSS GROSS. Bad, bad art.
HOT
Catwoman bust: Actual conversation:
me- “Well, another cleavage intensive Catwoman statue. Why is she unzipping herself…”
her- “…or zipping herself up…”
me- “That’s unnecessary, really.”
her - “Yeah. What’s that in her other hand…It’s a diamond!”
me- “But wh… oh, she’s sticking the diamond into her cleavage…”
her- “…because she doesn’t have any pockets…”
me- “Clever girl.”
MEDIUM
Harley Quinn bust: that girl’s going to bonk you on the head with a mallet, she will… totally Harley
MILD
Hawkgirl bust: you know, this is just ugly. The whole “innocent girl holding the mace behind her back” thing is out of character, and well, it’s ugly.
MEDIUM
Poison Ivy bust: bust is right… there’s quite literally nothing holding her in. Seriously, what were these people thinking when they sculpted her. Yes, Poison Ivy is always portrayed as a temptress, but she’s also sensible enough to wear an outfit that will keep her boobs from spilling out if she bends over or… moves… at all.
HOT
Supergirl: this is…sexy. I’m trying to justify that this is the old Kara, the 1980s Supergirl, to get over my conflicted pervy feelings. Just shows, though, that it’s not always flesh that makes things attractive.
HOT
and
HAWT
Zatanna bust: Actual conversation:
her- “nothing wrong with that”
me- “well, she is sticking her tongue out, that’s kind of suggestive”
her- “oh come on, she’s concentrating. I stick my tongue out when I concentrate all the time.”
me- “oh, like Michael Jordan.”
MILD
Wonder Woman bust: OH COME ON! Seriously? Why does it look like her bustier, which is supposed to be metallic armor, is painted on? And her metallic belt is shaped around her abs? And her boobs are contained only slightly better than the Poison Ivy statue. Sheesh. Demeaning.
HOT
Wonder Woman action statue: A powerful pose and she looks in complete control of the situation. But she’s way too busty, and again, her bustier-armor looks painted on.
MEDIUM
Cover to Cover Wonder Woman: striking a powerful pose with her sword standing atop a skull.. decent.
MILD
Wonder Woman mini-statue: a little too super-model-esque. The original Brian Bolland cover this is from looked more powerful and strong, where as here she’s been legged out and softened to be more ladylike, which I don’t like.
MEDIUM
Animated Zatanna statue: Okay, I get the stage outfit, I get the box, I get the cuffs and chains are all part of the magician thing, but still this bothers me slightly. I suppose seeing a real female magician being handcuffed and chained and locked in a box would bother me too, but if it’s what her male counterparts are doing as well, then surely she can too. Confused.
MEDIUM
Note: I noticed that many of the “Women of the DC Universe” busts varied slightly (or greatly) from the original Adam Hughes illustrations, in some cases making the women either bustier or revealing more boobage that the design called for. Stupid sculptors.

Further to the statue

The MJ statue is still on my mind (and not for the obvious reasons). But I think what makes the statue such a heated issue is that - unlike many statues of women that are quite flagrantly demeaning or disturbingly sexualized (like the many manga/anime statues of little girls holding their skirts up) - this one tells a story. What that story is, however, is what you bring to it.
If you want to see that she’s being objectified and denigrated by wearing a pair of jeans with a fray in the bum and a thong, then you will see that. If you think she’s being subservient doing Peter’s laundry, then you will see that. If you think she’s a passive and unwilling participant in whatever the scene is, then you will see that.
I’ve stated previously what my view of this is, and there’s a few others scenarios that do come to mind. Some comments I’ve read about it (below: from 1 man and 3 women respectively) had this to say:
“she’s glancing over her shoulder, somewhat cheeky looking in the face. Maybe she’s planning a little late night role-playing session where she gets to be Spidey and Petey gets ‘rescued’”
“who does laundry in a bucket with a pose like that? Its a set up for ‘Spidey and the naughty laundress get wet’ IMO.”
“Granted, it’s a cheesy pin-up pose, and I too would like to think she’s being playful.”
“And I agree that’s totally what the set up is. Its a peek into Peter and MJs home life, and if they’re flirting shamelessly while doing laundry, power to ‘em.”
To say that MJ would never do or wear something like this is denying her any sort of sexuality. To believe them as fully fleshed out characters but then say that her and Peter don’t have some kind of fantasy life (”Go get ‘em Tiger”) would be naive. To argue that a statue representing this quite obviously private moment is tacky is valid, but to say that it’s porn is denying that sexuality exists, even for comic characters. Again, my point, as always, is just keep it out of the books… (radioactive sperm, sheesh). Comics are, at least DC and Marvel would like to have you believe, accessible, but when you have a lack of minorities (or tokenized ones), thinly characterized and objectified women, and all too often extreme violence or overly mature situations that kids shouldn’t be exposed to, then you’re not being very open to the bulk of the entertainment audience.
But if something with a production run of a few thousand (actually only 900 of these things are being made) and niche-priced as a $150 statue is targeted solely at older men (at that price point it isn’t going to the kids), then fine. I’m not buying it, but I don’t really care if someone else wants to, but it’s not what the industry is built on. I think there should be statues and models that are targeted at all different groups: sexy stuff for men and women, generic stuff for everyone, silly fun stuff appealing directly to kids….
It’s okay to target different markets, everything doesn’t have to be for everyone, but at the same time, don’t just target one market continually. Of course there isn’t a diverse range of target markets because of a perceived lack of interest from certain markets (and we know why there’s a lack of markets, because DC and Marvel have failed to attract or maintain those markets). Clean up the comics, make them (it doesn’t have to be all of them, but the bulk of the mainstream lines should be) accessible for all, and then there will be a lot less need for these types of uproars.
And realize that even if your female fan base is only 10% of the market, and supposing the superhero readership is only 200,000 fans that’s still 20,000 women out there that might like to see some beefcake. I’m telling you, you could easily sell 900 statues of Nightwing in mid-dress (or mid-undress). Or how about Captain America in a pair of Speedos and nothing else but his helmet and shield. I know one lady who would buy one of each, at least.

On the Mainstream and their problems

While most of the discussion as of late centers around gender issues (because the “When Fangirls Attack” crowd is the loudest and most organized group addressing them), thats only one part of the puzzle that comics is missing. Race, sexual orientation and younger readers are all under-represented or under-targeted by the industry who has, by and large, made the claim that there isn’t a market there, basically because they don’t want to try hard enough to reach it, or they don’t know how and they don’t want to learn. It’s pretty pathetic.
Back in the ’80’s, when I grew up, DC and Marvel comics were fairly accessible. Not to say that they didn’t tackle dramatic issues or mature themes, but they weren’t riddled with exploding guts or perky nipples either. As an 8 year-old I could pick up almost any comic with the DC bullet or the Marvel masthead and simply and easily escape. This isn’t to say the 80’s were perfect, but that kind of storytelling, where it allows young new readers to come in, easily, is where the mainstream needs to return to, by and large. The constant focus on company-wide crossovers, while healthy for maintaining your 100,000 core readers, only ostracizes the entire remainder of the possible audience. For an outsider to come in and try and approach a Crisis or Civil War, a whole lot of priming must happen, and most people would be easily dissuaded, not having or interested in investing the time to understand what’s so important about these events.
Of course, pre-Crisis on Infinite Earths, minorities were often tokenized and women were thinly characterized (if not nearly as drastically objectified as they became in the 1990s) and that needs to change too. Whenever some strides are made to have a title centered around a black or female character, and it fails, the execs use that as an excuse to say “look, they don’t sell” without ever really examining WHY they didn’t sell (lack of support, doomed to failure from the beginning, bad writer, inappropriate artist, etc).
These days, DC and Marvel do things like: “lets make Captain America black”, or “maybe the new Blue Beetle can be Latino”, or “how about a female Punisher”, and “we have Scoobie-Doo comics for the kids” and then dusting their hands and saying, “there, all done, something for everyone.” Well, as appreciated as the gesture is, you still have to introduce characters who will connect with the audience, whatever age, race, gender, or age.
This is a nice write-up from former DC staffer Johanna Draper Carlson, much better thought out and in the most part reflects exactly my sentiments on the matter.

I’d be interested to see existing superhero comics change to be so girl-friendly that they’d have a majority female audience… but to get there, I think you’d have to remake so many levels of the current direct market (creators, superhero company executives, distributors, retailers) that the world would no longer resemble the one we know…

…I would really like to see what some of them thought about Go Girl!, the only comic I know of that’s unquestionably a superhero comic made by women for girls. But we’re not really talking about superheroes; we’re talking about DC and Marvel superheroes, because many of those requesting more girl-friendly superhero comics want them with the familiar characters they have a love/hate relationship with.

So true. But at the same time, I don’t know that the push is ostensibly “superhero comics for women” but making those comics less outright offensive. Has anyone seen if there’s a list from the Fangirl Rampage out there of what’s routinely offensive and also the conceits they’re willing to give their superhero comics?
And for Aden, and any of the other “dissenters” that get immediately ostracized for not sticking with the herd on every point, Johanna also isn’t one of the gang.
P.S.: I wrote this two days ago, and I’ve since reading many of Johanna’s blog entries like this one, I’ve made my peace with the MJ statue business (her masters in sociology studying fan behavior gives her some pretty good insight, as does her experience as a fan and industry insider). This is the last I’m going to address it unsolicited. Still willing to discuss it in my comments if someone wants to, but no more posts.

Saturday morning

Also, had this thought the other day when thinking and typing about this issue so much: That’s not my only opinion, just my first.
Meaning, essentially, I’m not close minded. I don’t always make up my mind and hold fast to that opinion. Reading, discussing, debating, watching, thinking, understanding, examining things beyond just your first assessment means your initial conclusions aren’t your only conclusions. As big-brained humans (as Vonnegut would call us) we have the luxury of processing and storing a gluttony of information, and to hold fast on one opinion for eternity would be denying the influence of our communal existence. It’s why I don’t get religion, because so much of it asks that you hold fast to one belief while denying so much evidence or information outside of it. There are people that can juggle the exterior information and still have their faith, and more power to them, but sheeping your way through life is no existence at all.

One final quote

from Journalista

My worst fear is that what many male comics readers will take away from all this is the unfortunate idea that most fangirls will find their erotic desires to be demeaning regardless of context or circumstance. Given the astonishing number of truly risable images, characters and stories out there in the Direct Market, seizing upon a harmless bit of cheesecake like this only reinforces the notion that there’s no way to win against such complaints — that male sexuality is somehow offensive by definition — and that the only reasonable thing to do therefore is to ignore them altogether. And that truly would be a shame.

Aden pointed this latest fangirl rampage out to me yesterday, with the statement of “what is all this furor over the Mary Jane statue? …I agree its tasteless, but I don’t know if its worth getting that worked up over.”
I have to agree.
You know, I’m all for making fun of the horribly disfigured “women” Michael Turner draws, because really, he’s a shit artist… and you know when they apparently sexify a teenaged superhero, well, yeah, that’s unnecessary and wrong (considering it was a Jim Lee drawing I’m just numb to his artwork as is, so I didn’t really think of it one way or another at first)… and then you have the inclusion of, well, traced pornstar images appearing inside the books (see: Greg Land)… and when “women in refrigerators” is deemed “character building” I understand why there is a fangirl rampage… and I really do approve of it.
Superhero comics are, historically, an all-ages medium. I grew up reading them, as did millions of others, but, somewhere along the way the audience outgrew the medium. Blame cable tv, video games, the internet and other recreations that have attracted the young’un’s attentions in the past 30 years. In that time, let’s call it the 1990’s shall we, the mainstream comic book makers (read: DC and Marvel, the big two superhero producers) were swayed by two outside trends: sex and violence, which a lot of smaller press publishers were having some success with. With this, and understanding that their audience had started to dwindle and that the bulk of readers were teenaged or 20-something hangers-on from the 70’s and 80’s, comics decided to “grow” with their audience. Some good did come out of it… Vertigo and some smaller press companies that cater to a non-superhero audience with smartly written and decidedly spandex-free stories still exist and are a haven from the spandex hype that’s perpetuated by the success of superhero movies like the Spider-Man and X-Men trilogies.
Back in the 90’s, though, the mainstream, geared towards teenaged boys, became littered with not so much sex, but rather “bad girl” T’n'A art, where the artists drew women in skimpy or skin-tight costumes posing and posturing rather than being in movement. It was pretty unseemly. What made it worse was the violent nature of the time, where movies were pushing the limits of violence, and everything was going “Extreme” and “Grim’n'Gritty”. It was not a good time to be a comics fan, and I’m sure the ugly, busy art with big breasts and big guns was off-putting to many a parent who wished to buy their child a comic or two. And mixing sex (not the physical aspect, but the illustrative “sexy”) with violence, subjugating women, in essence certainly isn’t the what most of us want out of our escapist entertainment.
Since the crash of the “Grim’n'Gritty” and “Bad Girl” era of comics (which also coincided with the “Speculator Boom/Bust”), the big two (DC/Marvel) haven’t yet fully recovered. They’ve made some strides at trying to capture a new audience, but they’re still obsessed with catering to the late-20’s to early-40’s fanboy demographic that they’ve been stringing along for all these years at the expense of building a new fanbase.
This leads us to my point, comics need to cater to more than just an existing fandom. I don’t like seeing women posturing unnaturally in my comics when they’re supposed to be punching someone in the face, and using a cheesecake illustration for the sake of a cover, especially when it has no relevance to the contents inside, isn’t really essential. I also don’t care for on-panel exploding guts and decapitated heads, voluminous blood splatter isn’t really acceptable for the spandex crowd, especially when there’s ostensibly no ratings system in place for readers or parents to evaluate an individual title by. And i don’t want to see superheroes girlfriends ballgagged and tied up and made to look like they’re enjoying it, or murdered for the sake of giving Green Lantern something to get all emo over.
But, I do realize that comics are fantasy. Superheroes are supposed to represent an ideal, in physicality, in attractiveness, in capability, and in character. There’s a reason there’s very few ugly men or women running around in comics (the same way that the big film stars are generally quite attractive), and that’s because it plays into the whole pastiche of reader fantasy. The bad ass vigilante or the noble neo-god, the meek reporter or the billionaire playboy, the superhero and their alter ego give the reader a gateway to a different, much larger, more diverse fantasy life.
Teenaged geeks are, generally, outsiders, unpopular with the cool kids, often with body issues or confidence issues. The fantasy of comics, the buff or buxom unattainable bodies are part of the attraction to it all. The power, quite obviously another part. And identifying with a character who represents both strength and attractiveness brings the reader well into that realm and, in some (many) cases, these fantasies can extend beyond just the printed page.
To find the tight, muscular, spandex-clad men and women of comicdom alluring isn’t altogether unseemly, in fact, unintentionally that’s what they’ve been for years, and moreover, it’s part of the attraction, part of the fantasy of comics. It’s only really since the 1990’s that the obviousness of this aspect has reached the production stage of the mainstream books, and it just hasn’t left since. I would like to see a return to a more willfully oblivious superhero world, where within the pages of comic books the superheroes and superheroines by and large are drawn from an unobjectified perspective and they move in a manner that isn’t reminiscent of a Sports Illustrated photo shoot.
But that doesn’t mean the fantasy can’t extend outside the page. Yes, there’s slash fiction and plenty of fan-created materials on-line to feed this, but “official” stuff is always going to be of a better quality and more attractive, if only because it’s legit. If DC or Marvel wants to print a cheesecake poster of an Adam Hughes-drawn Power Girl or Frank Cho-drawn Spider-Woman, then why not? If they want to make cheesecake bust of Batgirl or Vargas-esque statue of Mary Jane then hey, go for it (it’s when the Michael Turner and horribly anatomically incorrect artists are allowed to do it that I’m offended). Just keep it out of the comics that are intended for a general audience. Though a poster isn’t all that expensive, an alluring portrait on the wall of a teenaged boy’s room is still subject to the scrutiny of his parents. A $50 to $300 bust or statue with a production run of a few thousand are going to be snapped up by fanboys who can afford it, taken to their basements, and rarely to see the light of day beyond that (especially considering most comic book stores don’t order many statues unless requested by a patron, because they’re pricey inventory to hang onto if they don’t sell). If a cleavage-intensive, thong-wearing, ripped jeans Mary Jane bending over a wash basin is going to give a fanboy a few dozen nights of Mr. and Mrs. Peter Parker fantasies, I really don’t see a problem with it. Like I said, just keep it out of the pages. And it’s not like low-cut t-shirts, ripped jeans, and thong underwear don’t exist in everyday life (my girlfriend will tell you that she owns all three, and, from sheer observation, whenever a woman bends over or even sits down in jeans, the jeans move down exposing the underwear… I tease Aden about this often… and apart from moving to wearing, ugh, the “mommy jean” [I watch way too much "What Not To Wear"] that kind of thing isn’t going to stop). I’m not saying that the statue shouldn’t be offensive to some, and I’m not saying that it isn’t kinda tacky, but at the same time it’s cheesecake, and there’ll be 5000 (or so) lonely guys who will enjoy the hell out of it. I say let ‘em have it.
I’m personally much more disturbed by the proliferation of Anime statues and figures which have childlike-but-buxom anime women[?] in submissive [or worse] positions, especially considering how Anime and Manga is more in line with what the kids are actually reading and watching these days. This model is MJ washing Petey’s tights in a skimpy, yet, really, everyday outfit. It’s not like she’s in her underwear bowing down at the heels of Electro or anything. Looking at the statue my imagination conjures that Peter is there with her, having just shucked his costume, his (supermodel, remember) wife decides to wash them (and I know personally that spandex is handwash only) and put on a little show. The statue is a peek into Peter and MJ’s private life, don’t real couples do this kind of thing in the privacy of their own home? Some may think that’s distasteful, others will find it appealing. I’m not purchasing it, I don’t need it, but I’m not angered or even offended (This Supergirl statue is so much more offensive, primarily because it’s so absurdly unrealistic, and secondly because she’s a flippin’ teenager). In fact, I think it’s kind of nice, showing that yes, even married couples can still have sexy fun. They should do a similar statue with Sue Richards, mother of two, to show that a wife and mother can still be smoking hot.
You know, straight fanboys aren’t the only ones who have these kinds of fantasies. The delightful website Living Between Wednesdays has been Rating the Super-hunks, and more power to her (I think it’s great), and a few of the links incoming to Rack Raids are from gay fanboys, containing pictures of pinup men and comic book discussion, which I think is rad. There is a large contingent of female and gay comics readers who I’m sure would love some equal opportunity beefcake happening. A statue of a hunked out (bulging) Nightwing or an “all-hammock” posterbook of the super-men I’m sure would be appreciated by many a gayfan and fangirl.
To say there shouldn’t be cheesecake - or beefcake - as ancillary by-products would be ignoring the demand for it, and obviously there is demand, however niche. But as witnessed by the Commander Steel incident, there’s obviously some ingrained homophobia in the comics industry, which just like sexism, needs to be beaten out before equal-opportunity fan-service will happen.
None of this is to say that there aren’t problems with sexism (or racism or homophobia) in the comics industry, because it does abound. I just think that the battles that need to be fought should stick to the source material: the comics and the people who make them. The ancillary stuff is so niche (most statues only get a couple thousand made) that it’s not the stuff of consequence. Like an actress who goes from 7th Heaven to the cover of Maxim, you can easily watch the show and ignore the peripherals. It’s when her character start striking porn-star poses while having an argument with daddy that you need to get upset. I don’t think a statue or a poster should detract from a title or story or character, they’re fun fan-service that has their place (just a little equal opportunity would be nice).
(note: Fangirl Rampage is not meant in any way as a derogatory sentiment, in fact more rampaging fangirls would be a definite boon to the industry)