May 13, 2007 

Well, I Feel Uncomfortable.

Marvel has a new figure coming out.

Wow, how amazingly objectifying is that? Let’s do a checklist…

We have a cleavage shot of a married woman, who is bent over, displaying her ass, while hand washing his clothing for him… while wearing pearls.

Yeeesh.

I know comics feature sexualized images of women and (occasionally) men. I know that merchendice may also be sexualized. I’ve gotten used to it and just don’t support such products with my hard-earned dollars.

However, what I can’t get past is the fact that this is a statue of a supermodel/actress – a successful career woman who has, in the past, been shown to be more than just yet another damsel in distress. How do they chose to depict her? Not as a model, not as a strong woman… but as a glorified maid.

The ever-rational Ragnel has a few, more detailed posts about this, including where to write if you feel like complaining.


  • km

    Speaking as a fully-qualified female: Having perused a few of Ragnell’s links, I’m not sure I’m ready to support the outermost outrage level fully. It is, after all, only a comic-book-themed statuette, and it’s not designed to sit in the Louvre.

    However, taken on its own level…yeah, yeesh. It’s cheap and tawdry and small-minded and…wholly unimaginative. Were I a male comics fan I would be really, seriously cringing at Sideshow’s – and by extension Marvel’s – concept of me, what would please me. Especially given the $150 price tag.

  • Zeta

    This wouldn’t be so bad if there were a Peter Parker companion figure to go with it showing Peter vacuming the floor in a pink apron. That would be worth the $150 price tag. $200 if he was doing it in the Venom suit.

  • http://www.myspace.com/kuragari Ian

    i have mixed feelings about this. while yes it is saying she is a sex object i don’t think it is making her out to be “damsel in distress”. i think it is speaking more to the fact of what a dedicated wife she is. “for those who picked up the new issue of “sensational spider man annual” we see mary jane putting herself in harms way. in front of tons of s.h.i.e.l.d agents trying to clear his name and remembering the past. confident that her husband would rescue her. she knew she was in danger. but the danger didn’t exist to her since she believed in her husband. the final page even shows them taking the “leap into the unknown” so while this isn’t the greatest statue of her, i believe to need to look at the character first and then look at the statue to draw your conclusion. besides last point is she is an actress, even she knows and makes constant knowledge about her figure and being appealing to the opposite sex. so those who have a problem with that aspect take it up to marvel about the character not the statue

  • http://www.comixbearbarecomix.blogspot.com/ Comixbear

    Wow. When I saw the first shot of the front of the statue, my initial thought was “Okay…That’s not a statue…It’s a bust!”

    http://www.comixbearbarecomix.blogspot.com/

  • typolad

    Ian- I didn’t say it was making her into a DiD, I just noted that MJ is usually written as more than one.

    What it does is portray a wife in a highly servile roll, while at the same time sexualizing her, including via such archiac trappings as the “pearls while doing housework”

    Plus, and I don’t know how I missed this… she’s barefoot. Nice touch.

  • Gaz

    I mostly agree with you about this (it’s the laundry thing that really pushes it over the edge for me too, although the torn jeans are an odd choice…), Typo, but the ‘she’s a supermodel, not a sex object’ argument may not be the best one to go with.

  • km

    ***while yes it is saying she is a sex object i don’t think it is making her out to be “damsel in distress”. i think it is speaking more to the fact of what a dedicated wife she is.***

    Yeah, ie. a ‘dedicated wife’ is one who lives only to gratify her husband’s every demeaning whim. Thanks, that just made the whole concept about a hundred times worse…

  • Michael

    Don’t forget, she’s also not wearing her wedding ring.

  • sackett

    Yeah, but what a rack!!!!

  • Who, me?

    I think everybody is ignoring the elephant in the room. Mary Jane is a high-priced model and an actress and she can’t even afford a washing machine?!?!? Who the heck is her agent? Colonel Parker? (For those of y’all who don’t remember the Colonel, he was Elvis’s manager.) Come on, Mary Jane. Pry open that purse of yours and buy you a washing machine.

  • jgordon9

    Perhaps now’s not a good time to mention that the same company also makes an Emma Frost figure….

  • Zeta

    Emma Frost’s entire character is bitchy slut, though.

  • jgordon9

    I suppose….although the statue is just as sexist and objectifiying in it’s own way. It just displays a different fantasy

  • http://www.writingrobot.com robotdog

    well, i like it. i think sexy, busty women doing my laundry for me is hot. and i’m not joking. objectification for the purposes of sexual fantasization is normal, healthy and cool. this ridiculous self-indulgent PC outcry over a piece of plastic is… boring.

  • Steve Bergson

    You’re right, but you’re also missing one of the angles.

    One of the other sites pointing out how wrong this image is includes the side view, with which you can clearly tell that MJ’s wearing a pink thong. And I thought the torn jeans were bad enough.