Yes, I know there have been more than 28 of them.
If you lined up a thousand economists they couldn’t come to a conclusion. You know it’s bad when somebody like Paul Krugman — who has never been shy about his opinions — has to say something that amounts to “Well, it’s not that simple” in regards to current trade policies.
Funny how we only care about fuel economy when gas is expensive. A Senate committee proposes raising fuel efficiency standards 10 miles per gallon in 10 years from 2011 to 2020. Meanwhile there is speculation by the British — not the American economists — that this will surely impact the economy, and even now there are Congressional hearings on gas prices. The Houston Chronicle condemns these hearings as “Gasoline prices are rising — quick, find a scapegoat!”
You have got to listen to this. When I last talked about new music and up-and-coming musicians, I somehow neglected Jonathan Coulton. Well, the New York Times thought he was worth a 6 page spread. Not only does he do pointedly funny original songs like “Shop Vac”, his covers of songs like “Baby’s Got Back” and “You Oughta Know” are marvelous.
Would you believe I’ve met that guy? No, really, he helped me get into grad school in a strange way…. Wait, everything about John Cage was strange. Anyway, BoingBoing linked to this video of him.
Backtrack from Iraq. The good news is Harry Reid is allowing a motion to cut off funds to Iraq to the Senate floor. The bad news is it would give complete funding for another year. This is exactly the sort of nonsense I feared would happen when the House was talking about “We’ll fund you but only for another few months”: a few months here, a few months there, a year gets funded; suddenly Hillary saying her first act as President (in January of 2009, she hopes) will be to bring the troops home looks optimistic.
A month can bring perspective. The nice folks over at The Moderate Voice also wonder if school culture contributes to school violence. Don’t forget to read this rebuttal from The Seeker Blog that basically says we should blame the grown-ups, most importantly the parents. As for myself, I find there are valid points in both, but we cannot leave out some share of blame for teachers and administrators: the grown-ups who theoretically control the school environment. There are times I wonder about schools that more closely resemble Lord of the Flies than Ramona Quimby’s school.
Speaking of schools and violence, a follow up. Two of the teachers involved in the mock-gunman incident have been suspended. I can only hope this is a formality pending their dismissal, rather than a slap on the wrist. Furthermore, I hope other schools do a simple web search on potential teachers and notice that Quentin Mastin and Don Bartch were both suspended for incredibly poor judgement. Oh, and the Gun Guys have some things to say about the incident too.
The problem is… well, that there’s more than one problem. Ezra Klein brings us a chart and commentary on Social Security.
Speaking of Social Security, here’s a bad idea. Wired tells us there is a proposal to put biometric “proof” of our identity on Social Security cards, and require employers to exclusively use them for verification of employment eligibility. This would of course mean that every employer would have to buy expensive biometric readers and computer equipment to make it run. The proponent of this measure says don’t be silly, you could use the one at the post office (yeah right). I’ll tell you how employers will get around this: suddenly everybody will be a contractor, with all the problems that go with being a contractor. And of course there is the problem that this isn’t just a de-facto national ID card, it is absolutely a national ID card with all the attendant civil liberties and identity theft issues that entails. There is one more thing in this article that bears further scrutiny: “Currently, U.S. employers can accept a range of documents, including expired U.S. passports, tribal documents, refugee documents, birth certificates, driver’s licenses and even school report cards, to establish an employee’s eligibility for work.” Compare that to the official instructions on the I-9 form. You’ll find the official list of documents on the last page; it is not legal for an employer to specify which documents must be used, only that it be “one item from column A or one item each from columns B and C”. Column A verifies both citizenship status and right to legally work in this country; it includes things like passports and green cards. This proposal implies that these documents can be forged. Column B is documents that verify identity, and it is also where Wired gets their scare statement that just having a report card is enough to prove you can work in this country…. except that’s not true. If someone is under 18 they can use a report card as an ID document, but they still have to present an item from column C, proof you can actualy work in this country. Way to fear-monger there, Wired.
And finally, Don’t you people have something important to worry about?? Seriously, I am not understanding the problem with the Mary Jane figure. Oh no! She’s fully clothed! And she’s doing laundry! His laundry! Oh the horror!! Because heaven knows she’s only doing laundry because it’s a stereotypically slavishly woman thing to do. Did these people get this upset over the various Catwoman costumes over the years and I just missed it? Did they not come to the conclusion of every teenaged boy that Superman has x-ray vision and can therefore see Lois Lane’s underwear any time he pleases? You know, if Mary Jane were, say, handcuffed to the bucket or wearing fetish gear of some sort, I’d say these people had a point. But lacking that? It’s a figurine; it’s for sale; if you don’t like it, don’t buy it. If you need some real issues of actual importance to most women to get worked up about? NOW has a nice list, you might also look at Finally Feminism 101’s FAQ or Feminist.com I mean really people: aren’t spousal abuse, equal pay, legal discrimination against mothers, Darfur, sexual assault against female members of our armed forces, school shooters who specifically target girls, and access to contraceptives more important than some cheezy little statue? Sheesh!
I mean really people: aren’t spousal abuse, equal pay, legal discrimination against mothers, Darfur, sexual assault against female members of our armed forces, school shooters who specifically target girls, and access to contraceptives more important than some cheezy little statue? Sheesh!
Why is this an either/or situation? Sexism in comics may not be as important as spousal abuse in that nobody is getting beaten up, but it’s still very real, and it still hurts people. Isn’t it possible to campaign against and raise awareness about those topics and also think that sexism in the comic industry is a problem, also?
People have been complaining about sexism in comics for a long time- I don’t know why this story took on so much steam, but I think it’s great.
It’s not about the laundry. For me, it’s more about the fact that she has no internal organs and is standing in an anatomically impossible pose in order to present herself like a dog in heat. Now that’s sexist.
Did these people get this upset over the various Catwoman costumes over the years and I just missed it? Yes, “these people” did. Yes, you missed it. Among many other things, apparently.
If you need some real issues of actual importance to most women to get worked up about? NOW has a nice list, you might also look at Finally Feminism 101’s FAQ or Feminist.com. Thanks for the tip, but I (and many of the people blogging about this statue) are waaaay ahead of you. Why assume that we aren’t working to fight sexism, heterosexism, racism, and ablism in the real world? Most of us are. Why assume that anybody who wrote “Ew, ick!” about that statue on his or her blog isn’t involved in the real world?
I mean really people: aren’t spousal abuse, equal pay, legal discrimination against mothers, Darfur, sexual assault against female members of our armed forces, school shooters who specifically target girls, and access to contraceptives more important than some cheezy little statue? Sheesh! I must have missed the part where somebody actually claimed that the MJ statue was more important than any of the above. Can you enlighten me? Where did somebody actually say that?
By way of clarification, my primary emphasis is that there is limited time, and limited resources for protest, outrage, and activism. Frankly, I hadn’t thought the issue worth commentary but for the multiple *men* who brought it to my attention.
Ok, first off, sexism in comics? They are comics. If the sexism offends you go enjoy some other entertainment medium. Enough people do that and voila the comic industry will change their approach.
As for further inquiry, why aren’t comic book heroes fat, frumpy men? Why are they always portrayed as cut, muscular he-men able to conquer every situation? It’s sexist and sets up an unrealistic ideal for all the Twinkie sucking, acne magnets that lurk around comic shops.
The ultimate point here is that artistic portrayals of the human form go to what people like to look at. Dudes like to look at hot chicks. Chicks like to look at hot dudes. Some dudes like to look at hot dudes and so on. While it might be easier for the 30 % of America that is obese to empathize with a fat, frumpy portrayal of Mary Jane, the reality is that they don’t really want to look at it.
The funny thing is, though, MJ-Gate didn’t start out with a whole lot of commentary. A couple of people on a forum posted pics of the statue, and forum members with responded with “Ew!” and “Ugh.” Then a popular livejournal member posted pics in her journal, and other people echoed with links back to that post and similar expressions of “Ew!” and “Ugh.”
Nobody was really “wasting” effort in any of this. It was a lot of quick, short comments and repeated picture-posts. The only difference is, a LOT of people were making those quick, short comments.
THEN the backlash showed up. Bloggers writing lengthy treatises about why the statue wasn’t sexist, telling the “feminazis” to stop overreacting, leaving long-winded trolling comments on some people’s posts, and – my favorite – defending misogyny as necessary in a genre marketed toward men. A popular blogger told women to “shut up and write your own damn comics.”
More than the statue itself, the backlash against the backlash against the statue (er, I write good English) is what’s stirring up the blogosphere now. Because the anti-feminism camp has reared its ugly head in a much more prolific and vocal way than previously. And feminist bloggers, both male and female, are now spending actual time and effort engaging in that debate. These are really, truly sexist opinions being voiced on popular, powerful blogs – telling women to shut up, telling them that it’s never their place to complain, and throwing misogynistic slurs at them left and right. Phase II of this fiasco isn’t about the statue, it’s about attacking feminists merely for being feminist. If that’s not worth responding to, I don’t know what is.
And no, just because I choose to devote a few minutes of my day to commenting on comic blogs, that doesn’t take away from my job teaching young Somali women how to read, write, and fill out college applications. 😉 I believe that sexism deserves to be called out wherever I see it. I hold no delusions that comics are a more vital investment of my effort than my real-life job. But that doesn’t mean that I stop writing about the comics.
I know that it’s important to prioritize, but I don’t buy the “You can’t worry about X unless you do something about Y, because Y is worse” argument. To quote a smarter blogger than me: “By that logic, you shouldn’t help an old lady cross the street, until you free women in sexual slavery in Asia or something.”
I’m sorry for writing such long-winded comments on your blog, but pop-culture criticism is something that I feel passionate about. Er, could you tell?
I’m still utterly at a loss for what makes it “sexist” as such. If were are defining sexism so broadly as to be “pertaining to females in any way such that a woman objects” that’s really too broad and fails to separate abuse, bias and discrimination for things that are spotted out by people with axes to grind or are merely being bitchy. In as much as bias from one’s own perspective be that sex, age, orientation, race, gaming clan or whatever is inevitable it seems to me that it would be useful to reserve outrage and offense for issues that are in fact culturally, societally or individually (as in human rights) relevant. The issue of the hot Mary Jane statuette rises through no filter to threaten the civil rights of women, increase bias or discrimination or just about anything else that would make it relevant to argue about. If taking such a position makes me “anti-feminist” then so be it.
Gingivitis, I think you’re arguing two separate issues:
1. The statue is not sexist.
2. “Outrage” should be reserved for injustice in the real world, and nobody should ever waste time commenting about sexism/racism/homophobia in popular media like TV, movies, comics, or music.
I’ve already said my peice about #2. If you’re not going to be convinced that it’s important to call out sexism in pop culture, then so be it. If you think that media portrayals of women and minorities are never “socially relevant,” then whatever. I could link you to Kalinara’s post again. And point out that generally the “But Y issue is more important than X!” position is a logical fallacy. It’s like saying that I have no right to complain about sexual harassment in my workplace as long as there are children starving in Darfur. You said that the statue doesn’t threaten civil rights, therefore it’s not even “relevant” to argue about. I think that’s a ridiculous standard for telling me or anybody else what we have the duty to blog about. Let’s take a hypothetical example: Say that you saw a ridiculously racist cartoon caricature of a black character on a random cartoon show. Are you now obligated to shut up, not complain to anybody, and certainly not “waste time” even writing two or three sentences about it on your blog because the issue of housing discrimination against blacks is more relevant?! No, of course not. If you’re offended and you want to say something, then goddamn say something. Telling me or anyone else that we shouldn’t be offended, setting standards for what’s “relevant” to blog about or not… That smells like bullshit to me.
Then again, I guess the reason that we can’t agree on the above is that we don’t agree on #1, because you say that the statue isn’t sexist. Other people have already explained – ad naseum, and in very small, easy-to-understand words – why they think the statue is sexist. You’re free to disagree with a sexist interpretation of the statue. But that doesn’t mean that you get to dismiss the fact that hundreds of male and female bloggers do see the statue as sexist as “irrelevant.”
I think that the people saying “shut up and write your own comics” were saying, albeit inarticulately: : “perhaps a good compromise would be for you to read and/or create manga more suitable to your tastes; and please leave us to our own”
I, too, really do not see the sexism in it unless merely arousing males is sexism. Cartoons and chariactures (sp?) are exaggerations intentionally.
Perhaps the real potential for harm is not the creation and consumption of mature content but that it may be consumed by those for whom it was not intended. Mature entertainment/information was once sequestered from impressionable youth and now that boundary is not so well maintained…
if this axe must be ground then it also must be acknowledged that young white males suffer from media advertisement and comic book characturizations in the same way. To be male and white dooms one to a life of clumsiness, overweight, cuckholding, and stupidity with overtones of shame for being a good-ole-boy in training. ANd this from mainstream media like tv and radio, not limited circulation pulp rags and comics.
These kinds of images are not going to go away; really, can you stop somebody/everybody from scribbling licentious doodles on their notebooks and passing it around? This proves the Short Person is right: you are wasting your time on something beyond your control unless one thinks that males should and can be reoriented sexually to grow aroused at something other than female anatomical proportions (and exaggerations of the same)
And if Mary Jane the statue is a cause for alarm then how about silicon boobs. WOMEN pay alot of money each year to pack on some MaryJane, hunh? and i wonder if the ladies who are commenting negatively on this subject get all dolled up on fridays in order to ellicit the same response from existing or prospective suitors…
To Jukko:
This proves the Short Person is right: you are wasting your time on something beyond your control…
Come back and try again after you know more about the history of comics and the relationship between the blogosphere and the comics industry. Fan outcry has gotten terrible writers fired, saved progressive titles from being cancelled, and pressured Marvel into adopting a policy prohibiting artists from tracing pornography magazines.
I also think that was you and gingivitis are missing is the difference between sexy and sexist. Nobody wants comics to stop having sexy women or chiseled men. The problem is, you can have your cheesecake – you can have incredibly hot, titillating cheesecake – without having it be objectifying or sexist. There are plenty of excellent examples of such in mainstream comics today. Which makes resorting to sexism, instead of sexiness, that much more inexcusable. As to describing the difference between the two, the comics blogosphere has been doing so for years. I don’t have room to do a Media Feminism 101 in this comment, but for a really good example of the difference between sexy and sexist, this post is a good start.
As for the “make your own damn comics” thing… Part of why that was so frustrating to hear was that most of the people writing about sexism in comics ARE already making the damn comics.
And as for the “that’s what men want!” argument, that, again, is bullshit. Male bloggers are telling you what they want, and the vast majority of them have roundly condemned the MJ statue. I don’t have real statistics, but I’m guessing that I’m more familiar with comics fandom and industry than the other people commenting here, and let me say: Male fans don’t like this shit, either. The vast majority of male bloggers condemn sexism, too. It’s just a few Neanderthalic trolls who think otherwise. Unfortunately, said Neanderthalic trolls can be extremely vocal, and they often end up, unfortunately, being the face that comics fandom presents to the world.
but someone IS buying it, Ellen, and those dollars will keep it coming. Another reason you cannot stop the kind of artistic indulgences I mentioned. Yes, you can put pressure on artists who make big bucks and have something to lose, or on artists employed by other folks who have something to lose and this will generate the lip service that comes from men saying they don’t like this “shit.” but men are still buying it, ne?
as for objectifying females or males… are your masturbatory fantasies “fleshed” out with self actualized sensitive diaper changing males or are you thinking about throbbing members and steely muscles?
at some point there must be some recognition that sexuality is all wrapped up in one’s animal nature as well as the cerebral. women sticking their butts out in exaaggerated ways is what THIS male wants (although I wouldn’t buy a figurine…) and very many of my male acquaitances would agree. Those men who say they don’t want such imagery are either seeking to save their mainstream jobs, currying your favor to get in your pants, and/or avoiding your emasculating wrath.(by the way, I have always done my own laundry, and cooking, have worked (well) in positions subordinate to women; and I still love tits whether on a real woman or photographed/animated as vehicles of lustful release)
I would wager that you may be more familiar with the comic industry but submit that your expertise on male opinion is less than perfect and vicarious at best; I just don’t see Hilary CLinton or Martha Stewart figurines commanding the fanboy dollar…
You’re still missing the point. Comics aren’t supposed to be masturbatory fantasies. That’s what porn is for.
Again, nobody is trying to take away your precious titties and ass. The problem is, that stuff doesn’t belong in a genre that traditionally has been family-friendly. Look at the history of superhero comics in the past, look at the market statistics of superhero comics today, and surprise surprise, the titles that are not misogynistic and sexist *sell better* than the ones that are.
Nobody is denying that people will buy (and have bought) that statue. The world is full of idiots, anything that Marvel licenses is going to make *some* money. The thing is, more people would have bought a statue of Mary Jane that didn’t suck.
And again, a reminder, since you didn’t seem to understand it the first time: Sexy =/= Sexist. There can be and should be plenty of beautiful people wearing tight spandex in superhero comics. That’s what makes the genre fun. Note that, again, a woman can be drawn as gorgeous and titillating without being reduced to an object.
Those men who say they don’t want such imagery are either seeking to save their mainstream jobs, currying your favor to get in your pants, and/or avoiding your emasculating wrath.
That’s the most fucking hilarious thing that I’ve ever read. And again, you still don’t seem to understand that “I don’t want porn in my comics” isn’t the same as saying “I don’t like titties.”
(by the way, I have always done my own laundry, and cooking, have worked (well) in positions subordinate to women; and I still love tits whether on a real woman or photographed/animated as vehicles of lustful release)
Thanks for the irrelevant TMI. What do you want, a cookie?
i was merely trying to show, ellen, that I am not at the core a mysogynist (the laundry/ cooking comment)
I guess I am missing the point… In your comic book store you want to sell comic images of a family nature… and noone is allowed to create or distribute cartton images with adult themes… and noone is allowed to explore their fanyasy, whether it contains sexual inuendo or outright graphic depitions. If it doesn’t meet with your approval it can’t be sold…
Vanilla…
Vanilla is fine if that’s what you like. Buy that but don’t be offended if there are other flavors available. Just because Spiderman was on the Electric Company as a character in the 70s doesn’t mean that every interpretation of the characters will be G rated. I’d point out that the films have not been. The amount of hand wringing over content is resolved quite simply by not buy the content that offends your sensibility.
Further, it’s clear that Jukkou and I don’t really understand why you’re offended at all and that’s going to be a remaining point of confusion no matter how long this thread goes on.
precisely what the Shortwoman was saying; look how much time Ellen has spent away from teaching Somali women how to read and write ( a really effective action as opposed to censorship which is usually futile) just to try an figure out what drives men sexually… and men trying to fathom why that makes women mad… (can I help it if I like to watch you make me a ham sandwhich?)
but really, I don’t care whose laundry is being cooked or whose ham sandwich is being washed as long as if, on occasion, you (women generally) do it in tight/skimpy clothing and stick out your butt while doing it. I fully embrace the notion of equality atwixt the sexes yet i lament that in some cases “les differances” are sacrificed in the effort to bring this about… The masculinizaion of females and feminization of males… the socialist in me wants to ascribe this to capitalistic forces… now there’s a thread.(and a conspiracy theory – how amusing!)
I never said that nobody can make or sell adult comics.
I never said that I support censorship in any way, shape, or form.
Jukkou, don’t flatter yourself to think that I’m trying to figure out what makes you or any man tick sexually. I really, really don’t care.
Gingivitis – I submitted a comment much earlier about why the statue is sexist, and provided links to some relevant blog posts. That comment is still waiting for moderation, so I’m sorry that it hasn’t shown up here yet.
Having read your to be moderated posting above, I think you’ve misunderstood what I meant by relevant sexism. I don’t think the statue is “sexist” in a meaningful way since you seem willing to differentiate sexy and sexist. But even if the statue is sexist, a limited edition statue of a comic book character is NOT socially relevant sexism. It’s sexism confined to a niche within a niche. My point was that since apparently the definition of sexism is far too broad for me to appreciate the distinctions between sexy and sexist, I propose then carving out some measure of relevancy. “Sure, it’s sexist but is it important?” A sexy statue of a comic book character just isn’t.
“Its not about the laundry. For me its more about the fact that she has no internal organs and she is standing in an anatomically impossible pose in order to present herself like a dog in heat…”
Ellen, I am not about to “flatter myself” by thinking that ( since argumentum ad hominum abusive is fair play by your precedent) an overly sensitive misanthrope may be trying to fathom me. The fact that males are aroused by a woman sticking her butt out to make herself appear sexually availible or positioned for “the act” does not relegate women to exploitation. To insist that it is that way is to deny human sexuality.
Is there shame that to allow physical entry women tend to “pose” in “dog-in-heat” poses? and that males find that somehow visually stimulating (it is sort of pavlovian – butt sticks out – i can get in – bing – sexual arousal sensory input response) and that this is caricatured in “art” or comics? How is sexual attraction between the sexes exploitive or abusive?
Gingivitis – Whether you agree whether the statue is sexist or not, I don’t mind. What I came here to argue is, I think it’s ridiculous to tell hundreds of bloggers that they should be concentrating on something “more relevant.”
A whole lot of people had a visceral reaction to that statue. You didn’t. That’s fine. But a whole lot of people did, and then they – gasp! – wasted a five minutes of their precious time making short “OMG EW!” posts to their personal journals.
I think you’ve probably spent more time commenting here than most of the people who wrote about the MJ statue spent “wringing their hands” (not really) about it. And you know what? That’s fine!
Do you have a blog? Do you ever write about music or books or movies? Do you ever see something that you like and rec it on your blog, or see/hear something that makes you go “ugh!” and dash off a few biting sentences about it? That’s all that happened here. Nothing more, nothing less. Hey, even Shortwoman wrote about music in this entry. To claim that there’s a zero sum game here – that every moment anybody spends writing about something that isn’t directly involved in, say, saving the rainforests takes energy away from “more worthy” causes – is just really, really silly.
Jukkou – Please don’t throw “ad hominem” at me. You’re the one who told me that all of my male friends were only faking being decent in order to get into my pants. Also, having read your last comment… Really, I think that the Feminism 101 FAQ that Shortwoman recommended is right up your alley.
(my apologies to your male friends…)
Okay I give: I will give up sex with women and flagelate my self if/when aroused by the sight of a woman (or their graven image)to ensure that I am not trouncing womens’ rights in some periferral way. I now know that acknowledging my hormonal response to the female form is sacriligeous, exploitive and in”decent.”
does anybody want to cuddle?
And to further clarify the Cliff Notes version of the kerfluffle: Of course there’s been escalation, but it sure as hell hasn’t come from the people complaining about the statue. Dirk Deppey at Journalista took the opportunity to write a 2000-word essay decrying how hysterial “fangirls” (ignoring the dozens of male bloggers snarking the statue) were ruining comics fandom oh noes! Compare that to Devildoll’s original post about the statue, which set off all of the repeat posts: Three sentences. So who’s doing the hand-wringing here? And Devildoll’s post has since been edited because she’s been slammed with hundreds of trolls making anonymous rape threats against her. Rape threats. Over a dumb statue and some bloggerly snark.
Then the national news outlets like Fox News and the NY Post pick up the story. Yeah that’s escalation, but it’s hardly something that you can blame the original bloggers for. They were just snarking and expressing their disgust. Nobody was trying to turn this into a socially relevant issue. Until the backlash began, and all of a sudden you had people like Deppey turning this into an opportunity to write long-winded screeds about the uselessness of feminism itself. And like I said, people did respond to that, because that wasn’t about the statue anymore.
This has been the third time that I’ve given the Cliff Notes in this comment thread. Normally I would throw up my hands in disgust and tell y’all to just read the damn posts before making judgement calls, but as there’s hundreds of them, I honestly can’t blame anybody for not wanting to read through all of that. 😉
And to Jukkou – You’re still not getting it. Please do read the Feminism FAQ. Nobody wants to take away your sexuality. Jesus.
I’d like to thank everyone for a spirited discussion. I think this is the most comments I’ve ever gotten on any single item! By way of follow-up, I’d like to post this item by a friend of the artist who created the statue in question. I will let him speak for himself.
I hope everyone has a great Friday!