No, I'm not going to show it here. Go follow the link if you're the one person who doesn't know what I'm talking about.
I am so completely over this argument because it fails to address the point I find most salient:
Mary Jane is, always has been, and always will be, nothing more than Peter Parker's trophy wife.
There. I said it. I don't care how sexist or marginalizing or whatever it is that you think it, but the fact remains that MJ is not a symbol of female empowerment. Now I'm not a dedicated Spider-Man fanatic with an encyclopedic knowledge of all things sequentially arachnid, but I'm pretty sure that Mary Jane's main purpose in the comic is as follows:
- To complicate Peter's life (IE relationship problems);
- To be threatened or taken hostage by the villain;
- To remind Peter what he's fighting for/ reward him for his heroism when no one else will.
Want to talk marginalization? Imagine Sue Richards in a similar pose, washing Reed's unstablies. Or, Eris help us, Black Canary doing Green Arrow's laundry. Both of these are strong women, both feminine and feminist, and relegating them to the role of washer-women would horribly undermine all of their heroic efforts, struggles, and sacrifices. If that kind of statue was made, believe you me, I'd join the mob with the torch and pitchfork that I keep near my front door for just such an emergency.
But MJ? Has she ever been anything other than a C-cup bosom for Spider-Man to rest his head on at the end of the day?
Seriously, people. If you're going to argue about anything, argue about how MJ is basically Peter's sex-kitten reward for a hard day's superheroing. But this statuette? Don't get your spandex in a bunch over it.
PDF
