I think the fact that the only people with anything negative to say about this issue, didn’t even address your query, opting to instead personally insult you, pretty much speaks to the truth of the “outrage” at the statue.

As for why you should be angered by it, I can’t really say for sure, since I, also, don’t really see any big deal with it.

I can say I might understand a sensitivity to the statue, due to the fear some feminists have of any image of a woman that is sexually pronounced or put into a light of being domesticated, which is most probably going to set off their warning sirens, no matter how benign the image itself might be. A matter not helped by fans (of both genders) who have no problem with the statue, taking offense at those who do.

However, while I understand all that, I certainly feel that both sides of the “debate” have gone way of the line, in their zeal to defend what they believe. I think the anger at the statue, is less about the statue and more about both sides unwillingness to listen to the other’s point of view. It has become just a sad commentary on comic fans everywhere, as even most of the media attention this “outrage” has sparked, of which some feminists are claiming as a triumph, has done little more than to perpetuate the stereotype of the “comic nred, who’s too anally rententive about their own brand of entertainment choice.” I don’t know how ANYONE can see that as a win, for any of us, be they man or woman.

I guess I really haven’t helped you in understanding why you should be mad about this statue, as you were asking for others to do. But I did want you to know that what you said did get through to those of us who are willing to hear people, even if you used the incorrect image in the post.

tinderblast: I’m sorry you feel I did this all wrong.

As for why the control art isn’t a problem, uh … all the reasons I didn’t cover in my own comment, you covered yourself, so I’m not sure what you’re missing? Seriously, if you really are genuinely confused, I’m not sure how to help you at this point, dude.

(And yeah, sorry, if you are genuinely confused, you’re not doing a very good job of convincing people that you’re genuinely confused…)

I hope Carla doesn’t mind me saying this, but this is part of the problem with the comics blogosphere and trying to discuss something like this– or anything really.

Why would you immediately assume the worst and respond out of spite? That’s a crap response. If someone wanted dialogue or real change, they’d be open to someone else saying “I don’t get it. What am I missing?”

If someone says, “Help,” don’t say “You didn’t say please.” Screw that.

Let the rest of the internet be jerks. If you’re going for change or dialogue or even just intelligent discourse, you’ve got to be different and/or better.

Sorry, that’s just a tremendous pet peeve of mine. It’s nuts and crap and rude.

Betty: WOW! Intellectually dishonest? That’s… what can I possibly say to that? You win? I come asking for help and because I post the wrong picture or a picture you believe isn’t relevant to what I’m talking about, I’m lying?

tinderblast: I’m not saying people are complaining about the concept art (though, why aren’t they? the picture still is overly sexualized, shows her barefoot and doing laundry), I do say that the maquette is this issue at hand. Despite Betty’s beliefs, I’m not lying here; I really am confused as to what everyone is so outraged at. I’m sorry the picture I used confused the issue.

Basically, the answer to your question is that I, at least, can’t answer your question because you seem to be talking about something else entirely.

This is a bit like linking to the Sistine Chapel and asking why everyone is offended by the Piss Christ. I’m honestly not certain whether you’re intellectually dishonest, or just missed the critical distinction, but I shall assume the former.

(she isn’t actually doing his laundry, though. the story summary (???) on the Sideshow website says he snuck his stuff in with hers, hence the grin. once i read that, it made much more sense.)

I like Adam Hughes. His art, be it a cheesecake piece or a standard piece, tends to have a lot of personality and great design. His covers are top notch. If he put out a sketchbook, I’d be all over it.

The statue is like a non-entity to me. My only real issue with it is that it really doesn’t look like the Hughes control art in anything but composition.

Regarding the response to the statue… I don’t know. A lot of it seems like hyperbole, you know? Exaggerating for effect. The “It’s porn!” argument in particular. It isn’t even remotely porn, unless you’re using a 1930s definition of pornography.

My two cents. It isn’t quite Devil’s Advocate, since I like Hughes and am apathetic toward the statue, but it’s something, I hope?