After dismissing the anger about the statue, because it is more "Bettie Page than Larry Flynt," we are then told we are merely being strident fangirls who should STFU.
A scroll through the last few days of When Fangirls Attack links reveals less a collection of feminist criticism than a sloppy combination of knee-jerk outrage and reactionary herdthink with which the Attacking Fangirl contingent has gotten embarrassingly comfortable in recent months — sort of a distributed John Byrne Forum for she-nerds every bit as engorged on their own inflated sense of entitlement and inability to see past gender assumptions as the goofiest he-nerd on the Internet.
This has turned into one big internet wank session from all corners, from all sides of the argument.
I realized, though, why this statue has become a lightning rod for all this ire:
It is itself. There are no trades to read, no panels to analyze in order to "get it." Even if you know nothing about Spiderman, or comics at all, the offensiveness of the piece is evident. I also feel that the "sassy vs. self conscious" dichotomy between the original art and the statue also are evident, without knowing anything about the character depicted.
As a rallying point, the statue sucks. While it is undeniably offensive, there are too many opinions on why for it to be of any use. The fact that I like the Hughes art alone can be used against me. (Whatever. I like it. ::ptthhhbb::)
It's unfortunate that the problems with Supergirl are so textual, because she would be a fantastic arguing point. To be fair, she is often cited, but the references to issues and panels and the like keep her out of reach of many. (I happened to leaf through a trade over the weekend and be
Obviously, to make good arguments, one must do the research. That said, this statue has given even non-readers a chance to say, "Ein minuten bitte...hay un problemo...avec disse religione...."