So basically Katepolis is saying Gender equality and sexuality/erotica are mutually exclusive? Or is she making the mistake of confusing Gender equality to Gender neutrality. I can’t really live with that, but then again, I don’t live in the U.S.
The drawing itself is a bit shabby, as for the pose? I think it’s quite spidery the way she’s crawling on top of the building. Perhaps the notion of Spider-Woman in itself is erotic. Perhaps If she was given a less (socially accepted) feminine shape, short legs, square hips, and big strong arms, people wouldn’t take notice of the pose. While we’re at it, let’s not have her wearing lipstick, let’s not have her wax her upper lip and let’s cut her hair for practicality. No use of those girly curls fluttering in front of your eyes as you’re climbing a skyscraper, right? Moving on to the pose, let’s scrap the spidery pose and have her standing on top of a pile of dumb looking crooks (Yawn)…
Non-news on a non-topic. The drawing is somewhat erotic, so what? Speaking from a Dutch point of view, gender equality is a fact, get with the program and pick the right battles.
“Last month, Marvel presented the variant cover for Spider-Woman #1 which featured the superhero in an overtly-sexualized, anatomically silly pose that had her presenting her lady bits to the city below. On Tuesday, the company announced that it had canceled two covers that Milo Manara, the artist responsible for the sexualized Spider-Woman, was slated to draw.
Avengers & X-Men: Axis #1 and Thor #2 were both supposed to have Manara variant covers — collector’s items that are rarer than standard covers — which will now be created by other artists, Newsrama reported.
Manara is known for his erotic comics. And the argument here isn’t whether or not Manara should be allowed to draw his erotic art. The question is why Marvel, a colossal comic company that has started to position itself as a diversity and gender equality leader in the industry, commissioned Manara to create the Spider-Woman cover if what it was touting was gender equality.”
I just recently found out that Sean Connery turned down the roll of Gandalf in the LOTR franchise because of the poor script. Stating that he read the book and didn’t understand how they made a script as bad as this.
This really made me like Sean Connery even more, but it puzzled me that I never read anything else about this. The funny thing is, if you Google this topic, you will only find articles on how stupid Sean Connery is for turning down the roll and not understand the script. Now that’s a nice way of twisting the facts. A clearer interpretation would be: Peter Jackson is turning a great book into an atrocity and I want nothing to do with it.
FEATURED ARTIST: Eva Berendes, Untitled (Monday & Tuesday), 2014. Steel and lacquer. 86 ½ x 98 ½ x 59 inches each. Courtesy CRG Gallery New York, Sommer & Kohl Berlin, Jacky Strenz Frankfurt, Ancient & Modern London, and the artist.
Halil Altindere, Emma Goldman Series, 2010
'if I can't dance it's not my revolution'
'I'd rather have roses on my table than diamonds on my neck'
'women need not always keep their mouth shut and their wombs open'