Bull-Pen Water Cooler
Some times you just gotta chat about stuff that isn't Work-related. Blow off steam. Share random news. Ask for advice. Tell everyone how drunk you are. Whatever. He's the place.I just came across this on my facebook feed. I guess this is the offensive image:
And the notable quote is here:
It seems that in today’s desperate-for-sales comic book market, nothing is sacred. In the midst of world-saving adventures, today’s modern heroine breast feeds her child with zero modesty. Talk about work-life balance! It hearkens back to those Enjoli fragrance TV ads of the ’70s — I can bring home the bacon, fry it up in the pan, and never, never let you forget you’re a man…” I’m just so impressed with this I-can-have-it-all super heroine. I had to wonder, did La Leche League (or as my wife took to calling them after she delivered our son, ”The Breast Milk Mafia”) pay big-time sponsorship money for this cover? What a wholesome, family-friendly image!
Personally, I don't see why that is any more offensive than this:
or this:
But maybe I'm way off in "left" field?
Comments
As for the breastfeeding, kids gotta eat, no biggie. Most moms I know (wife included) prefer to cover up when feeding, though.
And what does he care? It's a BKV book, the breast will probably die in the last issue.
The notion that an image like this of a mother feeding her child isn't "family-friendly"... just boggles my mind.
Back to the "offensive" image, that lady hardly looks like she just delivered a kid. Maybe she gave birth on the fashion show runway?
***
I think its a bit disingenuous to suppose that there isn't, or shouldn't be a sexual component read into the first cover. Yes, she's using her milky breast as a milky breast. But a breast is also a sexual signal and its a mistake to imagine otherwise. Thus, in our culture at least, woman who nurse publicly usually do cover up for modesty's sake, and polite folk who see them make a point of not staring.
But this is brazen display. She is not gazing tenderly at her precious nursing child. She's making a show of it. This is a woman looking out at the world, taking on the greater world and not the solipsism of a mother turned inward to the privacy of her small world of mother and child. She is telling the (presumed heterosexual male reader), "You'd like some of this, wouldn't you."
The fact that it is drawn by a woman doesn't change this message. I'm not offended by it, but I refuse to think that its something other than what it is.
You would be surprised to find her standing in a busy area, as exposed as this woman is, letting the kid do its thing while she took a business call.
I didn't notice that she was breatfeeding until it was pointed out and, judging by the tweety machine, wasn't the only one. I disagree that is intended to be sexual or hot. You can see it that way, but it's not a fact.
I went to the blog and left a restatement of my position there.
Umm, a couple of responses:
Shawn, I don't put a conversation between intimate friends on quite the same level as the look on the illustrated woman's face, but obviously, at least one of these woman finds no need to cover. And frankly, I find her a good deal hotter than the Asian schoolgirls (but schoolgirl attire isn't much of a fetish for me). I agree that the middle image is intended to be sexualized.
Brandon, it isn't the amount of breast that's shown, its the attitude with which she conducts the activity (something most 'erotic" artists don't necessarily get. They show all of the naughty bits and it may as well be fish).
"But, now that I recognize the woman's breastfeeding, her expression does make me
mildly uncomfortable, just for how out-of-place it seems to me."
I think that you are starting to recognize just what I'm seeing.
Jason, (and others who didn't immediately notice the breastfeeding). Did you see her intended as a sexually hot woman?
Eric, an interesting point. I haven't followed this series, but you may be on to something.
As I say, I'm not offended either. I often point out where I see sex in art (and get this kind of pushback) because I think its enormously valuable to be able to read art in this way, and use it if you intend to.
But if my observations (or note Brandon whom I quote above) make real the possibility of it being seen as otherwise, then that knowledge can provide greater control in determining just what your art will express.
have I heard anyone suggest that breastfeeding, even in public, is or
should be offensive. Just the opposite. But that's real life and this is
art. Art is contrived, constructed to create effects, and everything that goes into it is fair game to be analyzed as to intent, even when effects are accidental.
Very often, "it's realistic" simply isn't enough. An example; in my wife's book club, they read a book (I don't recall what) wherein one of the secondary characters is described as gay. This character apparently is not in a relationship, and his sexual preferences had no impact on anything in the story. This seemed to satisfy some of the women in the group, "Its realistic." and indeed it was. But this is art, and if this character's sexual orientation has no bearing on anything else in the book, why bother to mention it? It was one of several things that left my wife with the feeling that the author lacked control over his materials.
Eric's observation that what I termed this woman's "brazen display" may be very much in keeping with the intent of the authors as to her character, suggests that it was an intended element of this illustration.
It seems to me a subtle enough portrayal, and if Eric's notes are correct, very appropriate to the character. I find that sexier than either of the two Dorman images.