Thunderbolts: Breaking Point contrasts two women: the cold, amoral manipulator Moonstone, and rebel-with-a-heart-of-gold Songbird. They are former criminals who have both been conscripted by the government to work for the Thunderbolts. Because of her cunning, Moonstone has become team leader, while Songbird labors with the rest of the "rabble."
The U.S. government that employs Thunderbolts is a bit on the corrupt side -- Harry "Green Goblin" Osborne is one of their officials, for pete's sake. They are also licensing out the images of the team members to make action figures and other collectibles.
Because she is popular with "tweens," Songbird gets the inspirational and beautiful action figures made of her. On the other hand, Moonstone gets a variation on the cheesecake "Mary Jane" statue
made so infamous earlier this year.
As Osborne tells Moonstone:
"...you're popular with...males 18 to 49--a very desirable demographic. They have more disposable income, so we're thinking of a higher-end collectible for you."
Now, there has been some controversy as of late regarding the inclusion of this sequence.
Lisa from Sequentially Speaking writes,
"Personally, I get the feeling that the gang over at Marvel is not taking the concerns of feminist fans seriously. There were news stories in the mass media about this, and while not all did, many expressed concern at the story the statue was telling. Rather than letting it lie, Marvel brings it up again, as if to say, "ha ha ha feminists, we're making fun of your concerns again!" Maybe they don't think we actually read Marvel comics? Or maybe they don't want us to read them anymore and are showing us the door with this panel?"
I have to respectfully disagree with her assessment.
If anything, scripter Christos Gage has actually written something rather subversive. By making the analogy between the Moonstone & MJ statues, he is indirectly also making a connection between the corrupt (or merely shameless) government organization that runs Thunderbolts and Marvel Comics. I don't see it as an angry "down with the Man" connection, but it is a connection.
Had Marvel Comics been so concerned about swaying the public's opinion via subtle story details in their books, I would think the first order of the day would be to veto the whole issue outright on the basis that it might be criticizing their licensing practices.
Instead, I see this as Gage (and, by extension, Marvel itself) poking fun at themselves. This is not Captain America holding up a Mary Jane statue and telling feminists to "lighten up." This is Harry Osborne -- certified fruitbat -- holding up a Moonstone statue and saying "hey, this piece of s**t statue will certainly bring in some revenue with the fanboys." He's not to be taken seriously. He's a fruitbat. The whole organization is not to be taken seriously -- they're corrupt. Moonstone is not to be taken seriously -- she's a cold-blooded killer who makes Sharon Stone in "Basic Instinct" look like Pippi Longstocking.
Then who should be taken seriously in all this?
Songbird.
Songbird has consistently shown herself to be the most capable and moral person in the entire Thunderbolts. She's brave, a great strategist, and a tough fighter. She's a true superheroine. As such, she apparently appeals to teenage girls in the Marvel Universe because she is a great role model.
It is the Moonstone statue, the organization who made the Moonstone statue, and the inspiration of said Moonstone statue who are all shown to be negative in this story. As an alternative to all that, we are given Songbird -- regarding whose personal life and psyche the whole issue is about.
That said, the controversy over this sequence has brought up a connected issue, reflected upon by commenter James Meeley on Lisa's blog:
"They see this as a way of sparking controversy and publicity for the Marvel brand name. They know there are tons of well-meaning fools, who will see this image and jump onto their blogs and pimp the hell out of it. Sure, they'll be calling it "disgusting" and other things like that, but the exposure (no pun intended) will net them lots of interest. It will most likely make this book sell better, once word gets out, since whenever someone calls something out, people flock to it to see what the big deal is."
Are comic book companies purposely including these things knowing that feminists will get angry and blog about it -- thereby providing free publicity?
I think that line of thinking gives too much (or too little) credit to the "think-tanks" for the big comic publishers. A bunch of curious readers buying some comic just to see the boobies on page three will not save or even seriously impact numbers on a book that is crap. A little sales bump on issue whatever is not going to turn the tide on a title -- good writing and art will (and perhaps a guest-spot by Wolverine). Even if this was a strategy that is used -- which I most certainly think was not the case with the
Thunderbolts issue -- it is a short-sighted and ultimately impotent one.
Do the big companies completely disregard the (oft-times totally justified) concerns of feminists regarding their comic books? I have first-hand information & second-hand information that this is not the case. It
is on Marvel & DC's radar. The question then becomes, "how much on the radar," and "what are they doing about it?" Those are good questions. But they are not in a bubble, and to paint a picture of villains sitting behind their desks, twirling their mustaches, and laughing about how a half-page scene in an obscure one-shot will really "stick" it to the feminists is stretching things a bit.
And the editor of
Thunderbolts: Breaking Point was a woman, by the way.
