Social Question

janbb's avatar

Should a statue of Marilyn Monroe's iconic pose be taken down because it is sexist?

Asked by janbb (59610points) June 23rd, 2021

A 50 foot statue of Ms Monroe in her subway pose has been erected in Palm Springs by the city next to the art museum. Multiple protests have argued for it being taken down, mainly because it “hypersexualizes” Monroe. Please read the article linked below:

Your thoughts?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

22 Answers

Nomore_lockout's avatar

It’s a cultural icon. I think we’re getting a bit to sensitive these days. And while some sensitivity is a good thing, we have a tendency to get carried away at times. I’m more offended by monuments of the Ten Commandments erected on Court Building grounds, than I would be of a statue to Monroe in that pose. We all have our own views of course. I don’t know if I can find this again, to provide a link. But I recently read an article online about a Black Civil War re enactor guy, some where in the South, who had been standing guard over a Confederate monument in full Confederate uniform and with a loaded musket. He said it was a part of his heritage, as a descendant of a Black man who had fought for the Confederacy. And any one trying to vandalize the monument would have to go thru him to do it. I wouldn’t advise anyone to try to tangle with that guy. So it takes al types, and one persons anathema is another persons heritage or icon. Make of that what you will.

chyna's avatar

I wonder what she would have thought about the statue. I wonder if anyone is still alive that would have know her feelings on that movie and pose.
I personally don’t care one way or the other.

elbanditoroso's avatar

It hypersexualizes her because she was a hypersexual personality – a sex kitten, in the parlance of the day. Basically the statue is unembellished history. It’s accurate. It isn’t exaggerated, like the Civil War memorials.

The old coots in Palm Springs should relax.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I believe that the pose as sexist is today a pointless and hollow argument. There is no longer much to be considered exploitive or purient about it by today’s standards. The pose, like the photo, is but a marker for “hot” in a bygone era. That pose is from 70 years ago. 70 years before that, the sight of a woman’s bare leg was considered scandalously lewd and tantamount to solicitation.

zenvelo's avatar

As far as I am concerned, the statue is fine.

What is creepy, in my opinion, is all the jerks that will walk underneath to look up her skirt.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@elbanditoroso Yes, she did that herself and enjoyed it to the hilt. Leave it be, geez.

ucancallme_Al's avatar

Be better if it was of her head, shoulders & in particular, her cleavage.
That would be a magnificent bust!

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

I read the article.

Yes, it’s sexist, but it can also be viewed as celebrating beauty.

I don’t know if it should be removed.

Was Marilyn exploited? Yes. I read a first person account by a man who was walking with her in NYC. She was visible but getting no attention. She asked the man if he wanted to see her turn it on. He said yes, and she did something unremarkable, but everything stopped. Cars stopped in the street. People stopped on the sidewalk and stared. Did she enjoy that? It’s likely she got a type of validation from it, but knowing her end, I doubt she enjoyed it.

Demosthenes's avatar

Reading some of the complaints about this statue, not all the gripes are from those who find it sexist or misogynist, but others who think it’s indecent and inappropriate and don’t want kids seeing it. It’s interesting when the progressive complaints join with the socially conservative complaints. I’m not sure how I feel about it. I think it’s kind of ridiculous (given its size, the “upskirting” of it) but not enough to feel that it should be taken down. It has been in a number of different locations before Palm Springs. I’m sure if it moves from Palm Springs it’ll find another home where it can be a tourist draw.

elbanditoroso's avatar

But that’s not the point, @Demosthenes – by trying to remove it, and display it elsewhere, they are non-personing her. They (whoever they are) are demeaning her personality and her history for their own motivations.

Basically, they’re trying to erase her flambouyance (which for 1960 was pretty out there) and replace it with 2022 values.

In the book 1984, this would be called ‘unperson’ and rewriting history.

Caravanfan's avatar

I’ve seen several articles about it. This is the first one that doesn’t take the photo from behind where you can see her underwear. People are behaving appallingly around the statue.

smudges's avatar

Imo, it’s not sexIST, it’s sexY. Leave it alone.

YARNLADY's avatar

IMO why is the sight of a woman’s underwear such a “thing”?

JLeslie's avatar

I’m fairly neutral. It’s an iconic pose, but they certainly could have shown her in another pose. Sexy was part of her schtick and she was sexy even in long sleeves and slacks. She had a curvy figure, beautiful face, lovely posture, and displayed confidence. I would have preferred it was a more dignified pose of her, but I don’t think it needs to be taken down.

I’m with @YARNLADY that I don’t understand seeing underwear as a thing except for kindergarten boys who tease girls when they see their underwear. What is wrong with people? Go to watch professional dancers or watch ice skaters and you see under their skirts all the time as they spin, get lifted, and kick their legs up. When I go out dancing in a short skirt I think about what color underwear I wear just in case a flash of it winds up being seen. Geesh.

Kardamom's avatar

As long as there isn’t a fountain springing forth from her lady parts, I think it’s fine. It’s an iconic “Hollywood” type of pose with Marilyn Monroe.

Most people have seen the photo, or the film clip of that scene, and nobody has gotten their knickers in a twist. Palm Springs is kind of an off-shoot of “classic” Hollywood. That’s where all the big stars in the 50s and 60s went to vacation and to be “seen.”

The Marilyn Monroe pose is quite tame compared to a lot of what you see on regular network TV, or even on TV commercials, and awards shows these days.

mazingerz88's avatar

How else are we going to learn what is evil sexism or mild sexism or naughty and fun sexism? Asking priests and shamans? Her height is so to warn prudes to stay away, herein lies gigantic vagina.

Nomore_lockout's avatar

You’d think we’d have more important things to worry about in this country, than a statue of an actress who had been dead for sixty years. Like, oh don’t know. Maybe health care, right wing extremists, racism?

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

^The beauty of living in a society is that we can concentrate on many different things at the same time. This person spends time and energy on Black Lives Matter. That person thinks about climate change. Another person spends their time on voting rights, and another person concentrates on endemic misogyny. We don’t all have to think about the same thing. It’s really a good thing. This way we can handle all the issues that create a society.

janbb's avatar

Personally, I think the statue in its size and subject is fairly kitschy and tasteless but I can’t see objecting to it on the grounds of hyper-sexualization That’s what MM was; a sex symbol. And yes, the article states that there were other objections to it. In a way, it’s also kind of fun and I wouldn’t protest it unless it were in the middle of my street.

Caravanfan's avatar

I wouldn’t protest it; I think that’s stupid. I just am not a fan.

kritiper's avatar

Sensual, not sexist.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The statue should be defended on the simple grounds that the idea of the thing being lewd by today’s standards is preposterous on its face.

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther