In case you were watching The Big Bang Theory Llast night (Spoiler: we weren’t) you may have seen the gnag arguing over a sexist poster in the comics shop they frequent. And you may have guessed that it was the work of Amanda Conner (and colorist Paul Mounts.) The poster was created to show all the sexist cliches you can have in one unfriendly comics shop and Amanda hit them all…but let’s face it, it’s still a lovely piece.

The poster was commissioned especially for the episode, so I guess the producers are Amanda Conner fans…in which case they are lockstep with the rest of the world.


  1. ok, i’ll bite. why is the piece above (which goes out of it’s way to be blatantly sexist. whips, thigh high boots, a woman wearing a metal dog collar attached to a chain lease, being handcuffed, with pouting lips, in a get up that might get her arrested if she wore it at the beach)”lovely”, but the spiderwoman piece (that was to be used as a variant cover) showing her climbing onto a rooftop, butt in the air, from several months ago by milo manara , that piece was over the top and had to go. the piece above was created to show all the sexist cliches in nerd culture, so that would make the piece informative, a conversation piece meant to spur a discussion on the topic of sexist attitudes in nerd culture. by all accounts both pieces are well done, by professional artists. the manara piece could also be considered “lovely”, but at the time all that was heard describing that piece was “offensive”. can the piece above be considered both “lovely” and “offensive” and if so,could not the manara piece be considered the same way? for the record, i don’t have a problem with either piece. both conner and manara produce some fantastic work ( i would love to see conner produce a series of posters of marvel’s female characters like manara did). i’m just intrigued by the double standard of one piece being “lovely” and the other piece being “offensive”. by the way, the above piece wasn’t the only “sexist” item in the shop during the show. there were several statues placed all over the shop showing half naked women, most notably vampirella. then came all the usual cliches of how a comic book shop owner is a weird and creepy guy.blah, blah, blah.

  2. ABC,
    The difference was well expressed in a SLATE piece referenced here on THE BEAT, with this one sentence by Amanda Marcotte:

    “But really what it comes down to is who is in control of the butts in question. ”
    Everything else Marcotte wrote was drivel, but that one sentence expressed a basic truth. The Manara piece was vilified by people who didn’t think men should be allowed to take pleasure in depicting women’s bodies, while the Conner piece was used to make fun of men for wanting to take pleasure in depicting women’s bodies. The offensiveness was mitigated according to the party who had the “upper hand,” to more or less quote SEINFELD. As for the routine-ness of the jab at comics fans, it’s pretty much SOP for Chuck Lorre.

    I’m not sure whether or not Heidi precisely said that “the piece was over the top and had to go,” but it does capture the vibe communicated on sites like DCWKA and MARY SUE.

Comments are closed.