Little girl in a Stan Lee costume

Discuss

27 Responses to “Little girl in a Stan Lee costume”

  1. Aaron Swain says:

    Spot on.

  2. PhosPhorious says:

    In before “Excelsior!”

  3. Nash Rambler says:

    Throw in some liver spots, and you’re there!

  4. kmoser says:

    Little girl as Stan Lee cosplay: cute. Stan Lee as little girl cosplay: creepy.

    • Boundegar says:

      Cute my ass, she’s a crossdresser. I say she needs to be expelled from her school. In fact, let’s expel her from every school, all at once. And her mustache, too.

  5. anon0mouse says:

    For the win!!!

  6. Xeni Jardin says:

    As someone who was formerly a little girl, and who, as an adult, has met Stan Lee, I can say it’s spot-on.

  7. Brainspore says:

    I’m told she stole all the credit for that idea from the little girl dressed up as Jack Kirby.

  8. René Walter says:

    FYI: It’s from the Motor City Comic Con last year, Original Source (I think) is: http://cosmicbrownie.tumblr.com/post/50824440048/little-girl-dressed-as-stan-lee-at-motor-city

  9. Fornicus says:

    Fine, except the hairline is not askew.

  10. Lauren S says:

    This child is awesome! But why the emphasis on her gender? Why can’t she be playing male Stan Lee? (in fact i think she is, if the mustache is any indication) Did it really need to constitute 3/22 of the words associated with this photo? Reminds me of a quote I saw earlier from an excellent essay: 

    “And when we talk about ‘people’ we don’t really mean ‘men and women.’ We mean ‘people and female people.’”

    (essay source: http://aidanmoher.com/blog/featured-article/2013/05/we-have-always-fought-challenging-the-women-cattle-and-slaves-narrative-by-kameron-hurley/ )

    • Leo says:

      I’m offended.

    • Dlo Burns says:

      I would of thought it was a little boy

      • Lauren S says:

        Does it really matter though, I wonder. And surely one mention would suffice. But she’s not being “female stan lee” she’s being “stan lee”

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      As a gay person, I prefer to have my existence acknowledged than ignored. I find that to be a generally good principle.

      • Lauren S says:

        As a gay woman, I prefer to have my existence acknowledged in a way that does not solely define what I do. As a gay man, you don’t have the same history of being called a “lady doctor” or a “lady pilot”. 

        I’m just pointing out a bit of male privilege/male default, and I’m sorry but our sexual orientations have no bearing on that. It’s derailing and diminishing.

        So point out she’s a girl in the headline and the link. Even do it in the copy if that’s so desired, but there’s nothing about that costume that suggests “female Stan Lee”. It would be like saying “gay Stan Lee” when the sexual orientation of the wearer has no impact on the outcome or presentation.

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          I’m just pointing out a bit of male privilege/male default, and I’m sorry but our sexual orientations have no bearing on that. It’s derailing and diminishing.

          And I’m saying that not mentioning that she’s a girl is a worse example of male being default.

          • Lauren S says:

            Do you see where i’m saying it’s totally ok to mention but using it as a qualifier for an obviously male version of a person is what i’m niggling? I was questioning whether it needed to be EMPHASIZED not “i don’t think it should be brought up at all”.

            For god’s sake, mention it, but why is it so prominent, and why is it modifying “Stan Lee” when she’s obviously costumed as male Stan Lee?

            “Adorable little girl cosplays Stan Lee” DONE. PERFECT. LET’S MOVE ON.

          • Knifesmith says:

             Wow, overreaction much?  To the rest of us without (or perhaps with completely ingrained gender inequity issues), we read “tiny female Stan Lee” not as “she’s doing a Stan Lee in Drag” i.e. the costume is of a “female Stan Lee”, but rather as “tiny person who happens to be female cosplaying as Stan Lee”.  I read the statement as meaning the same thing as your “Adorable little girl cosplays Stan Lee”, and would have agreed to it’s necessity due to the age of the child and the lack of obvious secondary sexual characteristics at that developmental stage.  As you note, the mustache pretty much shoots the “female Stan Lee” theory into the shitter (unless the picture really should have been labeled “tiny female Stan Lee suffering, or perhaps enjoying a gender atypical bout of hirsutism).
              Furthermore, it may be unfair that we assume this, but my first thought when I see a small child wearing a costume is not “hey, drag”.  I like many other folks here would have assumed that it was a little boy (as mind crushingly sexist and evil as that may have been).
            Sometimes you have to get off the high horse and realize that not all copy on teh intarwebz is pored over and calculated to the nth degree, and that cultural biases do enter into language patterns (again, as unfair and non-utopian as that may be).

            MANSPLAININ’ OUT!!!!

  11. Ant says:

    Did Stan Lee see her yet?

    • ocker3 says:

       I’m not sure who’s having more fun! I bet it felt good, after all these years of people dressing as his creations, some came dressed as Him

  12. curiousrobot says:

    She was immediately accosted by older fanboys who quizzed her on Stan Lee’s work to determine whether she was just doing this for attention.

Leave a Reply