I know there's already been a huge amount of discussion on this subject but I thought it was worth sharing what Jennifer's analytical cousin had to say on the subject, especially since I'd heard it was pretty good. And indeed it was.

Here's what he wrote (composed out of a series of tweets):

THE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT YUP, CRAIG WAS ABSOLUTELY TARGETING A CERTAIN MENTALITY HERE BUT IN THOSE KINDS OF SETTINGS IT CAN COME OUT W/ A HUMOROUS AIM THAT MAY MAKE IT SEEM LIKE IT IS BELITTLING WHEN IT'S NOT MEANT TO BE, BUT THE ENTIRE PROBLEM W/ WHAT WAS BEING TARGETED IS THAT EVEN THO THERE IS GOOD INTENTIONS, THE PROBLEM IS THAT'S NEVER ACTUALLY HOW SHEHULK HAS BEEN WRITTEN (AS MANY OF THE DEFENSE PIECES HAVE MADE CLEAR) SO THE PROBLEM IS THAT DISCUSSION, WHILE TRYING TO TAKE AIM AT A CERTAIN MALE PROBLEM, WAS ONLY EVALUATING THE SURFACE OF THE THING AND INADVERTANTLY BECAME AN EXAMPLE OF THE VERY KIND OF THINKING THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO TAKE DOWN.

Can we say nailed it?

One thing to take away from all of this is that David Goyer and Craig Mazin may have had good intentions when they first spoke up about She-Hulk in what was, for all intents and purposes, supposed to be a laidback and fun podcast. If Mazin's apology is to be believed (and I think he at least believes it is), he honestly believed he was calling out She-Hulk's creators for being sexist and did not intend for his comments to be read as offensive themselves. Unfortunately, the way he went about it was stupid, senseless, blind to the character's history, and more than a little shallow.

First of all, let's get the least important bit out of the way. Goyer and Mazin are wrong about She-Hulk's origins. While (She-Hulk co-creator) Stan Lee's recent statements on the matter may not be entirely accurate (all evidence points to She-Hulk's creation being motivated significantly by trademark concerns), the point is that She-Hulk was never created with the primary intention of fulfilling Hulk fans' "sexual fantasies," which should be pretty obvious if you know anything about Stan Lee's own politics, She-Hulk's narrative origins, or the fact that at the time of the She-Hulk's creation the Banner already had a pretty popular love interest in Betty Ross. So, yes, Goyer and Mazin were (and are) wrong about She-Hulk's origins.

The bigger problem though is that even if they had been right, Goyer and Mazin would still have been making snap judgments about She-Hulk based on virtually nothing besides her look. That was the entire crux of their discussion, which was purportedly supposed to be about how they'd adapt comic book characters to the big screen, but which ended up revolving entirely around what She-Hulk looked like and whether or not the entire point of her (in Mazin's own words) "was just to appeal sexistly to ten-year old boys." Not once did they discuss any of her traits besides her look and they ultimately gave more consideration and depth to their discussion of Martian Manhunter, a character they nonetheless pigeonholed as "goofy." The fact that they coined the name "Slut-Hulk" and acted as though it was a clever joke is perhaps the clearest indication of how out-of-touch they really were with what they were saying.

There's no denying there's a history of objectifying women (both superhuman and mundane) in comics. It's a discussion well worth having. But despite Craig Mazin's comments to the contrary, that wasn't the discussion he and Goyer were really having. They weren't criticizing Marvel for objectifying She-Hulk; they were ridiculing the entire conception of the character, as though a sex object was all She-Hulk had ever been. Goyer and Mazin didn't provide any ideas on how to improve She-Hulk or even how to change her appearance. All they did was talk about what a silly, stupid idea She-Hulk was in the first place (in their opinion). It's as if, instead of criticizing Power Girl's uniform and suggesting how it could or should be improved, I just said Power Girl's entire purpose was to serve as softcore porn for adolescent boys.

And that is why people are angry.