Milo Yiannopoulos interviews Chuck Dixon

Milo Yiannopulous interviewed comic book writer Chuck Dixon a few weeks ago. The interview concerned Dixon’s adaption of the book Clinton Cash.

I enjoy Dixon’s work. He wrote my favorite comic book version of Batman and Nightwing. He always added in a of instability to Bruce Wayne, specifically the way Batman would undermine or sabotage his relationships with the rest of the Bat family. It makes for an interesting read. His run on Nightwing is one of the best.

One thing I like about Dixon’s work is the lack of political spin. I do not mind politics in comics in moderation or if the creator wants to make a broader point. However, some creators cannot separate their politics from their creations. It hurts the story because the only fleshed out characters are those who adhere to the creator’s worldview. Anyone outside of it lacks nuance, and is often a foil for the more “politically appropriate” character.

A good example of this is Kelly Sue Deconnick’s run on Captain Marvel. Deconnick’s feminist views bleed into the work to the point that men play little role in her stories. When they are present, they are usually the villain, stupid, or useless. Deconnick’s creator-owned book Bitch Planet takes to a near unreadable extreme.

Dixon, on the other hand, covered his politics up to the extent that I never questioned his political views at all.

That is not to say Dixon does not express opinions outside of his writing that bother people. Several years ago he stated on his website, “I don’t want to expect to be able to shield my kids from the subject of homosexuality as the media seems intent on bringing into my home and nothing short of cutting the electricity and boarding the windows will stop it. But I DON’T want my kids reading about it in comics. I don’t want Judd Winnick or Grant Morrison or the nimrod who wrote this ‘Rawhide Kid’ comic informing my kids about the many facets and lifestyle choices out there in the world. I’d like to be the one to talk to them about it when they’re older and I feel the time is right. I especially object to them using characters familiar to my kids to present this worldview. Could you please leave the Beast and Green Lantern alone?”

That brought a fair deal of backlash, and since then Dixon’s work for Marvel and DC comics has been limited. It is his opinion, and he is more than welcome to it. However, it is curious how his objection to worldview he disagrees with prompted the label of “bigot”, while his detractors can rail against the smallest hint of conservatism in comics without complain.

I am rather liberal in my political views, yet it seems bizarre that presenting a non-progressive perspective in comics can cause such a backlash. Milo’s interview covers the double standard and the encroaching progressive control over the comic book industry.

2 thoughts on “Milo Yiannopoulos interviews Chuck Dixon

  1. As a gay man who has been reading your material for a while, I am sorry but I just wanted to say that my gayness is not a ‘lifestyle’ any more than straight people’s straightness is a ‘lifestyle’. His opinion is harmful and narrow-minded and I didn’t expect you to be supportive of individuals who make such harmful associations and misunderstanding sexuality as it is something inborn that a person can’t change as easily as a ‘lifestyle’. I’m really honestly very boggled that people could think of sexuality as an ‘alternative lifestyle’ as that has not been my experience of my gay sexuality. I’m not very supportive of Milo as he has said some shocking things about gay people(such as saying they shouldn’t be parents and that gay men should go back into the closet and get married to women and have children) and he actually thinks that if he could choose, he would not be gay(He has also made an attempt to be straight because he thought it would make him more oppressed, but it probably failed since he’s still gay). I can give you sources to all that I have claimed about him if you ask me. I understand that he supported gays after the Orlando shooting, but he seems to talk more about the horrors of Islam than focusing on the gay victims which I kind of expected, sadly as he is a alt right pundit. I honestly don’t understand how you don’t think Chuck Dixon’s opinions harm anyone. He is spreading a blatantly incorrect idea that gay people’s sexuality is a chosen lifestyle that shouldn’t be in children’s media, as if it is something abhorrent and deviant. Could you imagine how many people agree with him and will spread this message to their own children, their relatives and friends? I am anti-SJW and I don’t take sides but I believe LGBT rights and opportunities should not be a liberal or a conservative issue any more than it is a human rights issue. I say this because I am gay and I find the endless posturing and toeing the party line of both sides to be tiring and illogical when it comes to my right to be represented and to enjoy positive representation of people like me in media.

  2. Conchpearls1, I do not agree with Milo on every issue, however, I do think he makes valid points regarding some aspects of the modern gay community. While one’s sexuality may be biological, how one expresses this is indeed a lifestyle choice. Nothing about a man being attracted to other men requires him to speak in a high-pitched voice or wear Gucci. That is a performance, a choice of expression, in the same way that a man being “macho” is a choice.

    I do disagree with his position on gay parents and marriage, however, I am not sure how much of that he actually believes and how much of it he says to be provocative. He does have a point about gay men’s intelligence and that by virtue of our society allowing these men to have exclusively homosexual relationships where they are less likely to pass on their genes, we are effectively losing those potential aspects of intelligence and creativity. I doubt it is a dire as Milo claims, yet it is a valid point.

    As for Chuck Dixon, his views are his own. I do not agree that homosexuality should never be depicted in children’s media, although I do agree with him about the pushing of an agenda. The depictions are typically done to normalize homosexuality, not show that there are people who are gay. The latter is a statement of reality, while the former tries to teach a specific view. I have no problem with the latter, no matter how campy or ridiculous. I do not like the former, as it reduces gay people to a talking point, and actually strips them of their humanity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s