Marvel Comics abandons its feminist agenda

Marvel Comics decided to abandon their pandering to the progressives and feminists. I have noted several times that for all the political bootlicking Marvel engaged in, it did not result in strong sales. While one can argue that the films and TV shows provide greater revenue streams for Marvel and Disney, the comics still need to make money to justify their publication.

Marvel’s sales have not fallen so low that the publisher would close its publishing branch, but they have not been that good. The Star Wars books sell better than many formly popular superhero titles. This is primarily due to Marvel scrapping or demoting the original heroes.

Marvel did this to bring in new readers. Yet rather than try to win over those who love the films and shows, Marvel decided to appeal to the far left. They introduced identity politics into their comics, and took to alienating their core fan base. These are the same fans who stuck with Marvel after the horrendous Spider-Man clone saga storyline, the company filing for bankruptcy, and the insanity of repeatedly relaunching titles for the sake of quick #1 money grabs.

Comic book fans are among the most loyal fans. Few things run them off of their favorite books. For some reason, Marvel decided to do three of the most likely things to cost them fans: remove their favorite characters, tarnish the histories of those characters, and insult the fans who complained. The latter proved most insidious because the insults accused fans of racism, sexism, homophobia, and bizarrely resorted to stereotypes about comic book fans. Continue reading

College rape culture and the death of due process

Christina Hoff Sommers interviewed Stuart Taylor. Taylor authored the book The Campus Rape Frenzy, which details the feminist claim of a “rape epidemic” on college campuses and their attempt to roll back due process for students accused of rape.

Taylor highlights in the interview the myriad ways in which the due process of students are violated in an attempt to peddle the feminist agenda. He highlights that these new “listen and believe” rules do not apply to male victims. A male student claiming rape have little chance of his claim being taken seriously. If the both parties are intoxicated and the male claims rape, Taylor suggests that this would be taken as a malicious counter claim and dismissed.

More worrisome is the presumption of guilt. Accused students are not afforded council, not allowed to the see the evidence against them, not allowed to cross examine witnesses, not allowed to present witnesses, and often are not informed of the complaints until the process is well underway. This forces the accused to prove their innocence, something that is a clear violation of constitutional law. Continue reading

#DeleteMarvel: Revenge of the Hypocrites

What do you do when the CEO of a company that has pandered to you for half decade supporters new Hitler?

This is the problem faced by progressives who read Marvel comic books. Their problem begins with Marvel Entertainment CEO Ike Perlmutter, a long-time Donald Trump supporter. Perlmutter has a sordid history concerninh his penny-pinching and general indifference to his employees. However, that has history has little to do with the current situation.

The current situation, the #deletemarvel boycott, stems from Perlmutter’s support of Trump. That is it. There is no concern about the CEO’s handling of Marvel, how he treats his employees, or that his primary concern is money. It is solely that he committed the crime of supporting new Hitler.

That seems one of the pettiest reasons to boycott any company. Perlmutter has little to do with the day-to-day grind of the company. Progressives, however, do not like to miss a chance at virtual-signaling. If that means boycotting a company that scrubbed its line-up of iconic characters to meet their demands for more “diversity”, so be it.

Of course, the boycott will likely reduce the already dismal sales of the social justice themed books. Continue reading

Berkeley riot shows the threat to free speech

The events on Wednesday night at the University of California-Berkeley remind me of a Christopher Hitchens’s speech:

Bear in mind, ladies and gentlemen, that every time you violate or propose to violate the free speech of someone else, in potencia, you’re making a rod for own back. Because the other question raised by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is simply this: who’s going to decide?

To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful or who is the harmful speaker? Or determine in advance what are the harmful consequences going to be, that we know enough about in advance to prevent?

To whom would you give this job? To whom are you going to award the job of being the censor? Isn’t it a famous old story that the man who has to read all the pornography, in order to decide what’s fit to be passed and what’s fit not to be, is the man most likely to be debauched?

Did you hear any speaker, the opposition to this motion — eloquent as… one of them was — to whom you would delegate the task of deciding for you what you could read? To whom you would give the job of deciding for you, relieve you of the responsibility of hearing what you might have to hear?

Do you know anyone — hands up — do you know anyone to whom you’d give this job? Does anyone have a nominee? You mean there’s no one in Canada good enough to decide what I can read? Or hear? I had no idea. But there’s a law that says there must be such a person. Or there’s a subsection of some piddling law that says it. Well, the hell with that law then. It’s inviting you to be liars and hypocrites and to deny what you evidently know already.

About the censorious instinct we basically know all that we need to know, and we’ve known it for a long time. […] It may not be determined in advance what words are apt or inapt. No one has the knowledge that would be required to make that call.

And, more to the point, one has to suspect the motives of those who do so. In particular, the motives of those who are determined to be offended, those who will go through a treasure house of English, like Dr. Johnson’s first lexicon, in search of filthy words, to satisfy themselves and some instinct about which I dare not speculate.

The riot happened at UCB over a speech Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos intended to give. According to Yiannopoulos, the speech focused on the topic of cultural appropriation. As he noted in his video response to the riot, that hardly seems a topic worthy of burning cars, smashing windows, and assaulting people. Yet that is what occurred. Continue reading

Karen Straughan explains why she’s not a feminist

Karen Straughan released a video titled Why I am not a feminist. In It she critiques the ideology and breaks down the specific reasons she is turned off by the ideology.

I have thought about doing something similar for some time. The primary reason I have avoided doing it is because I do think anyone should have to justify or explain why they do not support an ideology. It is one thing to ask someone directly. To have to provide an explanation as if it is somehow wrong to object to a certain ideology is ridiculous.

However, I found Karen’s video enlightening in terms of her reasons for rejecting the ideology. According to her, several other Honey Badgers will also create videos about the topic. I think I will create a post listing those and perhaps other videos of people explaining their reasoning for rejecting the ideology. Continue reading

Silencing contrarian voices

According to Sargon’s most recent video, Twitter suspended Sargon of Akkad, apparently without cause or notice.

I am not surprised. Twitter has played this game with numerous people over past years, repeatedly suspending then reinstating them. The common thread between these people is that they question progressive politics and figures. Continue reading

Feminist explains why it’s “okay” to objectify men

Who does not love a good double standard?

One would think that movement supposedly built around respecting people’s agency and humanity would avoid anything that would make it appear they do not follow their own standards. For example, if a movement argued that it was wrong to sexually objectify one sex because reducing a person to an object is inhumane, one would expect this to apply to the other sex as well.

Yet one would be wrong. Sabrina Maddeaux argued in a National Post article that it is perfectly fine to sexually objectify men because it is “different”. As she explained:

Male objectification isn’t threatening because men don’t suffer from a severe power imbalance that puts them at risk economically, socially and physically.

A two minute Google search proves this wrong. People judge whether to hire, date, or befriend men based on the men’s appearance. The notion that unattractive men have it easy or that men’s appearances have little impact on how people treat them is nonsense. The evidence suggests that unattractive men do face severe power imbalances due to their looks.

We do not even need to look at studies to demonstrate this. We can follow Maddeaux’s model and use movie stars. Actors like Paul Giamatti and Steve Buscemi do not headline most films. They are fantastic actors, yet they are rarely given the leading man role.

Let us use another example: Aaron Paul. Continue reading