August 26, 2014

What happens when you set yourself up as a paragon of virtue

As we noted yesterday, Marvel's Dan Slott -- certainly not the most mature gent on social media -- got hoisted on his own petard when he defended Marvel's use of this Spider-Woman cover by artist Milo Manara.

He now claims he hasn't defended the cover; however, what exactly do you mean here, Dan?


Best of all, Slott is getting hammered by the Left. And why not? It consistently has been he, and his cohorts in the industry, who present themselves as paragons of virtue, lecturing everyone (especially those dastardly conservatives) about racism, sexism, homophobia, and the like.
Except when their employer(s) needs to make a buck.

Here's what The Mary Sue notes about the Spider-Woman title (my emphasis):

At this year’s San Diego Comic-Con, at a panel called “Women of Marvel,” the publisher announced a new ongoing Spider-Woman series. The series, part of Marvel’s “Characters and Creators” publishing initiative that “aims to speak directly to… women and girls,” joins nine other female-led series published by Marvel. According to company’s Editor-in-Chief, Axel Alonso, these superheroines “are not the big-breasted, scantily clad women that perhaps have become the comic-book cliché” but are “defined by many things—least of all their looks.”

I suppose Alonso has an "out" in that, on the cover in question, you can't tell if SW is "big-breasted" and she's certainly not "scantily clad." You could even argue against the "looks" aspect, although that'd certainly be pushing it. Having a perfectly shaped ass is part of (a girl's) "looks."

Still, it'd be amusing to see Alonso make the above "case," wouldn't it? Couldn't be any worse than Slott's meandering over the matter of this cover. But to the point: How freakin' hypocritical is it for Marvel to state what it did about Spider-Woman ... and then hire a dude like Manara who's known for drawing (overly) seductive poses like that on the cover? And then hypocrites like Slott and Tom Brevoort exercise verbal gymnastics in every way imaginable to justify it?

Nevertheless, Slott isn't giving up -- with being a SJW (Social Justice Warrior), that is. Here he is from yesterday:

In the back and forth in that thread, race is brought up, too. In SlottWorld, making sweeping generalizations about men ("all men are rapists!") -- and white people (Leonard Jeffries, anyone?) -- are permissible, because the "playing field" is not yet equal.

Whatever. There's so much ridiculous inconsistency in Slott's Twitter feed commentary as to defy description. No freakin' wonder the guy is such an Obamanaut.

Posted by Hube at August 26, 2014 05:34 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

OK, how about we stop making super heroes massively muscled and handsome? It sets up unrealistic expectations for boys and imbues them with poor self image.

Now every hero should be Rorsarch. Cover their faces, make sure they have no noticeable muscles and don't make them millionaire playboys either because we all know that rich people don't care about anyone but themselves.

Posted by: Duffy at August 27, 2014 09:06 AM

So we once again have the "it is okay to discriminate as long as it is against the majority" rule.
Then let's impose this, all conservatives should be able to discriminate against liberals in the media (including comic books) remember it is okay since conservatives are the minority there. Oh wait we can’t do that because it would wrong him. The truth is that he runs his mouth or fingers in order to get attention to then turn to promote his comic books. Remember this is the same guy that supported the Spider-Woman cover. The “logic” of this man lacks any logic at all.

Posted by: DanSlott is nuts at August 27, 2014 09:34 AM

That last post was from truthwillwin1

Posted by: truthwillwin1 at August 27, 2014 09:36 AM