The Four Color Media Monitor

The Cleveland Plain Dealer published a sensationalized article about the two recent stupidities involving Captain America, one being the call for making Steve Rogers homosexual, and the other being turning him into a Hydra collaborator:

It appears the fan-generated movement to pull Captain America out of the closet has run its course without Marvel even making a comment.

What fan-generated movement? It was decidedly just a bunch of leftist SJWs who apparently decided they wanted to push further in the quest to hijack famous heroes of the mainstream. Corporate-owned superheroes tend to be the biggest victims of these disgracefully greedy nuts.

Just as the "Captain America: Civil War" movie was taking off, there was a movement to turn Cap's bromance with his partner, Bucky, into a full-fledged romance. Someone initiated the hashtag #GiveCaptainAmericaABoyfriend, perhaps as a joke.

Over the ensuing days, thousands of people joined in and asked Marvel and its corporate owner, Disney, to follow through. Neither Marvel nor Disney would comment on the issue, figuring correctly that if they ignore it, it will go away. It did.

Perhaps the most amusing part of the campaign was the fan art that popped up everywhere showing what a gay Cap would look like.

People also posted numerous out-of-context comic book panels that made innocent dialogue take on a new meaning: "Who's the kid, Cap? One of your little buddies?" asks Iron Man. "If you're talking about the boys I brought around last week, no, he's not one of them," Cap responds.

Now that is definitely not funny. Making it sound like Steve Rogers was taking advantage of youngsters is revolting, and says a lot more about the SJW basket cases than it does about anything in the original comics and contexts proper. Turning Steve into a Hydra worshiper is awful, but then so would the idea of turning him homosexual, especially if they wound up exploiting such ideas. That would make the situation even worse.

Last week, the only thing Marvel officials wanted to talk about was the revelation that Cap was actually a longtime agent of the evil organization Hydra, a group that was a friend to Nazis. I doubt this storyline will go anywhere, but it got people talking. Maybe Disney figured Cap has been through enough in 75 years and opted not to change his sexual orientation.

This just perpetuates the reprehensible notion that the story has to be offensive no matter what, because otherwise they'll supposedly not sell any copies. And if they did think Steve went through enough, why would they want to change his background history either? If they thought they could get away with it, I'm sure they'd change his sexual orientation too.

Steve's most definitely been through enough abuse as a fictional creation for years, and the Hydra mishmash isn't doing any favors for Simon/Kirby's creation. The article goes on to discuss more about homosexuality in the MCU:

It's not like Marvel has ignored the issue; there are dozens of gay characters in Marvel, DC and other publisher's books and they are treated no differently than any other character. After all, once a character says he (or she) is gay, things pretty much return to normal. Dr. Doom does not care about his adversary's sexual orientation. Writers still have to come up with great plots.

And they're not. All the closed clique at Marvel care about is emphasizing a character's race/skin color or sexual orientation entirely over engrossing scriptwriting. As such, they are treated differently. It's as though they matter more in their own way than the actual story quality. Oh, and does anything truly return to normal? Not really. There's plenty of SJWs - including the DC/Marvel staffs themselves - who've gone out of their way to hammer away with the tinkering they made to some characters in order to give everyone the impression it's always been this way. That's what wound up happening with Northstar from Alpha Flight, and even Obsidian from Infinity Inc. was a victim of this; maybe even more. And the worst part about the tampering with Todd Rice is that it was a conservative - Dan Jurgens - who may have laid out the groundswork for touting Obsidian as homosexual, and did this as early as 1994, possibly circa Zero Hour.

The most famous character at Marvel to come out is Iceman of the X-Men, who was introduced in 1963. He was outed by the mind-reading busybody, Marvel Girl, earlier this year. He feared his friends would somehow feel that he lied to them. But once he told his fellow X-people about it, they simply accepted it. In a society where people have wings or blue fur, being gay is just not that big a deal.

Considering some characters can change their shapes at will, or transfer their consciousness into other bodies, the notion of sexual identity becomes fluid.

Wow, the way this is written, you'd think Bobby Drake was a real person. No mention here of Brian Bendis' responsibility for the story. Nor, if it matters, is there any mention of how it may have been a time-displaced Iceman (not that it makes the tale any better). Come to think of it, no opinion given on whether it makes Jean Grey, time-warped or otherwise, look bad by invading Iceman's privacy. Nor any mention of Bobby's past affairs with ladies like Polaris.

And is it really not a big deal? It certainly would be if Iceman were turned into a variation on Michael Jackson's mindset. Not to mention their assertion of "fluidity" is ludicrous and omits any notion of common sense.

The X-Men extended family includes the largest number of gay, lesbian and bisexual characters of any team in the Marvel universe. This makes sense, since Stan Lee created mutants to symbolize all oppressed minorities, gays and African Americans in particular.

Seriously? You mean he never created them to represent Jews, Latinos or Asians? What an odd line that one is, because of how it sounds belittling of practically everyone else. Whatever Lee might say today, recalling his yes-man act, I don't think it helps to imply he literally intended the mutants to symbolize homosexuality, or more specifically, to depict homosexuality in a positive light.

Marvel was the first publisher to seriously introduce a gay character in 1992, when the speedster Northstar declared he was gay. It seemed like Marvel regretted that decision minutes later, and little mention was made of it again for several years. Eventually, it was integrated into the character's adventures and, in 2012, Northstar got married. Marvel celebrated the event on the cover of an X-Men comic.

That's awfully rich coming from bozos who make no mention at all of how badly written Scott Lobdell's "outing" truly was in Alpha Flight, whose first volume was cancelled barely 2 years after the tale was written. And weren't there a few gay characters featured before that, like one who appeared in Jon Sable?

There's also no mention of Lobdell's unofficial sequel almost a decade later in X-Men, in a story titled "Eve of Destruction" where he once again sledgehammered Northstar's oh-so important homosexuality over the readers' heads, like he was trying to make clear that we must all accept his lifstyle/practice regardless of whether it's healthy or not. The same writer who's not known to be particularly respectful of women. It's the heavy-handed approach that sabotages everything. And though it was sensationalized in the MSM, did the 2012 X-Men issue sell well? Hardly. It was pretty mediocre numbers through and through.

They later bring up one of DC's tinkerings:

DC did a better job introducing lesbian characters into its universe. It was no surprise to readers when Captain Maggie Sawyer, the tough-talking police officer featured in both Batman and Superman comics, was revealed to be gay around 2002. This was handled correctly; she was allowed to grow as a character before her sexual orientation was made known, making it more of an evolution and less of a gimmick.

Forget it; if they couldn't introduce a character from the get-go who was gay/lesbian, then it's not so much an evolution as it is exploitation. In other words, it is a gimmick.

Gay characters are becoming so common in comics in the past year that it is an expected aspect of diversity. Often, a character's sexual orientation is quickly established. A superhero will ask another out for a drink after saving the city, and she will say that her "girlfriend wouldn't like it."

Gay characters are no longer treated as unusual or stereotypes, but as people. A practice that once unthinkable has now become commonplace.

As has hammering the readers and smashing them in the face with all this tommyrot. If the talk about a superhero being turned down by a superheroine because she's lesbian is supposed to be funny, it just falls flat, because all this propaganda is just serving to undermine the ability to tell a simple story about a healthy man-woman romance. Among other dreadful problems. At the end of the article, it says:

Now that that's done, we can get on with the job of writing interesting comics.

What a load. Because that's not what the mainstream have been doing for years. They let socio-politics get in the way of entertainment, to the point where it drains all the potential. Just like this article, now that I think of it.

Labels: Batman, Captain America, dc comics, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, politics, Superman, X-Men