Marvel pulls Riri Williams variant cover, cowers to Social Justice Puritans

A new breed of Puritans exist in America these days, but they ironically want nothing to do with Christianity. They’re overwhelmingly secular college kids who spend their days and nights looking for ways to be offended. Comic Book Resources reported Thursday that Marvel Comics cowered to their latest tantrum over a variant cover for Invincible Iron Man #1.

The charge: Riri Williams was allegedly too (gasp!) sexual.

If you want further proof that Marvel’s comic book division is run by emasculated man-boys, then check out my latest YouTube video below.

Ask yourself: How can a company that survives on art last if the Social Justice Puritans have veto power over variant covers?

Update, Oct. 24, 2016: Frank Cho is now calling the social justice obsessive “Neo-Puritans.” Score.


Frank Cho pushed off Wonder Woman by Greg Rucka’s ‘weird political agenda’

Wonder Woman #2

Anyone who has ever doubted that modern social-justice activists have a lot in common with the Puritans of the 1600s needs to look no further than the career trajectory of artist Frank Cho.

Comic book fans know all too well how Mr. Cho’s work makes feminist heads explode on a regular basis, but his sudden departure from Wonder Woman perfectly spotlights everything that is wrong with the industry.

Mr. Cho confirmed to Bleeding Cool on Thursday that writer Greg Rucka’s “weird political agenda” has forced him to cut short the 24 variant covers he originally planned for the book. There was allegedly friction between the two over the amount of skin shown on the artist’s variant (yes, variant) covers, but anyone who looks at them knows immediately that such a claim is absurd.

“I tried to play nice, not rock the boat and do my best on the covers, but Greg’s weird political agenda against me and my art has made that job impossible,” Mr. Cho told the website. “Wonder Woman was the ONLY reason I came over to DC Comics,” (emphasis added.)

Translation: Mr. Rucka, like all the other activist-writers in the industry, seeks to punish anyone who does not march lock-step with a thuggish ideology that hides behind the rhetoric of “tolerance.”

Check out the embedded video for the full story:

Liz Heron, HuffPo executive editor, shows what’s wrong with modern feminism in one tweet

Liz Heron Twitter

Liz Heron, the executive editor over at HuffPo, did the world a huge favor on Friday — she demonstrated why so many people have a problem with modern feminism.

“Notice anything about this @HuffingtonPost editors meeting” the editor wrote while adding emojis that screamed “girl power!”

The internet responded with predictable snark, but the issue demands more attention than that. What viewers witness in a single tweet is that feminism is a congeries of contradictory rules and regulations, which allow elites to wallow in self-congratulation for behavior that would earn others condemnation.

Ask yourself the following questions about Ms. Heron’s tweet:

  • If women should be judged on their merits, then why is HuffPo essentially asking readers to cheer the amount of estrogen it packed into a room?
  •  Should HuffPo be applauded for its female editors, or scolded for its lack of racial diversity?
  • If feminism is about equal opportunity, then why tweet an image that seems to relish the idea of excluding men?
  • If making an assumption about gender based on physical appearance is frowned upon, then why engage in “you go, girl!” tweets that encourage such behavior?

Personally, I do not care what a room full of editors looks like as long as they produce good content. HuffPo generally reads like it’s run by 25-year-old women, so on some level it’s nice to know my suspicions were correct. If that’s the vibe the website is going for, then great — but those same women should probably zip it when they run across a website that unabashedly celebrates the male minds behind a male-oriented website.

The weird thing about identity politics is that its foot soldiers litter the cultural landscape with social justice mines and then eventually step on their own munitions. Instead of learning a lesson or two after their credibility explodes into a thousands pieces, they go right back to laying mines. Independent voters should keep all of this in mind next time they read a HuffPo political piece that translates: “Vote for Hillary Clinton because she wears a bra.”

PC ‘Ghostbusters’ can’t even get social justice right: Lone black star not a scientist

Ghostbusters 2016

The new Ghostbusters movie is something of an obsession with the “social justice” crowd, which makes one of the big reveals from its trailer rather humorous. Director Paul Feig and co-writer Katie Dippold had a $150 million budget — along with the comedic chops of Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon an Leslie Jones to work with — but yet the lone black star still ended up the one character who would probably mistake Isaac Newton for the slightly-disgusting (yet still irresistible) fig treats by Nabisco.

Sony Studios just told its small army of social justice recruits that its white stars will be engineers and quantum physicists, but its black star is a NYC subway-booth worker who gets to slap around McCarthy like Marvel Studio’s Hulk on Loki.

I for one do not particularly care what character Leslie Jones plays or what her occupation happens to be — but I’m smart enough to know that an ill-conceived movie that leans on politically correct moviegoers for support should have thought about the racial message its story sends. True, Ernie Hudson’s Winston Zeddemore was not a scientist (my buddy thinks he will be Jones’ uncle) but on almost every level this movie looks like it will miss the mark.

Ghostbusters trailer proton pack

The problem with this Ghostbusters is that it’s trying to re-capture a moment in time that does not exist. It would be like attempting to make out with an old girlfriend you amicably broke up with years ago. You’re going through the motions, but there is just no feeling there because all of your good times were in the past and you’ve moved on. She’s changed in ways that are just bizarre to you and it all feels awkward. You would just think, “What is this? Why is this even happening? This isn’t right.”

The new Ghostbusters is not a re-boot, but yet it seeks to capitalize on fans who would generally be exited for a proper re-boot. In reality it is a re-imagining, which is why older fans react to Feig’s hat-tips to the original with a wince. Everything that Star Wars: The Force Awakens did right in regards to recapturing what made the original trilogy great, the new Ghostbusters does wrong in relation to its counterpart.

Oddly enough, the tagline from the original movie — “Who you gonna call?” — fits with what seems to have happened when producers at Sony mandated the film into existence.

The cast does not particularly look inspired; it looks like they were merely hired to do a job and collect a paycheck. “Hey, you’re funny. We need to make this movie and nobody wants it done. But we need to do it because of girl-power and diversity. And stuff. Can you do it?”

Zeddemore says in the original: “If there’s a steady paycheck in it, I’ll believe anything you say.” Now it appears the cast replied to Sony’s proposal with, “If there’s a steady paycheck, I’ll social justice anything you want me to social justice.”

It’s just too bad they forgot about social-justicing Jones’ character, Patty Tolan. Maybe they can blame it on the ghosts.