Summary: Women superheroes are moving to full equality with men. Yet they have very different stories. This is a clash of women’s dreams and their costs, the first of many more to come. The results will help shape America.
The paradigm for male superheroes is Christ. Suffering and sacrifice for humanity. The paradigm for women superheroes is Cinderella: a fairy godmother bestows gifts that makes her life wonderful. There are exceptions, of course. Bu the pattern is clear.
Men as superheroes
Male superheroes often pay a severe price for the responsibilities their bear.
- Superman lives a life pretending to be Clark Kent, a pitiful beta, without the benefits of his powers. It is like wearing a hair shirt.
- Bruce Wayne lives as Batman, without the benefits of his wealth. His vigilante work means endless suffering.
- Spiderman gets beaten up a lot, and cannot have a normal life.
- The Shadow lives a life seeking redemption, burned with memories of his sins as a criminal.
- Cyclops of the X-Man lives in fear that his uncontrollable eye beams will kill bystanders and who has (like Batman) trained himself to inhuman levels.
- Some men are transformed into monster-defenders, such as the Thing, the Hulk, and Swamp Thing.
- Some are broken. Iron Man became an alcoholic. Ant Man (Hank Pym) became a wife-beater.
James Bond suffers in most of the Ian Flemming’s books. He usually experiences some combination of being shot, tortured, and beaten up . This is in the tradition of the hardboiled detective stories, paying a personal price as they defend society in the dark.
- Casino Royale
– Extensive torture.
- Live and Let Die
– Dragged over a reef.
- Moonraker
– Burned by rocket exhaust, resulting in extensive second-degree burns.
- The Man with the Golden Gun
– Ends up in the hospital, as usual.
– Extensive torture.
– Dragged over a reef.
– Burned by rocket exhaust, resulting in extensive second-degree burns.
– Ends up in the hospital, as usual.
Women superheroes
Women superheroes usually live like Cinderella. They have their bad days, but seldom the nightmarish troubles of male superheroes. Their powers might as well be gifts from their Fairy Godmothers. See Wonder Woman, Isis, Batwoman, Black Canary, Supergirl, Captain Marvel, Scarlet Witch, Storm, Kitty Pride, and the Wasp. Compare Rey in Star Wars with Luke. An orphan, he sees the burned bodies of his aunt and uncle, gets beaten up a lot, and has his hand cut off. Rey defeats foes effortlessly, without musing her hair – without receiving any training.
There are rare exceptions to this pattern. Some male superheroes have wonderful lives (e.g., the Human Torch). Some women are beaten, injured, or killed. Jean Grey dies in one of the best of the X-Men stories. Barbara Gordon is shot and crippled at Batgirl.
What does this mean?
Superhero stories reflected the dreams and aspirations of teen-age boys for manhood. This combined aspirations for power, accompanied by the taking on the burden of responsibility – along with the acceptance of suffering and the possibility of injury or death.
Now women are joining the game. But seeking the wish-fulfillment aspects of superheroes but not the burdens and costs. That is the pattern of feminism. The obvious example is marriage. In traditional marriages, a man supported his wife and children. Modern marriage is hypergamy in action: a women professional or executive marrying a man with higher income (if possible).
Another example is the work world. Women want their aggregate pay to be that of men, but do not do the physically demanding, dangerous, and sometimes hazardous jobs. For details see fake news about the “wage gap”, and the real gender gap.
The extreme clash for women between dreams and costs will be in the next shooting war, as the women in combat begin returning as cripples or in body bags. Of the 6,967 military deaths in OCO/GWOT operations (through 3/19), 149 have been women – mostly during the early years of the war. The lies told by the military about the injury and capture of Jessica Lynch show their concern about the public’s reaction (they described her as Rambo, she did not fire a shot).
Conclusions
We are in the midst of a giant experiment in social engineering. Gender roles are socially determined, complex, and change over time. How our society evolves will depend on how women resolve the inevitable contradictions. We are in unknown territory, with few precedents.
For More Information
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about heroes, about reforming America: steps to new politics, and especially these…
- The philosophy behind the legend of Batman.
- “Mockingjay” shows us a Revolution in Gender Roles. What’s the next revolution?
- Captain America: the Winter Soldier – high-quality indoctrination for sheep.
- Review of Dr. Strange: a good film misunderstood by the critics.
- Jeff Beck reviews “Wonder Woman”, a contrary note amidst the ecstatic applause.
- “Black Panther” will be the most interesting film of 2018.
- Aquaman rocks. Also, the future of superhero flicks.
- Alita, the Battle Angel, fights her feminist critics.
- Aquaman rocks. Also, the future of superhero flicks.
- Captain Marvel – fun for kids, swill for adults.
One of the best books about heroes
The Hero with a Thousand Faces
by Joseph Campbell.
From the publisher …
“Since its release in 1949, The Hero with a Thousand Faces has influenced millions of readers by combining the insights of modern psychology with Joseph Campbell’s revolutionary understanding of comparative mythology. In these pages, Campbell outlines the Hero’s Journey, a universal motif of adventure and transformation that runs through virtually all of the world’s mythic traditions. He also explores the Cosmogonic Cycle, the mythic pattern of world creation and destruction.
“This edition features expanded illustrations, a comprehensive bibliography, and more accessible sidebars.
“As relevant today as when it was first published, The Hero with a Thousand Faces continues to find new audiences in fields ranging from religion and anthropology to literature and film studies. The book has also profoundly influenced creative artists – including authors, songwriters, game designers, and filmmakers – and continues to inspire all those interested in the inherent human need to tell stories.”
My guess is that women are the losers in their imaginary battle with men. Their role is mainly to be wives and mothers. Men are workers, warriors. The sooner women accept their assigned role in life the happier they will be. No one needs women to do men’s work.
But I have two daughters who would disagree with me. Both are highly successful. One is a lesbian with a partner. The other is married with one child. I am not so sure about their happiness as they seem to under lots of internal pressures to excel.
Congratulations on your successful family! I am sorry that you are worried about your daughters’ happiness. I hope it might make you feel better to consider that perhaps an internal pressure to excel is not incompatible with happiness. In my experience, facing pressure and achieving in the arena of one’s choice is often what creates personal happiness (especially when accompanied by a personal philosophy that provides a sense of perspective and acceptance).
It does not surprise you that your daughters disagree with you. It does seem that many people men who don’t fully understand the desire of women to eschew traditional gender roles assume this is due to “an imaginary battle with men.” I can assure you this is not the case. Often men are our best collaborators and partners both personally and professionally.
Margaret,
“It does not surprise you that your daughters disagree with you.”
Of course not. Daughters have disagreed with fathers since we came down for the trees. The disagreements in the current generation of young are microscopic with the culture gap between the “Greatest Generation” and their boomer children. The culture gap in the 1965-1975 era was the grand canyon. Today’s is a crack in the sidewalk by comparison.
Larry,
You are quite right!
Michael,
You might find this of interest. The author’s thinking is a confused kaleidoscope of values and history, unable to find solid ground for his beliefs. Still, first-person testimony from the front lines is often valuable.
“Woke Parenting Eats Its Own” by Casey Chalk at The American Conservative – “‘OK Boomer’: teach your children not to respect traditions and eventually they’ll turn against even your watered-down ones.”
Allan Bloom saw this in the 1980s, described in his great Closing of the American Mind. People who have lost confidence in their own values, cannot transmit them to the next generation. Those children are a vacuum to be filled with other values. In America’s case, those are deeply illiberal values.
We shall see. Because I believe its suboptimal in the long run for your daughters and their daughters.
info,
“I believe its suboptimal in the long run for your daughters and their daughters.”
That implies some ordained set of values by which to evaluate “optimal.” Humanity has invented many sets of values during our long history, a process that continues today.
Exactly. Its my personal values and opinion on this one. However sustainability is also a good measure.
Nature and physics have ordained fixed values.
A superhero post! It allows me to repost this. Found on one of Simon Reynolds’ blogs (not a recommendation). I concur with a bit of qualification. I’d also add Superhero films shows the unwillingness of the entertainment industry to take a risk.
Ruby,
Re: that famous Alan Moore quote
Moore first expressed that view in 2013 when interviewed by Stuart Kelly of The Guardian.
That quote is from a 2014 interview by Pádraig Ó Méalóid at Slovobooks.
His second paragraph is a bit odd, and makes no sense to me. First, it’s reification, treating superhero comics as sentient – “squatting” and “refusing”. Second, a culture’s myths are almost always from stories of the past.
Ruby,
I forgot to add – thank you for posting that quote and pointing to the even more interesting interview!
I’m not a fan of superhero stories, even as stories for children. Here is one of my many posts explaining why (links to others are in the For More Info section): The sad reason we love superheroes, and the cure.
The gratitude is mine, you found the original interview- I will check it out.
The second paragraph is fairly straight forward to me, personalising a cultural tendency is a good metaphor. I agree with you there should be no statute of limitations on stories, but Moore’s point is a good one- Why isn’t someone coming up with something new? Just like the original Superhero comics creators did. Or at least buff up something old like Lucas or Carpenter did.
Muddling through this a bit, I think people are coming up with new stories, it’s a question of the public and the entertainment industry not wanting to take a chance. Same as it ever was.
Larry,
In a recent comments thread here, we discussed the issue of women’s self-reported happiness declining over the last 35 years. I questioned why this concern is relevant to the discussion of feminism (which is a social justice project, not a personal happiness philosophy). I also questioned why this concern was never or rarely raised with respect to other groups.
Now you have written a post that describes a concept of manhood that entails suffering and sacrifice in the service of others. What of men’s happiness? Why no concern or questioning as to the effect on men of an ethic of suffering? Mightn’t men be happier if we relieve them of such pressure, just as your commenters suggest that women might be happier if we accept our allegedly “assigned role in life” as wives and mothers.
Or could it be – could it be! – that other values besides and/or in addition to happiness are important. For both men AND women.
Larry,
Several weeks ago, you took grave exception to my description of your blog as “anti-feminist.” I am still mystified as to why. This post raises the question again in my mind.
I have not read everything you have ever written but it I see in your writing frequent criticism of feminism. For example, you recently raised studies showing the declining rate of women’s self-reported happiness in the last 35 years, which you linked to feminism. And in this post you make the following statement: “Now women are joining the game. But seeking the wish-fulfillment aspects of superheroes but not the burdens and costs. That is the pattern of feminism.” This is a criticism that cuts right to the heart of the feminist project; yet you strongly eschew the “anti-feminist” label.
I am genuinely curious as to why you object to that label and I am genuinely curious as to what I may be missing. Do you find certain aspects of feminism to be positive? Have you ever written a pro-feminist post?
If you do view yourself as generally opposed to feminism, what is it about the term “anti-feminist” that you find so objectionable? Inquiring minds want to know.
Margaret,
“I am still mystified as to why.”
This is a guess, but your 27 comments are imo sufficient for a good guess. You read through a thick – thick! – set of ideological lens. That you don’t reply to quotes compounds the problem, since doing so would force you to respond to what I say rather than the ideological constructs in your mind.
If you actually read my posts – which your comments show that you haven’t, in any meaningful sense – you would see that I distinguish between the first three waves of feminism and fourth-wave feminism. The first three were the quest for equality. I was raised in a second-wave world and educated by third-wave professors. That’s my perspective. Gender is a social construct, which we shape over the generations to suit our changing needs.
Fourth-wave feminism is the quest for superiority. It’s wrecking our culture, esp when combined with other manifestations of leftist ideology (eg, wild support for “transgendered”, fueling of racial hatreds). These are quickly destroying the foundations of a liberal society built over centuries. Destroying is always faster and easier than building.
So far as I can see, none of these words – repeated in scores of posts – come through your mental filters. When reading your comments I am reminded of this passage from Orwell’s 1984, about translating the opening of the Declaration of Independence into Newspeak.
Feminism was always about feminine supremacy. For God’s sake, it’s in the name! Equality was just a stepping stone and like most people who fell for that equality nonsense, it was believed.
And what equality does Margaret want? In essence, to divorce her ability to procreate from sex. That’s all its about. For the glory of the corporation and selling nonsense to strangers and I will sacrifice my offspri,g and become a genetic dead end. Also, the fact is that deep down, they hate their families and their patriarchal last names, so have no interest in continuing their own line anyways.
Hglkj,
“Feminism was always about feminine supremacy.”
As someone fairly deeply involved in third-wave feminism – knowing some of the brighter lights and reading its texts – I strongly disagree.
“And what equality does Margaret want? In essence, to divorce her ability to procreate from sex.”
What’s wrong with that? Both men and women have sought that since we came down from the trees. It was and is necessary to prevent overpopulation. Infanticide was the usual method. Silphium was used as a contraceptive in the ancient world (eg, Greece and Rome), and probably exploited to its extinction (see Wikipedia).
“the fact is that deep down, they hate their families and their patriarchal last names”
I think you’re letting your imagination run riot. It’s the usual thing in these discussions. I condemn this, but its bailing against the tide.
Thank you for addressing my question, Larry.
I submit that your writing is hardly clear in this regard. For example, when you argue in this post that seeking power and benefits without responsibility is “the feminist pattern,” you don’t limit your statement to “fourth wave feminism.” You also criticize the concept of the wage gap, which was certainly a second wave concern. I have yet
Your attempt to cast me as some sort of Orwellian censor is absurd. After all, here I am, reading your posts, engaging you in discussion, and asking you questions. Yet you are attempting to cast me as your caricature of a “fourth wave” feminist determined to wipe out any disagreement. Perhaps it is you who cannot handle disagreement and therefore perceive any criticism as a fascistic effort to censor you? My eyes are rolling so hard, they are almost rolling out of my head.
P.S. In many of my comments, I have certainly referred specifically to quotations from your posts that have led me to my conclusions about your meaning. I gather that you would like me to use a specific format in doing so, however.
Oh well, Larry, there you go! You’ve made a feminist point – that there is nothing wrong with divorcing procreation from sex. Hear hear. Doing so is good for both men and women, and it is certainly crucial for women’s health and ability to function with freedom, equality and dignity in our society.
“Freedom, equality and dignity”.
At least it is admitted that woman don’t enjoy their offspring. Responding to Larry, I very aware of the ancient methods of abortion, aka modern child sacrifice, which would include simply discarding your child into the burning hands of Baal for a great harvest, for money, for plenty, etc. to leaving your child on the side of a hill to be eaten by animals.
I din’t realize that the feminist argument is basically a rehashing of the ancient methods and that dignity included the dismantling of your offspring whether it be in utero or outside, either way seems fine. Women sure don’t like being women and having the ability to create life. Why it’s almost like they have always had “men” envy.
Outsider,
You are forgetting that the “reproductive rights” that feminists fight for include the right to choose pregnancy and childbirth. You are also overlooking the fact that the overwhelming majority of women, including feminist women, choose to bear children.
From a feminist perspective, the problem is not at all our ability as women to create life. The problem would be being forced against our will to create life under circumstances that we don’t choose.
outsider,
“I very aware of the ancient methods of abortion, aka modern child sacrifice … that dignity included the dismantling of your offspring whether it be in utero or outside”
I think you’ve lost the context of the discussion. It was about regulating fertility. This is nothing new, and I believe few share your apparent belief that it is wrong. In the past regulating fertility was often an existential necessity – with the alternative being starvation for some of the community. “Dignity” has often been an unaffordable luxury for people.
But more generally, people have always wanted to have sex without producing children. Surely you must see that.
“Women sure don’t like being women and having the ability to create life.”
Women, like men, get to create their own teleology – what it means to be a woman or man. For many women in history, childbearing was impossible (for social or biological reasons) – but they were women nonetheless. Modern contraceptives makes this feasible for all, breaking the link between womanhood/masculinity and fertility.
There is an important point in your comment. What we think of as women’s “natural” desire to have and raise children – and the associated traits (eg, compassion, nurturing instinct) – are the result of indoctrination. Third-wave feminists said that this “pro-natalism” was a cornerstone of western gender identities. Conservatives sneered at this theory, but time has proven 3W feminists correct.
During the past few generations pronatalism has been rapidly erased from women’s education. So we have increasing numbers of women who still want to pop out babies – I am unclear why – but with little interest in raising them. “Family” law attorneys (ie, who make their living busting up families) report growing numbers of mothers who don’t want custody.
As always, there are ample precedents. Women in the western aristocracies in the 19th century turned their kids over to professionals – nannies, governesses, and boarding schools. Now that large numbers of women have sufficient levels of income to do so, they do.
The effects will be interesting to see. But then, matters of survival are always interesting.
Reproductive rights will always include and be primarily about the discarding of your offspring even if it’s the result of consensual sex (the exception cases remaining 10% or less) so it doesn’t limit the ability to visit Italy, spend money on playthings and pretend my work means something to strangers. Can’t limit the ability to discard your children for other things. Yeah, freedom for sure. Equality because why can’t I work a job like a dude. Dignity is sure an interesting way to put it.
If women today cared about family formation, they would work with it. Whatever wave feminism, the mantra is always “it is man’s fault” and also “I wish I was more like a man”.
outsider,
Do you have any evidence for sweeping bold statements?
In modern media, and in the context of the original post, the perpetual need to “reinvent” popular superheroes with a female equivalent who is so much better than the original, see Ghostbusters, Captain Marvel, Star Wars, Avatar the last Airbender, Ocean’s series, Supergirl, etc. just so you and those misogynist trolls know that woman can be the superhero, aka man, too. Off topic, sort of, Wonder Woman, who feminists obsess over and claim as their own, was created by a man with two women as his influence, who he then proceeded to have two children with, each.
The general evidence is all around that feminist crave corporate and government power because they perceive value and status in the men who traditionally occupied those positions and they want the backing of government to force quotas because reasons, see Trudeau and California.
Also, you just provided the evidence that women don’t want their live children in increasing frequency proving they’d rather do and pursue other things. The Italy trip was just the most common I see anecdotally, but it could be Thailand, Austrailia, Cancun, whatever.
Outsider,
One of my dear friends was recently rushed to the hospital for an emergency birth as her blood pressure reached dangerously high levels and her head – her HEAD! – swelled to twice its normal size. We tend to take pregnancy and childbirth for granted in our society as, at most, “mere inconveniences,” but the things the majority of my female friends have been through in order to have their children would make your hair stand on end. Moreover, caring for a child from birth until adulthood involves FAR more than giving up “the ability to visit Italy” and “spending money on playthings.” You are trivializing both motherhood and the work women do in jobs other than motherhood.
I have no wish to be “more like a man” (whatever that means) – but if I shared your demeaning view of women, could you blame me?
I hope I am demeaning work done by both men and women. That’s the point. Most corporate and government work is needless and time sucking nonsense used to make primarily make billionaires and politicians richer at the expense of your family and people. My contention is feminists crave the top CEO power and fight and claw for these makeshift jobs at the expense of family which includes aborting their children, in the hopes of getting that power. It also puts them in direct competition with men who know these jobs suck but do them mostly begrudgingly. It also translates into acting like a stereotypical alpha male pantsuites, deeper voices, etc. and since men are now their competition, degrading them. That’s all I see in advertising and what most political women fight for.
Outsider,
If women working in jobs outside the home comes at the expense of the family, then so does men working in jobs outside the home. We no longer live in economies (such as hunter-gatherer or the family farm) in which families work together to provide for themselves. That fact may indeed be to our detriment in many ways, though I personally appreciate the many comforts and conveniences of our capitalist, industrialized society.
I see nothing wrong with seeking power or advancement within my profession, nor with healthy competition, regardless of the sex of my competitors. Diligence and collaboration, however, are also necessary for success. Women, in fact, do not seek advancement by degrading men. Doing so would be a foolish strategy.
You’re right about the popularity of pants suits though. I am wearing one myself as we speak. Sorry you don’t like ’em!
“Do you have any evidence for sweeping bold statements?”
Objective reality? I was linked here (Z-man article I think) and have been attempting to not comment on a few of your articles but the words that come to mind are: myopic, bold, and thick. These are not a good combo for a first impression.
You strike me as somewhere between a fully red-pilled /ourguy/ and a National Review Boomer. Terrifying combination isn’t it?
Apex,
“Objective reality?”
That’s just saying “I’m right and you’re wrong.” That’s considered inadequate in high school level work.
The rest of your comment is just name-calling. Suitable only for grade-school schoolyards. Can you do better? Facts, logic – that kind of thing.
Apex–because fully red-pilled National Review boomers link to sites like the “Black Agenda Report” on a regular basis, and decry militarism in US foreign policy?
This site doesn’t fit comfortably into any easily defined political label; it’s about being uncomfortable.
If you notice I qualified my statement by saying ‘halfway between’. Having a foot in both worlds is not a good place to be. You can’t serve two masters, house divided cannot stand, etc etc.
I’ve read back through many articles here, years back in fact. I’m not just taking the piss here I see lots of good stuff but there is this blind spot about so many things because there are certain truths that cannot be uttered. How frustrating must it be to clearly see the picture but be unable to break out of your lifetime of conditioning to simply state where so many of these arrows point back to.
All the pieces are laid out clearly like a puzzle on the floor that is nearly assembled but decades of conditioning will not allow you to take that final leap. There are certain truths that cannot be named if we wish to keep polite company, National Review style. There is that third rail that must NOT be touched… you all seem like clever folks I’m sure you can figure it out.
Apex Predator,
“There are certain truths that cannot be named if we wish to keep polite company,”
That’s true, and becoming more so. I’ve written about this in general terms using prison as an analogy for the polarization of our society.
There is no room for moderates. Similarly, our society is moving away from classical liberalism – such as the dream of a color-blind society. The Left dreams of suppressing whites (esp hetrosexual white men) with a rainbow coalition. Elements of the Left dream of brutal oppression of white hetro men. In responsive – inevitably – they lose faith in the liberal project that brought us here — and talk of the Civil Rights Acts and Women’s Suffrage as historic mistakes.
I hear these things from nice middle-class young men – not crazy bikers or weird Right Wing radicals. As you say, these things cannot be said in polite company. Yet.
See my first post about this: A new, dark picture of America’s future. William Lind is (as usual these days) on the same line of thinking as me, but from a different perspective: The Anti-White Party.
We have passed all the exits leading to benign solutions.
Nah, I’m an idiot, you’ll probably have to spell it out.
I agree with maybe 50% of FMs posts. I’m not here to follow any master.
If I accept your hypothesis as true, then it helps explain something I used to wonder about, which is why no one ever made a movie out of Nancy A Collins’ Sonja Blue novels. The answer is that Sonja, who was a half-human half-vampire character that Ms Collins created in a series of novels in the late 80s or early 90s, didn’t have a wonderful life. Getting her powers had really cost her something, and her adventures were more like a hard-boiled action thriller than the kind of romance/supernatural chick lit that forms a staple in the bookstores these days. I have a trade paper collection of that series around here somewhere. I may, after all these years, have to go find it and reread it.
Yeah, I basically think you nailed this one.
Regarding the Lynch case, I always got the impression that the lies told about her (And they were many) were mostly the result of fake news, with each of the various media outlets reporting on what rumors the others were spreading. The media seemed to be more at fault than the Pentagon, but I may have gotten the wrong impression, or misremembered. In any case, you’re right that large numbers of dead or maimed women will shock the public, but I’d also point out that casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan have been low by historic standards. A week of Tet Offensive scale losses would likely come as a shock to the public no matter who gets wounded or killed.
The Man,
“the lies told about her (And they were many) were mostly the result of fake news”
It was “news” manufactured by the Pentagon.
“would likely come as a shock to the public no matter who gets wounded or killed.”
Life and history are about magnitudes, relative numbers – not binaries (eg, shock or no shock). I’d bet big that large numbers of women casualties would create a far larger shock than from male casualties.
“Life and history are about magnitudes, relative numbers – not binaries (eg, shock or no shock). I’d bet big that large numbers of women casualties would create a far larger shock than from male casualties.”
It would take a rasher man than I to say you’re wrong about this. I can think of a number of things, actually, that would be a serious shock to the public that we seem to more or less blithely ignore. Regardless of what specifically shocks the public, the fact is they’re susceptible to being shocked by a lot of costs and setbacks that they aren’t prepared for. Comes the day, any or all of those possibilities might provide an ugly wake up call. Regardless of what shocks them the most, the shock is coming.
The Man,
“they’re susceptible to being shocked by a lot of costs and setbacks that they aren’t prepared for. …Regardless of what shocks them the most, the shock is coming.”
That sounds like a description of life. Has there ever been a society – anywhere, anywhen – for which this was not so?
Many glory in the achievements of their ancestors. That’s all well and good. But then again change occurs.
The survivors arent always the strongest or the fastest. But the most adaptable.
A civilization shouldnt be a fossil only pining after past glories. But is ever ready to seize opportunity and to seek adventure. The more static the more closer to death.
The idea of some is stasis or stillness as if this is an ideal. But life is change and activity. And the universe appears to disdain staleness. As flux keeps blindsiding the fossilizing.
How are the sales of the female comics?
Sven,
There have been rumors that sales of Marvels comics have collapsed since they replaced most of their white CIS male superheroes with a multi-racial, multi-gendered cast. It is a division – a tiny division – of Disney, so we don’t know the details.
More interesting will be to see how Marvel films makes the same transition. They have retired the great actors that built the franchise, and gone woke. Time will tell.
That the movies are what makes the real money for Marvel (and ultimately Disney) and not the comics, makes transitioning the movies into the wokesphere financially risky for Marvel, should the movies begin to bomb. As the Star Wars franchise has shown, it can happen. Per Google, Solo lost $50 million dollars.
Frank,
I agree about the risk being taken with the Marvel franchise.
As for Star Wars, we will soon see how well Kathleen “The Future Is Female” Kennedy is managing the franchise.
Also worth noting that making successful super hero movies isn’t easy, DC has released more than a few flops, though they are currently riding high on Joker.
Most internet chatter about the Watchmen tv series has about it’s “wokeness” (I have to admit I was ignorant about the bombing of “Black Wall Street” in Tulsa in 1921 until watching the show). While it’s take on race in America is facinating, it has certainly carried on presenting the comic’s central theme of “superheroes are a terrible idea, and the antithesis of democracy.” Much like “The Boys” on Amazon.
“Watchmen” and “Martial Law” got me off superhero comics right before college. No pop culture trend lasts forever, and I think we may be seeing some harbingers of change now.
But I might be delusionally optimistic.
Suggest the maligned males look to some of those sweet loyal Christian women arriving from Central and South America.