Robot 6

Washington Times frets about Muslim, ‘eerie’ gay superheroes

ms marvel1It’s little surprise that the editorial board of the conservative Washington Times didn’t embrace the announcement that the new Ms. Marvel is a 16-year-old Muslim from New Jersey, but the newspaper’s actual response is a bit … bewildering. One might even describe it as eerie.

Beginning a Sunday editorial with a declaration that “diversity and quotas are more important than dispatching evil” — because, as we all know, heroes can’t be diverse and fight villains! — the writer engages in a little concern trolling, warning that Ms. Marvel, and by extension Marvel, will have to be careful not to anger “militant Islam” if there’s any hope for newsstand sales in Muslim nations. Of course we’re told in the very next paragraph that, “Ms. Marvel probably won’t appear in comic books in Saudi Arabia, anyway,” which apparently takes care of that problem.

Once we slog through the bumbling writing and odd aside involving Secretary of State Kerry, however, we arrive at the crux of the Washington Times’ argument, such as it is: that diversity is strange and frightening.

Here, let the newspaper explain: “Marvel Comics insists that it won’t evangelize for Islam, but the comic book industry promotes eerie lifestyles. DC Comics‘ venerable Green Lantern came out as homosexual in June 2012, about five months after the Archie Comics’ character Kevin Keller wed his black ‘boyfriend.’ DC’s Batwoman, a lesbian, was not so fortunate. Her writers quit in protest in September after the publishers told them Batwoman could never marry. This is odd, because a lot of fans have been trying for years to figure out the exact relationship between Batman and Robin.”

In case you’re playing along at home, the newspaper in the course of one paragraph: labeled homosexuality as “eerie”; felt the need to use scare quotes around boyfriend, and single out the race of Kevin Keller’s future husband; and dig up that chestnut about Batman and Robin. Who had the trifecta?

The editorial saves the best — or, rather, the “best” — for last, though, by tossing out what one could only presume is an inter-company crossover in which the decidedly adult Batwoman marries the 16-year-old Ms. Marvel. Now that’s class.



Is the Washington Times stuck in a 1960’s time bubble!?

Two words:

Guy missed the point of changing things up, completely…

First of all, this is merely a reflection of society…second of all, if he truly were a comics fan, he’d appreciate the push to find new readers to keep the medium healthy…plus, if he doesn’t like it he can send a loud message by not buying any of those books…simple…

It’s a right-wing-screed newspaper.

hurray for ignorant comics illiterate columnists.

Comic book fans on websites are NOT a reflection of society, either…

That editorial was mess.

The worst thing about the new Ms. Marvel isn’t that she’s Pakistani or Muslim, both which are perfectly fine, it’s that she appears to be a hipster.

Good news! Turns out, ‘The Washington Examiner’ closed its comments forum after only four posts. Because dissenting voices will not be allowed in Glorious Red Republican Party, comrade!

Racism, bigotry and conservatism go hand in hand. You don’t have to be all three but where you’re likely to find the one you’ll find the others.

Also, because Truth in Journalism doesn’t matter, I could have sworn the creative team on Batwoman made it clear they hadn’t left because of DC’s no marriage rule . . .

LOL – they turned off their comments?? I’m happy I was able to get mine in under the wire. *Someone* must’ve seen it…

George Mitchell (@RealThndrMonkey)

November 12, 2013 at 11:14 am

Ah, the Moonie Times. You still make me laugh.

Don’t worry about it. Anyone who’s ever lived in D.C. can tell you the Times is a muckraking right-wing rag with no journalistic integrity at all. A complete joke not even suitable for wrapping fish because it would make the fish stink.

The editorial was trolling, there is no way someone in this day and age can be so clueless, nor not have friends of different backgrounds. Considering we’re all Americans, there is no way that is even possible.
UNLESS the writer is secretly a commie!!!!!!

Disclaimer: I did not read the original article, I am not going to be trolled by lunatics. Let’s please remember, there’s a difference between lunatics and conservative. Chris Christie is conservative and awesome.

I almost confused The Washington Times with The Washington Post.

Huh. That’s funny. I didn’t realize The Onion had changed their name to The Washington Times. They still do hilarious satire, though.

Thanks for the laugh, dark rabbit. That was even funnier than the article and deviated from the core concept with an even greater degree of ignorance.

So, since you judge all liberals according to the behavior of one actor with an out-of-control temper, does that mean I should assume all conservatives have a tenuous grasp on punctuation, capitalization and sentence structure?

You guys are always so adorable. Love your work.

I hate it when comments get deleted after I’ve replied to them. Now I sound like a loon.

Kevin, you don’t seem to have grasped what the columnist is trying to say: By ‘eerie’ they mean that it is strange how comics publishers will only venture into stories about homosexual characters as long as they’re not any of the IMPORTANT main characters–only with newly created characters. This eeriness suggests an inability to make a clear stance on whether the Marvel, DC, or Archie brand is 100% supportive of homosexuality or just “putting up with it” because it’s integral to the general marketing strategy of “offering diversity”.

To whoever wrote that editorial, I say this–you know what else is eerie? My foot in your @$$, and how it got there.

Yeah…screw the Washington Times.

I just want to wade in here and firstly, applaud people for recognizing the idiocy of that editorial. Secondly, I want to warn people against falling in the trap that thinking comic book fandom, made up often of liberal males, does not have problems with race and gender. We tend to assume that because we’re not overtly racist (like the aforementioned editorial) that we cannot possibly also contribute to structures of racism. The political discourse (right vs left) is reductive, and reducing one’s opponent to “racist” is easier than being truly self-reflexive about one’s own subject position. Of course, I’m not claiming every comic fan is a racist, but I am urging people to consider that racism exists on the left side of the spectrum just as much as it does in the center or the right. Comics have a notoriously bad history with race, I think everybody can agree on.

Racism, bigotry and conservatism go hand in hand.

Wrong. Racist and Bigots hide behind the Conservative label.

Leave a Comment


Browse the Robot 6 Archives