This article took me a lot longer than I originally intended. I was a bit unsure how to approach this in a relatively level-headed manner. This is a topic that at times I find hilarious and often times it leaves me seething with rage at all the B.S. So let's get started with this.
SJW'S VS. COMICS
An SJW is a general term for a sect of people who claim to support equality and social justice. While I am for equality, SJW's (Social Justice Warriors) can take things way too far. An example is demanding that universities hire non-white people, claiming there isn't enough diversity in the workplace. Can you see the problem with this idea? In order for the diversity to take place, some one has to get fired, even if the person is phenomenal at their job, nope sorry you're white (or worse yet) a white man and that means you gotta get out! This is a huge problem that is unfortunately running rampant at universities and college campuses all over the country. Another characteristic of the SJW is hypersensitivity. For example take a look at this variant cover for DC's the Killing Joke comic.
Its a chilling image showing Batgirl in distress, its a very well done cover that makes me want to pick up the comic and read it. Unfortunately SJW's didn't appreciate it, they wanted it banned because it disempowered Batgirl.
Now they're partially right Batgirl is in a disempowering pose, its called being held hostage. However they took it even further and said the cover was implying/ promoting the rape of Batgirl. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but that is never shown in the comic and even if it did, Joker is a villainous character and psychological / physical torture is a character trait of his. He's sadistic, and rape is a very effective form of physical and psychological torture so if he did rape her while torturing her, it wouldn't feel too far fetched or in complete bad taste, at least not in my opinion. Also the mere fact the Batgirl is in distress is another reason they oppose this cover.
However please look at this comic book panel from the infamous Death of Superman comic:
I would argue that Superman is very disempowered here, (he's dead after all) there are dozens of comics depicting the hero in these sort of situations.
Why do comic book artist choose to depict our heroes in these situations? Because it sells, because in the end we all know the hero is going to eventually beat the villain. I believe it was George Lucas who said it, "The more challenging you make it for the hero the more interesting the story is". In truth when we see a powerful villain threatening our hero we are thinking, "How is he going to get out of this?" that's what makes heroes so appealing. No matter how dark the situation gets, the hero always rises up and saves the day. Since the cover of the comic is the first thing we see, it makes sense that the cover shows our hero in a perilous scenario such as the three covers above.
But going back to the Killing Joke cover, DC received such backlash I'm sad to say that they pulled the cover and no one can have it. This is censorship, imagine if everyone carried on like this? For instance I find the Justin Bieber offensive to my ear drums, so by SJW logic his music must be banned and he must be banished to the deepest darkest hole on the planet. Scratch that, send the Bieber into space, there we go perfect.
Art shouldn't be censored. Art shouldn't have to be politically correct, if you want make some racist artwork, I will get offended but I won't call for your work to be silenced. I will simply not view it, buy it, talk about it, or pay it any attention, because First Amendment is a thing.
SJW's also clamor for diversity in comics and media, and while normally I agree it would be nice to see different people from all walks of life in our games/ movies/ comics/ books and TV, but the way go about it all wrong. An example of this was the Thor incident, which caused a lot of backlash. For those of you who don't know, Marvel decided to have Thor lose his powers and to basically replace him with a woman and she takes on the name Thor. Here's the problem with that, Thor is still alive and to just have some character take his weapon and his name is a disservice to the character, because she isn't Thor.
Now for the record I'm not against female super heroes, I love Storm from the X-men, Batgirl, Raven, Black Widow, Scarlet Witch, and many more to name a few. What I don't like is practically banishing an iconic character because "he wasn't diverse enough" or wasn't "inclusive", especially when it really does feel like they're shoehorning it in and it doesn't add anything to the story. On the contrary in my opinion it subtracts. Check out this video, he explains exactly how and why replacing Thor like this is a problem and why people are angry about it.
Look I'm not against a new character taking on the identity of an existing character, I'm okay with Miles becoming Spider-Man, but at least they had the decency to give a good reason why Miles is now Spider-Man. See Peter Parker died so there was a void to be filled, so adding in a new Spider-Man makes sense. It's a cool way to convey a message, "anyone can be a hero" and that Spider-Man is more a symbol than a person. Notice how that is done in a respectful way because it acknowledges the original character but this isn't the case for female Thor.
Recently I found out that SJW's are furious over the Iron Fist show having a white man as the lead. They're enraged and demanding that an Asian person play the role. However the Iron Fist in the comics is a white person and it plays heavily into his character and backstory. Also isn't it a bit stereotypical and once could argue racist, to have an martial arts super hero be Asian? I'm pretty sure not all Asians know martial arts, just like not all black people can rap. ( I know I can't rap).
The problem with the way SJW's want diversity is that they want to alter existing stories and established characters to fit their agenda. This is a problem because these characters are established meaning they have very defined backstories and lore. Going in and ripping it apart and switching things just because it wasn't diverse is the wrong way to go about.
How about instead of making existing characters opposite gender or changing their race, we instead create new exciting characters and make them ethnically diverse or more gender inclusive? Instead of taking an established and beloved character and potentially stripping them of what made them iconic, make a new icon. Who knows, people might be drawn to that new icon more?
Instead of butchering other people's vision and work, make something yourselves and prove (or disprove) why your ideology is superior.
In conclusion, you have a right to be offended by something, but that doesn't give you the right to demand for it to be banned because you don't like it. I want more diversity in the media, but guess what? I don't want established franchises and characters being altered to fit an agenda, I want new characters that are diverse and different instead of taking away, I want to give. Please share if you liked this article.
The SuperMan Dilemma: