Fallacies sunt rerum species.

chujo-hime:

ohmygil:

re-assembled:

brevoortformspring:

I think that there’s a world of difference between producing art and selling drugs or guns.

And you don’t have to like all art. That’s kinda the buy-in. But that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have validity or shouldn’t be made.

I think anybody who doesn’t like that particular cover is completely entitled to their opinion. And they’re under no obligation to purchase or support it.

Everything else, though, starts to sound like a slippery slope of censorship to me, and so I recoil from it on principle.

 
Saying that sexism sells is not a good excuse for that cover.  It’s actually more offensive than the cover itself.  Because it shows a lack of understanding of how serious sexism is, and how it impacts women in real life.

So far we women have been told that Captain America isn’t for us, and now Spider-woman isn’t for us.  What books are?

unless I was mistaken, I thought that the push for more titles led by women was to appeal to the growing female demographic of comic readers.

I guess I was mistaken after all.

I just love how the Business 101-level idea of ‘not repulsing the demographic your product is aimed at’ is automatically seen as the SLIPPERY SLOPE OF CENSORSHIP!!!

you know, there comes a point when every single complaint from the female readership is met with the accusations of CENSORSHIP!!!!!, when you have to wonder if Marvel is doing this on purpose. Because it seems pretty disingenuous to claim to want to expand the demographic and ask for feedback, while simultaneously rejecting that same feedback, and specifically rejecting that feedback in such a way that paints the entire demographic as hysterical and beyond the pale.