THE MAINSTREAM OBSESSIONS WITH POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

The Washington Times addressed Marvel's all-for-the-sake-of-it introduction of a teenaged Muslim Ms. Marvel, and says:

The publishers of comic books are obsessed with the politically correct. Diversity and quotas are more important than dispatching evil. Spider-Man has been reimagined as a black Hispanic teenager. The Green Lantern is out of the closet. Early next year, Marvel Comics rolls out a Muslim superheroine.

I just wish they'd be more specific, because the mixed-race Spidey can be found in the remnants of the Ultimate line. In the MCU proper, Web-head's been reimagined as a mad scientist named Dr. Octopus who hijacked the body of Peter Parker. And they should clarify which GL has been reimagined as a closet case. Namely, Golden Age GL Alan Scott.

Ms. Marvel, unlike her paper-and-ink comrades, won’t advocate for “truth, justice and the American way.” If she wants to find a place on newsstands in Muslim countries, she’ll have to be careful not to anger militant Islam, even if she takes on the Great Satan. She can take her cues from Secretary of State John F. Kerry, who traveled to Saudi Arabia last week to mend fences and promptly climbed atop one. When reporters asked him what he thinks of the growing protests of Saudi women demanding the right to drive a car, he replied that he’s all for equality except when he isn’t. “We embrace equality for everybody, regardless of gender, race or any other qualification,” he says. “There’s a healthy debate in Saudi Arabia about this issue, but I think that debate is best left to Saudi Arabia.”

Ms. Marvel probably won’t appear in comic books in Saudi Arabia, anyway. In the storyline, Ms. Marvel’s mother is “paranoid that she’s going to touch a boy and get pregnant,” Ms. Marvel’s co-creator, Sana Amanat, a Muslim editor at Marvel, tells The New York Times. Her father thinks she should concentrate on becoming a doctor. Ms. Marvel’s most daunting challenges, however, might come not from supervillains, but from her brother, who the editor describes ominously as “extremely conservative.” Conservatives, extreme or otherwise, rare in comic books, are usually megalomaniacal industrialists and other bad guys.

Indeed, that is correct; there's almost no chance Khan will ever appear in the House of Saud, since under the Religion of Peace, with its narrow view of women, even a character adhering to such a bad religion is considered haram (taboo), even if she were wearing a niqab. No inspiring roles for women are allowed there, and there's other Islamic countries that aren't far behind in that kind of censorship.

The citation of the brother being a boilerplate "conservative" is interesting. Obviously, Muslims are the only kind of "conservatives" whom the left has no issue with, and the only ones to whom they could give a free pass and depict in a positive light. While there's little or no chance it'd turn up in this propaganda, what the paper's alluding to is Muslim honor murders, and the possibilities that a girl in a Muslim family who wants to make her own choices in life would be murdered for just thinking about it.

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.

Oh great, they're risking sensationalism. Only the most PC-leftist of would-be Batfans have ever been trying to figure out what Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson's relation is. Others see it as simply a father/son, uncle/nephew or big/little brother relationship. They should be careful about sounding sensational. But eerie is right on homosexuality, and it's probably worse than their leftist obsessions with race (and religion, if they consider the one in question fitting for their PC visions).

But if love conquers all (which it rarely does), the publishers could allow Batwoman to marry Ms. Marvel, and they could argue over who converts to whatever. That might only upset Ms. Marvel’s “extremely conservative” Muslim brother, but comic books are just funny books for everybody else.

An allusion to the Islamic abhorrence of homosexuality, which Judeo-Christian disapproval can't even hold a candle to.

None of this mattered to CBR contributor Kevin Melrose, however, who said:

It’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.

And it's no surprise at all that he'd be as incensed as I figure he is that a right-wing paper would dare to voice disapproval at a story that's more than 99 percent likely to depict a bad religion in the most whitewashed fashion. Nor is it surprising if he's never read the Koran, to understand why they're unimpressed, though I think the paper is at fault: why not cite some verses from the Koran to explain why? The thing is, if they did, Melrose probably wouldn't take any notice.

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.

Very funny. Nobody's saying you can't be part of a different race and fight evil. What the paper was really saying is that, for mainstream publishers, diversity is more important in every way than good storytelling, and the bulk of the past decade featuring diversity has not borne an ounce of good writing or other valid steps to justify its being. It figures people like him wouldn't care, yet aren't brave enough to admit it. And isn't he a little disappointed if Kamala Khan won't be showing up in Saudi stores? Gee, and we thought people like Melrose hope American products can sell into more foreign markets at ease! Guess we were mistaken. And maybe he should look at himself in the mirror to see who the real "concern troller" is.

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?

Answer: Melrose, and he loses all the chips he's bet on the wheel at the Vegas gambling den. So, he's basically claiming homosexuality is normal, and that sure is rich for somebody who probably comes from the same school as the MSM reporters who'd bring up Michelle Malkin's race for no apparent reason to say they "singled out" the race of the partner. What the paper is alluding to is how Archie's editors are resorting to an interracial marriage between two gays for the sake of more absurdity with "diversity". If this were simply an interracial marriage between a white guy and a black girl, or a black guy and a white girl, no concern or complaints would or should be made. But Melrose, in all his lefty biases, can't figure that out.

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.

Hmm, does this mean he does have a problem with Muhammed's marriage to Aisha, who was only 6 when he bought her as a concubine? He'd be surprised at how many Muslims wouldn't have a problem with such a marriage...if it were between a male and the teenaged girl. (To my knowledge, some American states allow marriage for 16-year-olds with special permission from parents, and so does Britain.) What the paper was alluding to is how in real life, the brother/father could commit an honor murder against the girl if they thought she were a lesbian, and something like that almost did happen in Nebraska last week. Alas, that's all lost upon Melrose, who prefers to belittle the newspaper out of dislike for righties, and there's no chance his putdown has anything to do with what the Koran and Hadith tell about the "prophet" of Islam.

My only problems with the Wash. Times' approach is their teetering towards the sensational and their shortcomings in specifications. Melrose and company's are that they would dare to be conservative in the first place. Too bad they've decided to put their heads in the sand.