Is Frank Cho The Last Champion Of Straight Men’s Boners In This Hellish Feminist Wasteland We Live In?

[Nice Squirrel]

http://comicsalliance.com/frank-cho-butts-boners/

As you know, straight men are the most persecuted group in the world today. They used to live in a utopia where everything was tailored to meet their needs, but that’s changed. There’s a female Ghostbusters movie coming out! The video game Rust randomly assigns gender! Two different Star Wars movies have female leads! And also, sometimes there are naked women on Game of Thrones that they don’t want to bone!

The social justice warriors did all this, of course. They rode into town with their feminism and their rainbows, and they ruined everything, and suddenly people are expected to respect the essential humanity of all people. It’s political correctness gone mad!

Because wherever there are people in need, Frank Cho is there, so long as what they specifically need is to buy a picture of a butt. Cho is an incredibly talented artist, of course, but rather than let that talent be his legacy, he wants to be known as the champion of a man’s right to look at a woman’s butt.

Hell yeah!

 

[Potoooooooo]

Can't say I am much of a fan of female butts, but the man does draw some awesome apes

 

[credoconsolans]

One fart out of those asses and it ruins everything...

 

[Metaphor]

I don't understand the vitriol of the article. What did Frank Cho do other than draw comic book figures with satirical intent?

 

[laughing dog]

Maybe this part of the article will help you understand:

Yes it’s true that, just as Spider-Woman writer Dennis Hopeless publicly distanced himself from the Manara cover, the writer of this latest book, Jim Zub, has distanced himself from the new Cho cover, because in both cases the cover was out of sync with the message they wanted to send their readers. But are we only going to put pictures of women’s butts on covers where they might be appropriate? Oh no; that, my friends, is fascism. Artists must be able to put pictures of women’s butts on all comic covers, and every woman, no matter her story, genre, or personality, must be reducible down to a sexual object for the pleasure of straight men. This must be permitted, or tyranny will flourish.

 

[Metaphor]

Maybe this part of the article will help you understand:

Yes it’s true that, just as Spider-Woman writer Dennis Hopeless publicly distanced himself from the Manara cover, the writer of this latest book, Jim Zub, has distanced himself from the new Cho cover, because in both cases the cover was out of sync with the message they wanted to send their readers. But are we only going to put pictures of women’s butts on covers where they might be appropriate? Oh no; that, my friends, is fascism. Artists must be able to put pictures of women’s butts on all comic covers, and every woman, no matter her story, genre, or personality, must be reducible down to a sexual object for the pleasure of straight men. This must be permitted, or tyranny will flourish.

No, I still don't get it. Cho is paid good money (I assume) to illustrate the covers of comic books. With that gig comes the freedom to draw them how he wants them. If the publishers don't like it, they can either direct him to draw something else or they can fire him. It's as simple as that, surely.

 

[Arctish]

The story behind the pose Frank Cho keeps drawing is this:

In August 2014 the Gamergate controversy began with complaints about game reviewers writing positive reviews of newly released games in exchange for favors of one sort or another. It quickly morphed into raging misogyny, people accusing others of being SJWs (in the insult sense of the term), claims the 'other side' was 'ruining gaming', etc.

That same month Marvel released Spider-Woman #1 with this variant cover by Milo Manara. The cover provoked a fair amount of backlash with even the comic's writers calling it inappropriate. Soon after, Frank Cho coyly released his own version of the Spider-Woman cover featuring female comic book characters like Harley Quinn crawling forward, pretending it was the crawling that was the issue, not the ass high in the air with cheeks spread to the anus pose that people were calling objectionable. And he's been doing it ever since.

Cho is trolling. The OP article is a sarcastic salute to him for his dedication to the principle that all comic book females must be drawn in poses hetero males deem fap worthy.

 

[Deepak]

I'll admit I haven't followed any of the Cho stuff, or really any comics in at least a decade, but one wonders if something like this:

Or this:

Could be published in the modern climate without an immediate backlash.

 

[Arctish]

I'll admit I haven't followed any of the Cho stuff, or really any comics in at least a decade, but one wonders if something like this:

Or this:

Could be published in the modern climate without an immediate backlash.

It can and it is, but not as cover art for comics aimed at 13 year olds, like Spider-Woman.

ETA: I think the second one could pass muster on a T+ comic book (13 and up) but the first one belongs on OT (older teen) or PA (parental advisory) material.

 

[Deepak]

I'll admit I haven't followed any of the Cho stuff, or really any comics in at least a decade, but one wonders if something like this:

*snip*

Could be published in the modern climate without an immediate backlash.

It can and it is, but not as cover art for comics aimed at 13 year olds, like Spider-Woman.

ETA: I think the second one could pass muster on a T+ comic book (13 and up) but the first one belongs on OT (older teen) or PA (parental advisory) material.

I'm not so much arguing from a target demographics viewpoint - mainly because I've seen similar backlash toward video games which are decidedly not aimed at children or young teens.

The question I have is whether a backlash would begin before the content of the comics was even considered, and in both the depictions are deliberate and internally consistent.

As an aside - I'd probably put the subject matter of both comics at teen level (that is to say 13-17), and it's certainly no worse than books like 1984, Of Mice and Men, The Grapes of Wrath, or Lord of the Flies. With the exception of Grapes (at 16) I've read all the books and both comics from 12-13 years old and have managed to not become a sexist, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing Morlock. Certainly both of the comics I'm referring to are more thought provoking than the average Marvel superhero comic.

 

[Terrell]

It can and it is, but not as cover art for comics aimed at 13 year olds, like Spider-Woman.

ETA: I think the second one could pass muster on a T+ comic book (13 and up) but the first one belongs on OT (older teen) or PA (parental advisory) material.

I'm not so much arguing from a target demographics viewpoint - mainly because I've seen similar backlash toward video games which are decidedly not aimed at children or young teens.

The question I have is whether a backlash would begin before the content of the comics was even considered, and in both the depictions are deliberate and internally consistent.

As an aside - I'd probably put the subject matter of both comics at teen level (that is to say 13-17), and it's certainly no worse than books like 1984, Of Mice and Men, The Grapes of Wrath, or Lord of the Flies. With the exception of Grapes (at 16) I've read all the books and both comics from 12-13 years old and have managed to not become a sexist, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing Morlock. Certainly both of the comics I'm referring to are more thought provoking than the average Marvel superhero comic.

Bayonetta would be a good example; it's rated M for Mature 17+.