I found it doing an image search for “bad marxists”.
Now, trying to research the image itself I find it’s an artwork by one Scott King:
oooooh! He was an arti director for iD magazine! 
3 Likes
and a partridge in a pear tree?
2 Likes
Incidentally, on the original topic I’ve thought about what we’ve discussed and I think you’re right. In the medium of comic books, female characters are more sexualized, and certainly more purely sexualized than the male. I don’t think that comics are exceptional in this, but it’s as true of them as in other media.
That’s not to claim that male characters aren’t sexualized. More importantly, because I think this is where the controversy lies, it would also be (more) unreasonable to claim that male characters aren’t objectified. I think the confusion arises because discussions of objectification generally refer to sexual objectification. In comic books, I think both male and female characters are objectified, and the male objectification often or usually includes a sexual component, whereas the female objectification is chiefly (but rarely only) sexual. But the sense of alienation, and the impact upon self esteem for those who ‘don’t pass’ and are sensitive about it, is very similar.
This mix of marginalised males intersecting with marginalised others and ideological progressives (some of whom are really rather conservative in their approach) then becomes a complete shitfight, firstly because of misunderstanding and then swiftly because of malice.
I’m not excusing those marginalised males who as a result of the above choose to express themselves like complete arseholes. I’m more interested in understanding and avoiding the proliferation of this kind of mobbing. To be flippant, every neckbeard who doesn’t buy a gun and vote Teaparty, or who doesn’t start slutshaming or gamergating is a win. I do think that we need to recognise our own arseholes as well, though, which may involve the use of mirrors however literally or figuratively you choose to take it.
1 Like
