This guy hits it on the head.

It's one of the comments on the article at their site.

What do you guys think?

"Elle -

Not all men view women as walking sex-things. Not all men see women as objects, sexual or otherwise. Many of us grew up in homes where women and men were equal. Much respect for you and yours, but how can making an argument against sexist art be effective when the headline is so inherently sexist? Either you meant the headline as a joke, which was poorly delivered, or you really do have a short sighted view on men. By perpetuating the idea that all men are incapable of understanding woman as equals, you not only invalidate many of us immediately, you also work against years of progress that the feminist movement has made. Nobody will recognize change if you publish things that say, even indirectly, that change isn't happening.

As a large media source, this is your responsibility. People listen to you and believe what you say. It falls on you - nobody else. Own this responsibility, or stop publishing."

TRP has been on my mind much recently, and that Maddox video was perfect reassurance for my thoughts lately.

from here

And I think it’s also incredibly important to remember that Manara is Italian, which I’d like to think speaks for itself.

Sure, because we Italians are sex-addicted vampires coming from caves where we brutalize women. That's really a point, it's-a-me, MiSOGYNIST!

He misses the fact that no one noticed Spider-MAN's pose because men aren't hyper sexualized, nor made to be glorified sex objects in media.

As an aside, he gives off the vibe he was bullied a lot as a kid, and his dad was probably never around.

Like others said, the cover was created by Manara, famous erotic cartoonist in Europe. My father had a couple of his albums , and i used to read it when i was a kid! check that out : google

It looks to me like a collective press release was given to Time, The Guardian, Slate, Entertainment Weekly and E! Online to influence public opinion. Similar examples herein: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC9Wqgt0hhg

"Mansplaining" So that's what that is... No wonder feminists hate it

"Butthurt"

Get it?

(Whoops, pissed off the bot... better not do that again.)

What I love is how he constantly brings stats about women into it. Half of comic readers are women, half the artist's fans are women.

No one (except SJWs writing for clickbait sites) had a problem with the VARIANT cover. By constantly bringing real stats on women into it, it gives SJWs no ammunition for a rebuttal without extreme hamstring (possibly about internalized misogyny) that most people will see right through and make them lose more credibility.

At its core, this is the demonization of male sexuality.

Newsflash, everyone: comics are designed for males. Feminism will do this thing, where they point at a male-targeted product or industry, and say, "The way they portray women is sexualized and misogynistic."

Sexualized? Of course it's sexualized! It's a comic for men! We like our action with a side of tits.

Besides, it's not like there's a double standard when it comes to sexualizing men. It's not like major blogs sexualized John Hamm's bulge, or a feminist sexualizes female coders to sell underwear.

But misogynistic? No.

It's not misogynistic to desire and appreciate the sexuality of another person. Make no mistake: this is pure man-hating, because it only goes one way: towards men.

He destroyed it in that article with clear visual images and comparisons. Facts and logic can do that.

Follow the money gentlemen. There is an aggressive PR campaign by the elites to get more women into better paying jobs. They won't earn these jobs of course, they will be Kommissars for political thought in industries that are male dominated.

Men are dropping out of normal avenues of wealth redistribution so they need to get more women (read consumers) into those jobs by social manipulation.

Now that videos and comics are big money makers, women are going to force their way in, just like every other thing that men built from the ground up, and then proceed to marginalize it into "ho-hum dom". It's why we have to import foreign scientists, military, doctors etc. just to keep the country running.

Yeah, they want the training and education, no, they don't want the actual work, at least not until madison starts going to college (read child support) and the alimony runs out.

Good lord that was a sensationally brilliant, logical, and utterly eloquent bitch slap of a youtube clip. Thanks for bringing it to my attention OP ! thumbs up

Beside the double standard, it's additionally retarded to blast this cover given that it was made by Milo Manara. Manara is famous and famed for drawning extremely beautiful women and for writing and illustrating a great deal of sexual comic books. The dude's entire style revolves around the study and love of the female form (the actual female form, not the landwhale form that SJW want to push as 'normal').

Then again, feminist outrage in comics and video games is always completely ignorant of this kind of stuff as they are not really into it, they are just using it as a target for easy outrage.

Shit like this is what happens when feminists are perceived to have the moral high ground by default. They're brainwashed to see misogyny in everything and no one calls them out for fear of being labelled sexist.

if you don't like something, then don't buy it! what is with the new-age authoritarian shenanigans? they are so similar to Puritan revivalists.

This video is amazing. I made the exact same point Maddox did about the subjectivity of eroticism 3 days ago. Nice to see we think alike.

Nevermind that half of male comic book heroes have physiques to rival Ahnuld in his prime.

The 'seuxalized ideal female physique' is relatively easy for a woman achieve (unless her boobs are small, even then a few thousand bucks and a one-hour operation will cover that), she just has to eat right, and do moderate exercise.

The 'ideal male physique' requires Spartan eating discplinme and a full-time lifting regimen; his whole life has to revolve around achieving it.

Walk into a nightclub or along a beach and you'll see plenty of women who look almost as good as Wonder-Woman, but very few dudes to rival Superman's musculature and heroic jawline (and most who do will be shorter).

What do they expect, something like this or this?

The most amazing thing to me about these critics is that they're criticizing shit they don't like. None of them read Spiderman or play video games (Sarkeesian + Quinn). How are we supposed to take them seriously? Why do we take them seriously? Because Sarkesian played Super Mario Brothers once when she was 10? Please.

Within the genre of comics, ALL bodies are hyper-sexualized. You'd know that if you'd ever cracked open a mainstream comic. To look at that cover and think there's something out of the ordinary only shows you to be a complete illiterate of the genre. And if that's the case, no, your opinion on the cover doesn't really matter.

He makes incredbly strong and bulletproof arguments, but unfortunately it will be entirely ignored by feminists because they will claim he is "mansplaining" and didn't "check his male privilege".

Ironically, the group that complains the most about gender inequality is the one that most often refuses to listen to you based on your gender.

Milo Manara (the comic book cover author) gets TRP, or at least the social condition. My favorite comic ever by him

If Spider Woman were fat, no one would have a problem. People get offended too easily. Maddox really ripped them a new one though.

What's really annoying is how everyone on /r/videos dismisses this as poor blogging when it's a prime example of feminist bullshit.

I don't get what's wrong with a double standard here. Female's value largely comes from the sexualization of her body in a way it doesn't with a man and this imagery reflects that.

Is it to reveal the hypocrisy in their desire for "equality"? Because only extreeme feminists take "equality" to such lengths, and the popular news/comments doesn't reflect fringe feminism. They reflect the "equality in some but not all things"... of which there is no real hypocrisy here.

The real problem is trying to hide away from the fact that the value of a woman is largely a result of her desirability to men.

I just sexualised his logic.