So people run amok with guns because James Bond isn't heterosexual enough? That's an ... interesting ... theory.

What's saddest about this article is that the author actually thinks it matters just how and when a fictional superman contrives to be fictionally super. Anyone who really wants to see actors playing out macho fantasies has plenty of other material to choose from; they don't need poor old outdated Jimmy Bond.

Every film these days must have a "girl power" moment/character, a token black (including a *Viking* god in "Thor"), a token Asian, a token gay, a dig at Christianity, a conservative caricature, a greedy capitalist, a threat to the environment, blah blah blah.

Oddly, even the Nazis in "Iron Sky" don't get to be really evil.

I'm thrilled whenever these expectations of pathetic predictability are violated.

I'm also annoyed by film directors who neurotically hide male bodies.
I think this is part of the same phenomenon.
Men cannot be shown to be *male*.
So no more superhero bulges in tights. Just neuter Ken dolls.

[Deleted for flaming author.]

"Fleming’s Bond is an amoral, chauvinistic (little) prick"

Certainly not the sort of (um) man a woman would call a friend.

But thankfully all of the Bond women were beyond reproach. Women are like that. As are the hordes of women of all ages who would take advantage of any of the Bonds given the slightest chance.

It is all fantasy. Well, likely a fair bit more if smitten women could get their hands on Connery, even 50+ years later.

This is not a bad article. I particularly liked the section on the feminist-Marxist brigade's belittlement of the white male. Additionally, that this belittlement could also lead to atrocities such as the recent massacre in the USA (there is a cause and effect link in there somewhere!).

The campaign of the feminists and Marxists since the 1960s has been the destruction of the identity of the white male. Today, they still infest the universities in every Western country. The denigration takes the form of "gender studies" and other "cultural studies" you find in Social Science and Humanities departments. Their whole philosophy is built on the negation of "power structures" created by white men. Ironically, they never bat an eyelid when they break one of their own fundamental laws: Negatively stereotyping people on the basis of race and gender. Apparently, if you're a feminist-Marxist then you somehow escape the laws you set down for others to follow.

The movement itself is a manifestation of nihilism. It is little more than a movement of negation; a movement that makes its philosophy out of tearing things down and belittling them. The slogans of "equality" and "freedom" are only secondary to their main aim of revenge against white males.

The solution to this nihilistic movement is to cease funding it. It only exists on the million dollar pay outs of tax payer's money funnelled into university courses and bureaucratic departments. Without this funding (which is ironically mostly funded by white males) it will all whither away within 2 years. It is not an organic movement, nor is it a popular movement; it cannot grow from the ground up, it must be imposed from the top down. Without it being artificially propped up with tax-payer's money, it ceases to function.

However, this can only take place with strong leadership and someone with intelligence. Ceasing public funding of such university courses will generate massive outrage (and lefties like nothing more than their own outrage). Moreover, an intelligent leader is paramount. Marxist-feminists are the masters at dialectics, and can therefore twist any argument around into their favour.

Squeers "What we have here is a miserable, childish little wretch, who might well go on to do unspeakable things one day."

Thank you for exemplifying the very misandry the author speaks of. Well done!

The author isn't the one taking Bond too seriously.
It's the revisionists who can't seem to understand that some cultural phenomena is just a *bit of fun*, and doesn't need political dogma seeping into everything.

"Bond is an amoral, chauvinistic (little) prick"

And then?
Can't he just stay that way? Do we have to send all *fictional* characters to reeducation camps?