Originally Posted by
gurkle
It's because Pietro was not shown as the bad guy in the X-Men comics that followed the Decimation event, except in Peter David's X-Factor.
The hatred for Wanda isn't based on any story she was actually in. It's based on the fact that there were years of X-Men comics showing the horrible consequences of M-Day, the people who died horribly and suffered, and not one of the writers ever had any character say a word in Wanda's defense; they all seemed to assume that she'd never be a hero again and had her talked of by everyone pretty much the way Exodus is talking about her now.
Chris Claremont tried to argue that she'd wiped out mutants across the multiverse; Mike Carey did a whole series of backup stories where Beast goes around finding out about all the terrible consequences of what Wanda did, and which very strongly suggests, without quite saying it directly, that Wanda is aware of what she did and chooses not to change things back.
Now, anyone who read any comic with Wanda Maximoff before 2004 knows that she would never do any of these things, and therefore it could only be the fault of a supervillain, like Doom or Chthon or Immortus, taking her over as part of their master plan. However, the X-Men is a much more popular comic franchise than the Avengers on the whole, and Wanda wasn't in any comics at the time, so X-Men readers grew to know her only as the greatest villain in the history of mutantkind.
So while Avengers Disassembled and M-Day contradict every other story Wanda was ever in (including Darker Than Scarlet, which clearly showed she was being manipulated by Immortus even before John Byrne left), most people who didn't read Avengers comics don't know that; they just know that she's Magneto's crazy omnipotent mutant-hating daughter, and they don't know or care that everything in House of M was wrong.
I'm not even sure why they should care about comics they didn't read; if they say Wanda was a self-hating mutant before HoM, they're wrong, but if they say they don't care about those stories where she wasn't, that's fine.
Again, when you compare it to the way a Creator's Pet like Scott was treated - protected from doing anything really bad, clearly shown to still be a good guy, allowed to be a star of comics - you see the difference between a character who is treated well by editors and writers, and a character like Wanda who is treated badly. Which is one of the reasons her fans are so protective of her, because Marvel certainly isn't.
The thing I always wonder about Wanda haters is, if they were shown doing something in one comic that you knew, based on years and decades of comics, was completely out of character for them, would you just accept that this one story wipes out everything else?
I mean, I think some people would, because some readers like to play the game that every story counts and the characters are like real people. In real life, if someone is good for 70 years and then goes on a shooting spree when they're 71, it wipes out all the good they ever did.
But I just can't really get into the frame of mind to approach shared fictional characters that way. If a hero I didn't care about abruptly turned into a villain after 40 years I'd think they were done dirty.