Honest: Peter treated MJ just as poorly. He stalked her for months after she said to stop. He burst into her apartment without an invitation. He didn't ask why she couldn't have coffee after the Moira incident, he just badgered her about Paul.
He has shown ZERO empathy or sympathy for what happened to her; he has centered his own emotions without once showing an ounce of even curiousity about what MJ must have been through (his only reaction when he heard her story was to remind her they were about to move in together; note how he doesn't say anything about how hard the those four years much have been for her or to thankful she was still alive after being chased by Mayan monsters that long, etc, etc, etc).
BOTH characters have been written excoriatingly terrible, without anything resembling a relatable human emotion. And I am so incredibly tired of everyone pointing to the MJ character assassination - and I agee, this was an outright targeted assassination meant to break her character - but they give Peter a pass for behaving just as badly toward her.
“I always figured if I were a superhero, there’s no way on God's earth that I'm gonna pal around with some teenager."
— Stan Lee
I think the problem here is that being a stalker for several months is such an awful development for Peter, that the book really pulled its punches with examining that aspect. The stalking is like 95% just implied to have happened in the 6 month timeskip. If you started reading at like ASM#3 or 4, you quite honestly would have no idea that any of that even happened. And again I assume this is because people looked at Peter Parker and said, we don't want the audience to actively hate him for months on end for creepy **** we had him do in service of the status quo. So the tone of the book ends up being "MJ is a prude" even though Peter's actions are often more condemnable. Cause this book hates women.
Same here. 'Cide could just do a partial biological merger with The Chasm Formerly Known as Ben Reilly, which would (re)establish a neural connection long enough for 'Cide to restore Ben's foundational memories to him (and perhaps absorb the psycho-reactive quantum-shifting polymeric goo he was soaked in to turn him into Chasm in the first place).
Not sure the book itself hates women, but I can agree that the writing and plotting and characterization of the most important/plot-relevant female characters in it speaks to some deeply troubling implications about how the people involved in all that might view women. Sadly, it's nothing new; going back to the comparisons to Avengers #200, Marvel at the time thought the best thing to do with an empowered female protagonist like Carol Danvers (then Ms. Marvel) was to have her brainwashed (and from there, basically raped) by a man using her body to tether himself to her world and be reborn, and then send her off with him like it was a happy ending for her. No wonder Chris Claremont, through Carol herself, ripped into Marvel (as represented by the Avengers who waved her off in Avengers 200) for that.
Sticking to Mary Jane herself, we've even had respected creators mention that the main (or a major) reason they didn't support Peter's marriage to her was that they didn't see her as the kind of woman an upstanding gentleman like Peter should marry, with one saying more specifically that she might be good for something like a tumble in the proverbial hay, but not for a serious (perhaps even permanent) commitment like marriage. Essentially, it boils down to a serious case of the "Madonna-whore complex," insofar as "there are 'good women' you marry, and 'bad women' you don't," with the "bad women" almost always being defined (or perceived) as outspoken and unabashed, even blatantly so, in their physical attractiveness and sexual appeal, whereas the "good women" are supposed to be more modest and humble and not "invite" sexual attention or sexualized gazes. Of course, given how Marvel as a company through its professional artists is more than willing to trade on Mary Jane's visual appeal to sell its books . . . there's more than a little hypocrisy baked into that cake.
The spider is always on the hunt.
How much you wanna bet they will do it in a complicated convoluted manner ?
I'm no philosopher, but the universe must always find "balance". For each ligth, there is a darkness. For each yin, must be a yang.
I can't say about Mary Jane, but I believe the best way to "fix" Ben would be if Norman Osborn becomes the Green Goblin. Then, with his evil restored, Ben's goodness might be restored as well. At least, this is what I think.
The book with robot parents, a "really good actress" deceiving Peter by pretending to be Aunt May and dying in her place, the initial "cheated on Peter with his best friend's father and had his twins", the later "actually, Norman banged Mysterio in a wig", the entire "I'm a clone? No you're a clone! Wait, I'm the clone! No, you're the clone!" years, the story where Peter gets turned into a spider that dies and gives birth to himself, the whole "sell my marriage to the devil to retcon 20 years of continuity", the absolute insanity of "let's trap Mary Jane in another dimension with the son of a crazy guy who mistakenly helped genocide all of humanity for years until the Stockholm Syndrome and fake magic kids makes her a happy domesticated woman without Peter, also she has gambling powers" storyline we're still in, the Spider-Buggy...
... Yeah, they'll fix it one day, and it'll be some of the most insane writing this side of "Trouble".
Join the "Spider-Fam" Community! - Celebrating Love and Advocating for Our Hero to Beat the Devil! - https://discord.gg/VQ2mHzBBFu
It depends on who's doing it. If it's Wells and Lowe, they'll just "sweep it under the rug" like nothing happened, without making any attempts to put actual thoughts into it (the same way they seperated them). If it's someone else, like the next writer, then yeah - I can see that happening (if the Editorial doesn't butt-in, like they always do).