Rewatched some classic Loony Tunes at 2AM to make sure I was remembering things right. I was.
It's ironic, really
Bugs and Daffy and all the others were sexually aggressive, too. But it was more of a "laughing at the trappings of finding love" thing. Whereas the one character that was genuinely constructed to chastise sexually aggressive culture and in whom's cartoons you were expected you to empathize with the cat getting harassed by the skunk? Well, he's the one being cancelled.
As with Disney, I don't think this is Warner Brothers bowing to cancel culture or holding characters responsible or whichever interpretation of our current social wars you subscribe to.
This is just Warner Brothers distancing themselves from a character that will bring more backlash than profit.
You might say the character is outdated. Well, is sexual assault a thing of the past? Or is it still very much with us? If the latter, then I'd posit that the character is not outdated at all but, perhaps, more important than ever. As long as sexual harasament remains a problem, there will remain a need to satirize it and draw attention to it. Which is exactly what the character does.
You might say his character makes light of sexual assault. Trivializing a series problem for the sake of children's entertainment.
Well, his character certainly is lighthearted. But you also can't have it both ways when it comes to subliminal messaging. If you want a five-year-old to internalize the idea "hey, if I try too hard to get a kiss on the playground, I'll be an oblivious, repulsive jerk like that skunk and no one will like me" you have to sneak it in in subtle ways. Rewatching the cartoons, it's abundantly clear that THAT is the message. His character isn't enabling sexual harassment culture. It's lampooning it.
"But flex, that can't be true. PePe LePew is the beloved childhood character. No one even remembers the nameless cat in those toons. The fact that he's an endearing character AND basically a rapist is unacceptable and new generations will be better off without him being a member of the Loony Tunes crew."
I just don't think kids are better off for his loss.
You know who else is an endearing childhood character? Batman's arch-nemesis the Joker. In my opinion, much like PePe LePew, the Joker often if not usually outshines the Dark Knight in their cartoons, shows, and movies. Particularly when Mark Hamill does the voice-acting. We don't fear that kids are going to become criminals, mobsters, psychopaths, maniacs, lunatics, anarchists, or wear gaudy 100% purple suits like the Joker, even though he's usually the most magnetic character onscreen. In fact, it's arguably better that a character that has spent the last eighty years embodying such a wide variety of terrible things is so beloved. Kids need good characters to illustrate harmful concepts.
Admittedly, that may not be the best comparison in the world. After all, the Loony Tunes are often depicted as a group of friends (including a rapist) whereas the Joker is very clearly depicted outside the Justice League, or whatever. But it's also more of a farcical nonsense universe than DC Comics. It's very malleable. Elmer Fudd the avid hunter will be literally trying to kill Daffy and Bugs (legally, if course, Fudd is a responsible citizen who doesn't hunt out of season) one cartoon and then casually hanging out with them in an office building or something the next.
Basically, just because PePe is part of the group doesn't mean he's "accepted." Just as Fudd can be hunting one episode and hanging the next doesn't mean he's NOT a hunter, by Loony Tunes logic, at least. Just because PePe is doing something unrelated in-group doesn't mean he can't also serve as a bold if puerile illustration of a troubling concept.
Heck, Yosemite Sam is literally a six-shooter-wielding madman and he also has a place in the group.
Anyway, I've gone on too long and overthought things yet again.
But the point is, PePe LePew's cancellation is good for Warner Brothers, not for children. Warner Bros. lose a figure that adds nothing to their bottom line and brings only hate-mail. Children lose a character who has the potential to subtly expose them to the harms of sexual harassment culture at an early age and reject it.
But kids are dumb and will watch anything, right? Warner Brothers will make just as much money selling bland, generic, homogeneous, PC characters as they will selling characters that actually illustrate something deeper. Maybe I should buy some Warner Brothers stock while I'm at it.