On Lesbian Couples

[CBrachyrhynchos]

They are comic book characters, people. If I had a dime for every time a writer decided to make Charles Xavier able to walk and then somehow he ended up back in the wheel chair I would have myself a nice piggybank. My point is the fact that characters radically change virtually every aspect of their personality and appearance is not evidence of sexism, or ableism, or what have you, it's just the comics industry. People who look for more insidious reasoning are failing to apply Occam's razor.

In the case of Marvel, once is a coincidence, two or three times is a pattern, almost a dozen is a problem. (And it goes without saying that its part of a larger cultural context in which LGBT people were either buried deep into subtext or rewritten as straight for cinema. See Night and Day (1946) as a classic example.)

Put it another way: if comic book writers weren't given license to re-imagine character's pasts and personalities, most of the gay, etc. characters would still be straight as that's how most were originally conceived. Nick Fury wouldn't be black (and we wouldn't have Samuel L. Jackson in the movies), Colossus wouldn't be gay in one continuity, and most of DC's new push for greater representation would be restricted by past continuity. I don't see how it's so offensive that some of these traits get reset or subverted, because it happens to everything else.

It's not particularly offensive. But have you bothered to read the first post in this discussion? It's about the possibility that long-term lesbian relationships in genre fiction are erased once the audience is past the titilation factor. And certainly the fact that a character was consistently written as bisexual and having a long-term relationship in one medium but made straight in another medium is worth noting.

[Ozaline]

Demanding representation is the same, whether your magic number is just one person (tokenism!) or X number to fit the category.

They are comic book characters, people. If I had a dime for every time a writer decided to make Charles Xavier able to walk and then somehow he ended up back in the wheel chair I would have myself a nice piggybank. My point is the fact that characters radically change virtually every aspect of their personality and appearance is not evidence of sexism, or ableism, or what have you, it's just the comics industry. People who look for more insidious reasoning are failing to apply Occam's razor.

Put it another way: if comic book writers weren't given license to re-imagine character's pasts and personalities, most of the gay, etc. characters would still be straight as that's how most were originally conceived. Nick Fury wouldn't be black (and we wouldn't have Samuel L. Jackson in the movies), Colossus wouldn't be gay in one continuity, and most of DC's new push for greater representation would be restricted by past continuity. I don't see how it's so offensive that some of these traits get reset or subverted, because it happens to everything else.

Do you think I imagine DC's offices to be smoke filled dens where they discuss, "how to best screw over differently abled people." It's not a matter of me failing to pay attention to occam's razor about the creator's intent, it's more that I don't think intent is magic. I really do recommend reading that link.

I am aware that comic characters get reinvented all the time, and for the most part I accept that. Some changes I enjoy, others I dislike (I'm still mad at Bendis for changing Jessica Drew's origins in such a way that almost completely disvalidates her original series). I've watched people not get the characters and write them ooc and contrary to any prior character development, only for them to bounce back again later. This is as you say, how comics have been how they always will be and it's rather unavoidable in a medium where characters are passed from one hand to another on a frequent basis.

The problem is that these characters do not exist in a vaccum, and we live in a society that favours men over women, straight over gay, cis over trans, abled over disabled.


And did continuity need to be pushed aside to make room for the diverse characters DC is bringing to the table? Lets see most of the characters are already established characters like Firestorm II, Blue Beetle III, Mr. Terrific II and so on so I don't see that much continuity rangling going on, on that end.

Here's the thing if suddenly Nick Fury in the main Marvel universe became black, I'd upset because you just don't change that aspect of the character in the normal universe on a whim, and very few changes of that nature are ever made. The only example I can think of is when they changed Magneto from being Jewish to being a gypsy (to use their term), since they didn't want people to think they thought badly of Jews... oops missed the unfortunate implications on that one.

The thing is when you change a disabled character to an abled one, or a black or asian character into a white character, or a gay hero into a straight one, something is lost that isn't in the reverse. There's lots of representation for white/straight/cis/ people in comics or any other english speaking medium, so for Nick Fury to be black in film,the Avengers Cartoon and the movies... well the entire Avengers team is still white. When Heimdle is turned black in Thor, all the other characters are still White (oh no wait I'm sorry Hogun was still asian, so we got two "ethnic" characters in that movie).

I'd say there are some white characters you can't touch, Captain America for example... the fact that he's blonde haired and blue eyed actually fits into his whole mythology because he is the Nazi ideal but he's not a natural product, naturally he's a weakling and not superior, and he spits on the Nazi ideals.

On whole, though, if a character or two is changed to be black or asian or latino or whatever, there's still going to be a dozen more roles that white people can fill. If you take that role away from a person of color, disabled person, or a queer person then it's a precious spot that'll be sorely missed.

That's the problem with Barbara here, first off we're not talking about an alternate continuity so all arguements of Nick Fury and Gay Colossus drop to the wayside, because they aren't comparable, this is Barbara in the main DCU; I'd very happily read about Barbara Gordon as Batgirl in an Allstar book or Elseworlds. So the only example that we both brought up that is comprable is Proffesor X.

Let me ask you this, for all the times it's happened does being able to the walk really add anything to the proffesor's character? He's a guy who usually stays behind at the base and uses his psychic powers an leadership skills the come out on top. Even the physical fights he gets into during his walking periods are usually sparing and most of them could be handled without the use of legs. So why do they keep restoring his legs, well partly it's in homage to the first time it happened but if we go back to that time... They must have thought it added something to his character, and really that's the insulting bit that somehow he's a less compelling character, or that he's more limited in what he can do in the story, because he can't use his legs.

I'm just an aspiring writer though, so I'll leave you with an industry proffesional's take diversity in comics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u16sKK-1oLQ

[sentora]

The fact that the girls bought the idea (which seemed to have been fed them by the headmistress) that they were "visited by the Holy Spirit," doesn't make it consensual. Still rape.

Also it's an adult taking advantage of the naivete of young girls, which falls under the modern definition of statutory rape, depending on what country/state we're talking about.

Now my views on the sexual freedoms of young people are a bit more complicated then that, but yes I would call it rape.

Also Alice, I wouldn't say that having a man be raped excuses the other instances from carrying upsetting undertones.

*Advocate Horns* Interesting that you say that. May I ask what you'd think of the following scenarios?

1: A superhero battles it out with his nemesis on a rooftop. His mental condition has taken a hulk sized beating and he's not at the best of his game. During the battle his Nemesis is killed by the woman who has orchestrated the entire scenario, and this causes a epic breakdown. The villianess then goes on to 'comfort' said hero by raping him beside the corpse of the crimelord he thinks he killed. This starts a downward spiral that even has the superhero in love with the woman.

2: A long time criminal lover of a superhero drugs him and has nonconsensal sex with him long enough to get samples to raise the perfect warrior. She did it out of love for him and her father's legacy.

3. The wife of a superhero is raped, and her rapist is held down and mentally damaged by the several prominent heroes and the resident magician so he could never do it again. The hero that protests this? Also forcibly mindwiped of the event.

4. A young superhero visits a fellow superhero's city, and has the worst night of his life and it's implied that he even got raped. He doesn't completely remember the night but he now cringes at the words "Gotham City" and "Bueno." It's treated as a joke whenever mentioned.

The heroes in question? Nightwing, Batman,(Twice) Green Lantern(Kyle). (Props to the old comic fans who knew what I'm talking about before revealing.)

In short, I feel the problem with the subject of Rape in comics is that it's been become a cheap method of drama by even the best of writers, and it's something that needs to be addressed period. Even Kevin Smith pulled this shit with Black Cat, and Morrison used example two to shoehorn Damien Wayne's punk ass into Batman Mythos. It often comes off as misogynistic, but then you get weird cases like Devin Grayson, who defended her story (Scenario 1) with the line "For the record, I’ve never used the word 'rape', I just said it was non-consensual."

[Ozaline]

The heroes in question? Nightwing, Batman,(Twice) Green Lantern(Kyle). (Props to the old comic fans who knew what I'm talking about before revealing.)

In short, I feel the problem with the subject of Rape in comics is that it's been become a cheap method of drama by even the best of writers, and it's something that needs to be addressed period. Even Kevin Smith pulled this shit with Black Cat, and Morrison used example two to shoehorn Damien Wayne's punk ass into Batman Mythos. It often comes off as misogynistic, but then you get weird cases like Devin Grayson, who defended her story (Scenario 1) with the line "For the record, I’ve never used the word 'rape', I just said it was non-consensual."

I really only knew the Batman example not really a Nightwing or Kyle fan... but yes, I totally agree it is a method of cheap drama and a method that's going to be extremely offputting and possibly even trigger flashbacks for people who've really gone through rape (About 1/4 women and 1/13 men). It's most often used by women but there are circumstances where it's been used against men.

I don't think it should be used unless you've got a damn compelling reason for it... period.

But we were on the subject of problematic sexsit overtrones in Alan Moore's work, which seem to be a byproduct of him trying too hard not be sexist rather than him actually being sexist to start out with.

[sentora]

The heroes in question? Nightwing, Batman,(Twice) Green Lantern(Kyle). (Props to the old comic fans who knew what I'm talking about before revealing.)

In short, I feel the problem with the subject of Rape in comics is that it's been become a cheap method of drama by even the best of writers, and it's something that needs to be addressed period. Even Kevin Smith pulled this shit with Black Cat, and Morrison used example two to shoehorn Damien Wayne's punk ass into Batman Mythos. It often comes off as misogynistic, but then you get weird cases like Devin Grayson, who defended her story (Scenario 1) with the line "For the record, I’ve never used the word 'rape', I just said it was non-consensual."

I really only knew the Batman example not really a Nightwing or Kyle fan... but yes, I totally agree it is a method of cheap drama and a method that's going to be extremely offputting and possibly even trigger flashbacks for people who've really gone through rape (About 1/4 women and 1/13 men). It's most often used by women but there are circumstances where it's been used against men.

I don't think it should be used unless you've got a damn compelling reason for it... period.

But we were on the subject of problematic sexsit overtrones in Alan Moore's work, which seem to be a byproduct of him trying too hard not be sexist rather than him actually being sexist to start out with.

My point was that sometimes it's not as much sexism as Moore clearly didn't think the idea through or said "screw it, comic book fans are picky bastards anyway." and ran with it. Like many writers today since editors don't give out clue by fours like they used to.

I never really got as much of a sexist vibe off Moore as much as say, Byrne or the original writer of Wonder Woman. And we'd be here all day talking about Claremont and his storm fetish or the can of worms that Ms. Marvel rape story kicks off.

[Ozaline]

My point was that sometimes it's not as much sexism as Moore clearly didn't think the idea through or said "screw it, comic book fans are picky bastards anyway." and ran with it. Like many writers today since editors don't give out clue by fours like they used to.

I never really got as much of a sexist vibe off Moore as much as say, Byrne or the original writer of Wonder Woman. And we'd be here all day talking about Claremont and his storm fetish or the can of worms that Ms. Marvel rape story kicks off.

Wait are we going all the way back to Wonder Woman's creator Charles Moulton/William Martson? There were BDSM understones in his work but I wouldn't call him sexist by a long shot for the 30s/40s he was very progressive creating a character that was as strong as superman but still empowering to women on a basic level. Yes there's fetishism in his work because he was into BDSM and female domination (he was in a poly-relationship with two women 1 of whom seems to have been dominant the other seems to have been submissive), so yeah that reads into his work. But given the time frame he was generally free of any idea tha women were inferior or could only do certain jobs... I just can't equate sexist and him in the same sentance.

Claremont is hit and miss, he created alot of really powerful women characters who felt complete and whole and then there was the introduction of Rogue, like you said...


And again I'm not saying Moore himself is sexist, I'm saying that his work tends to carry some upsetting and possibly mysoginistic undertones on occasion, that's not neccesarily because he himself is sexist.

[martinraybourne]

The heroes in question? Nightwing, Batman,(Twice) Green Lantern(Kyle). (Props to the old comic fans who knew what I'm talking about before revealing.)

In short, I feel the problem with the subject of Rape in comics is that it's been become a cheap method of drama by even the best of writers, and it's something that needs to be addressed period. Even Kevin Smith pulled this shit with Black Cat, and Morrison used example two to shoehorn Damien Wayne's punk ass into Batman Mythos. It often comes off as misogynistic, but then you get weird cases like Devin Grayson, who defended her story (Scenario 1) with the line "For the record, I’ve never used the word 'rape', I just said it was non-consensual."

I really only knew the Batman example not really a Nightwing or Kyle fan... but yes, I totally agree it is a method of cheap drama and a method that's going to be extremely offputting and possibly even trigger flashbacks for people who've really gone through rape (About 1/4 women and 1/13 men). It's most often used by women but there are circumstances where it's been used against men.

I don't think it should be used unless you've got a damn compelling reason for it... period.

But we were on the subject of problematic sexsit overtrones in Alan Moore's work, which seem to be a byproduct of him trying too hard not be sexist rather than him actually being sexist to start out with.

My point was that sometimes it's not as much sexism as Moore clearly didn't think the idea through or said "screw it, comic book fans are picky bastards anyway." and ran with it. Like many writers today since editors don't give out clue by fours like they used to.

I never really got as much of a sexist vibe off Moore as much as say, Byrne or the original writer of Wonder Woman. And we'd be here all day talking about Claremont and his storm fetish or the can of worms that Ms. Marvel rape story kicks off.

What exactly gives you vibes from Byrne? He's the one who turned the Invisible Girl into the Invisible Woman--she went from a largely ineffectual team member to the one who would kill for her family, saved everyone's bacon many times, and kicked all sorts of ass solo, and while pregnant.

[Kamino Neko]

(he was in a poly-relationship with two women 1 of whom seems to have been dominant the other seems to have been submissive)

And who stayed together after his death, until Olive Byrne (the one in the relationship who Marston wasn't married to) died. Not that that has anything to do with the topic at hand, I just love that fact.

But given the time frame he was generally free of any idea tha women were inferior or could only do certain jobs...

Quite the opposite, in fact. He generally considered 'masculine' traits to be negative and harmful, and 'feminine' ones more positive - not that his ideas of what were feminine and masculine traits necessarily mapped with other people's ideas.

His wife, Elizabeth, was also college educated, and had a fairly good career in her own right (Olive was the primary caretaker of the 4 children the family had).

Not to say that he didn't have some odd ideas, some of which were influenced by his being a man of the early 20th century, some by his own desires, but still...

[NobodySpecial]

This thread proves the old adage.

Want free psychoanalysis? Get published.

[sentora]

What exactly gives you vibes from Byrne? He's the one who turned the Invisible Girl into the Invisible Woman--she went from a largely ineffectual team member to the one who would kill for her family, saved everyone's bacon many times, and kicked all sorts of ass solo, and while pregnant.

*realizes I typed Byrne instead of Sims and facepalms*

I need to stop typing in a hurry at work.

While Byrne could be a cantankerous old fart, I'll give him that accomplishment. (Though from time to time he would make questionable decisions regarding his female characters) I was thinking David Sims, creator of Cerebrus. This guy had issues out the wazoo, enough that it derailed his life's work.

[martinraybourne]

What exactly gives you vibes from Byrne? He's the one who turned the Invisible Girl into the Invisible Woman--she went from a largely ineffectual team member to the one who would kill for her family, saved everyone's bacon many times, and kicked all sorts of ass solo, and while pregnant.

*realizes I typed Byrne instead of Sims and facepalms*

I need to stop typing in a hurry at work.

While Byrne could be a cantankerous old fart, I'll give him that accomplishment. (Though from time to time he would make questionable decisions regarding his female characters) I was thinking David Sims, creator of Cerebrus. This guy had issues out the wazoo, enough that it derailed his life's work.

No problem, you just confused me I'll admit I'm not up to date on many of the modern writers out there aside from those who do multiformat work (Peter David, JMS, etc.) Most of the people being referenced I have only a passing taste of their work so I can't say much about them one way or another.

[NobodySpecial]

Getting back to the original topic: Don't think it's all a bias against lesbians and/or gays. The majority of people in America have never been married. Half of all marriages end in divorce. On average, women have six sex partners in their lifetime; men have 20. TV is also skewed towards conflict and drama, both of which are not furthered by actual functioning relationships. Therefore, failure is the expected norm in relationships nowadays.

It's a rather dysfunctional world out there, and Happily Ever After is in fairy tales for a reason. And I'm an optimist.

[mindstalk]

"On average, women have six sex partners in their lifetime; men have 20"

If by average we mean the mean, and if we're talking about heterosexuals, that's not possible. Every het pairing increases the sex partner count for men and women by one each.

The median could be different. Homosexuality could make a difference. Biases, different standards ("that frottage in the subway was totally sex") and outright lies in self-reporting also makes a difference, and is probably the biggest issue here.

[NobodySpecial]

My apologies, posted the wrong number. For men, it's seven women; for women, it's four men in their lifetimes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19374216/ns/health-sexual_health/t/new-survey-tells-how-much-sex-were-having/

[redwulf25_ci]

My point was that sometimes it's not as much sexism as Moore clearly didn't think the idea through or said "screw it, comic book fans are picky bastards anyway." and ran with it. Like many writers today since editors don't give out clue by fours like they used to.

I never really got as much of a sexist vibe off Moore as much as say, Byrne or the original writer of Wonder Woman. And we'd be here all day talking about Claremont and his storm fetish or the can of worms that Ms. Marvel rape story kicks off.

Wait are we going all the way back to Wonder Woman's creator Charles Moulton/William Martson? There were BDSM understones in his work but I wouldn't call him sexist by a long shot for the 30s/40s he was very progressive creating a character that was as strong as superman but still empowering to women on a basic level. Yes there's fetishism in his work because he was into BDSM and female domination (he was in a poly-relationship with two women 1 of whom seems to have been dominant the other seems to have been submissive), so yeah that reads into his work. But given the time frame he was generally free of any idea tha women were inferior or could only do certain jobs... I just can't equate sexist and him in the same sentance.

If I recall what I've read correctly he was sexist, but he believed men to be inferior to women rather than the other way around.