 |
| Yeah - the 'S' does stand for 'straight' - whaddabout it? |
I promise - we'll get to the final part of BUSTER, SON Of ANDY CAPP before too long. First, however, I can no longer sit back and say nothing about the latest attempt to sway public opinion on a controversial issue by those who believe that anyone who doesn't see things their way is a hate-filled bigot who is out of step with the majority. I fully expect to lose a few followers with this post, but if they can't accept that other people are as entitled to hold and express an opinion as they are, then that's their problem, not mine.
DC COMICS recently announced that an established superhero is to be retconned as gay when he is reintroduced into current continuity sometime in the near future. MARVEL COMICS recently published an issue where the gay character NORTHSTAR was due to marry his boyfriend and contained a close-up of the two men kissing, and also of Northstar carrying his lover in an 'over the threshold'-type position. I haven't seen the issue itself, only a report and the above-described two pictures on a comics news-site.
Someone recently proposed on his blog that SUPERMAN should be portrayed as gay or bisexual. Considering the stushie that would surely ensue were it suggested that a gay person (real or fictional) should be 'turned' straight, it was rather a daring (even impertinent) proposition on his part. That way, he claimed, gay, bi, or transgendered people would feel more included in society. Apart from this being rather patronising to the gay, bi and transgendered community (and insulting to the rest of us), I consider it to be completely unnecessary.
 |
| Superman breaking free - from the 'confines' of his traditional heterosexuality? Seems it's not enough to be straight these days |
If you're gay or bisexual and want to believe that Supes and his 'best pal' JIMMY OLSEN have something 'extra' going on in between CLARK's off-panel 'sessions' with LOIS LANE, then you're perfectly free to think so. If, on the other hand, such a scenario would never occur to you, then there's nothing to suggest otherwise. Everybody can believe what they want, read into it what they want, and everybody's happy. There's absolutely no need to change the status quo. I don't need a 'Scottish, few pounds heavier than he should be, tad over average height' superhero to enjoy a well-written comicbook (or to feel 'accepted' or good about myself) so why should a small minority of extremists be allowed to hijack comics in order to pursue their own personal agenda?
Are you gay, bi or transgendered? Honestly, I don't give a sh*t, but don't keep bleating on about it. If you don't insist on making an issue of it everywhere you go, then chances are that nobody else will either. If someone chapped your door one night and asked if they could watch you 'at it', you'd quite rightly chase them away faster than a BARRY ALLEN hand-job. The fact is most people just aren't interested in what you may or may not get up to - they don't want to know - in real life or comicbooks.
At a time when comicbook sales are in drastic decline, publishers would do well to reconsider the audience they're aiming for. When comics were primarily cheap, mass-marketed entertainment for kids and teenagers, with nothing that could potentially offend anyone, they sold in their millions. However, now that they've become an over-priced, glossy-papered product (seemingly more concerned with peddling propaganda than entertaining people) and sold only in an ever-diminishing outlet of speciality shops, they have to resort to cheap publicity stunts on contentious issues in an attempt to punt their wares.
Not every form of public entertainment needs to be transformed into a forum or arena for pursuing or promoting any one group's own pet cause or personal interest - whatever they happen to be and regardless of their sexual, social, religious or cultural orientation. Militants - whatever your 'issues' are - take them elsewhere, huh? And give the rest of us a break!
Now, who's going to be the first brave soul to agree with me?
93 comments:
I wasn't sure before , but now I know you are completely dillusional. You need some serious help. And now! Before you have no followers left and this just becomes a diary of a madman! With Zero followers. I am posting as Anon because of the criminal way you have treated past posters. If 1 Doctor says you are sick , you may say , I'll get a second opinion , but if 6 Doctors say the same thing , you have to realise , something's wrong. Wake up before it's too late!
No, you're posting as Anon because you don't want people to know the real reason behind your ridiculous, out of proportion response. Past posters have never been treated in a "criminal way" on this blog. The fact that I publish your highly-strung, emotional comments proves two things - first, you're a nutter with a grudge, and second - I publish not just the favourable replies.
It's just a shame you couldn't restrict yourself to expressing your disagreement on the actual topic, instead of using it as an excuse to indulge in personal abuse. How's the boat?
Incidentally, the word you were looking for is 'delusional'.
Aparently the superhero gone gay is Alan Scott, on Earth 2. Big deal. No one outside fandom has heard of him.
Alan Scott? Ridiculous! Everyone knows that Batman and Robin are a couple of poofs. Frederic Wertham said so.
You should join One Million Moms, Kid.
But I'm NOT a Mom. However, on a serious note - I'd be as equally against One Million Moms being allowed to propagate their own views in superhero comics as I would any other protest group. However, I understand and appreciate their concerns. They simply don't want their children being influenced by other people's self-imterests. As I said, there's just no need for it.
Sorry. The beard fooled me.
Seriously, the comics featuring those gay plots are clearly labeled for teens upward. Not chilldren. OMM are creating an imaginary threat. Anyway, whats wrong with letting kids know that people of the same sex can fall in love with each other?
What would JESUS do?
DC and Marvel are not pushing anyone to accept their view. They're treating gays as equal as straight characters just as they showed black characters to be equal with anyone else. Where is the harm in that? If you don't like it, don't buy their comics. No one's forcing you to read them. Chill.
The beard? Yeah, Scottish women have a lot to answer for. Those mags may be labelled for teens to buy, but many a younger brother or sister will have access to them. Not everyone agrees that there's nothing wrong with people of the same sex falling in love with each other - as it's a contentious issue, neither side should be allowed to push their view as the right one. Not in comicbooks anyway.
In Britain, the word 'Dad' has been removed from the official NHS guide to childbirth because gay couples objected to its use. Why should a minority group be allowed to dictate to the rest of society what is or isn't acceptable?
Bob Hope once said that he didn't mind homosexuality being legal - just so long as it wasn't compulsory. It's perhaps only a slight exaggeration to say that it's beginning to look as if that's the direction in which society is headed.
I don't consider the comparison between blacks and gays as being a direct equivalent, although there are similarities in the circumstances. However, you're presuming that all types of sexual expression ARE equal (morally if not legally) and not everyone agrees with that view. In fact, worlwide, the majority probably don't. But just because an 'alternative lifestyle' isn't featured in a comic doesn't mean that readers are being taught it ISN'T equal. That's my point. As far as I'm aware, there are no Scottish superhero characters which reflect my lifestyle or circumstances, but I don't feel there's a bias in comics towards me.
There have been Scottish superheroes but you're missing the point. What HARM does it do to show gay characters in comics? There are thousands if not millions of gays in the world. It would be more perverse NOT to represent them.
If they were featuring graphic sex scenes I'd agree with you but this is just romance. A gay Green Lantern doesn't interest me so I won't bother buying it. If he turned up in another comic, arm in arm with a guy, so what? It's not going to turn straight kids gay is it?
Well, again, I think it's you who's missing the point, which is: you're assuming that a contentious point of view has already been settled in favour of one side. However, many would say that it's an issue which has still to be settled. (And perhaps never will be.) That being the case, then it's presumptuous for one side to insist that their view is the accepted one and that it should be promoted as such.
If one side didn't insist on various forms of the media presenting them as being fully integrated into society in a non-controversial way (when that is very far from the case) then there would be no need for either of us to whitter on about the matter.
The fact is, many people believe that if kids are taught that there's nothing 'wrong' with gay sex (which is different to informing them - in a non-graphic way - that it exists), then there is an increased likelihood that they may be tempted to experiment with it - even if they ultimately decide that it's not for them. To those that believe there's nothing wrong with that, then no problem. For those that do 'though, it's very much something they want to protect their kids from. Why should their wishes be ignored in favour of a minority (relatively speaking) group of people who insist on the world being reshaped in order to accommodate their point of view?
Come on now - do you really think that it's right that the word 'Dad' has to be excluded from a medical guidebook at the insistence of gay couples to avoid offending them? That's just bloody ridiculous.
And I should point out that I wouldn't have been bothered enough to comment on the issue if it hadn't been for someone absurdly proposing that Superman should be turned gay to accommodate his and the gay community's 'sensibilities'.
Sometimes, someone just has to stand up and say "NO!"
If no one makes it an issue, then it isn't an issue. So why make it one? Then there's nothing to argue about.
And I should mention that those who propose daft things like Superman being made gay or bisexual are quite clear in their reasons as to why it should be so: So that people will think it's okay to be gay - and that anyone who doesn't think so is a hate-filled bigot.
Straight relationships were never presented in comics for the purpose of 'promoting' the idea that only straight relationships were okay - there was no agenda being pursued there. Straight relationships only appeared because that's 'just the way it was' at that time for the vast majority. However, those proposing that gay relationships should be presented are clearly pursuing an agenda - therefore it's not an equal situation. They want to influence people's thinking - that's not the case with the depiction of straight romances.
Er, you are aware that homosexuality has been around since like forever? It's nothing new. Isn't it good that comics are catching up and actually reflecting that some people are gay?
You come across as someone who wants to sweep it under the carpet in case it offends the bigots. F**k em. They're wrong. The comics are promoting TOLERANCE. That's good.
Er, you are aware that resistance to (and repulsion of) homosexuality has also been around since like forever? It's nothing new either. As for whether it's good or not that comics are "catching up", as you put it - well, you seem to have missed the point - that's the very thing on which there seems to be a huge difference of opinion.
And to describe those who don't happen to see things you're way as "bigots" is far too simple and dismissive.
Comics don't seem to have taught you much tolerance of other people's deeply held views. What the comics seem to be promoting is not "tolerance" of a lifestyle, but the idea that anyone who doesn't see things exactly as you do on the matter is some kind of unreasoning primitive who doesn't deserve to be heard.
People can be tolerant of someone's behaviour without accepting the idea that the behaviour itself is good. Same goes for society and homosexuality.
"Er, you are aware that resistance to (and repulsion of) homosexuality has also been around since like forever?" - Kid Robson
Replace "gay" with "black" and "homosexuality" with "racial equality" and you might have an idea of how prejudiced your opinions sound.
A kid reading a comic that shows two men marrying each other isn't going to inspire him to "experiment" unless he already has leanings in that area. It can't turn him gay. If he IS that way inclined, then positive gay role models are going to boost his confidence. That's nice, yeah? Just be nice. Don't be a hater.
As I've already said, I don't accept that the comparison between race and sexual orientation is an equivalent one despite certain similarities of circumstance. You'll find that some of those shouting loudest about racial equality themselves have certain prejudices towards other ethnic minorities.
And, quite frankly, the rest of your comment is nonsense. Sexual responses can, to a very great degree, in some circumstances be learned ones. I doubt very much that everyone in American jails who indulges in a bit of same sex 'relief' was born that way. I doubt very much if all sexual sado-masochists are born that way. We all have the capacity to be influenced, to a greater or lesser degree, by our environment, our experiences, and what we are told is 'right'.
People are often influenced into behaving in a way that they have no real appetite or enthusiasm for, sometimes just out of boredom or because nothing else is on offer. Then, some are surprised to find that they have developed an 'appetite' for it. It can happen in all areas of life - even in regard to sex.
And your mistake is to assume that I or anyone else is a 'hater'. You are perfectly entitled to see things your way - but others are likewise perfectly entitled to disagree with you without being called names for it.
Anyone, gay or straight, who can't feel 'validated' unless or until he can specifically relate to a superhero character in a comicbook needs to get out more. I don't insist that you or anyone else should feel obliged to see things my way in order to feel at peace with myself, so why should you?
I'm not insisting you be more open minded. I'm simply wondering why you're not.
Assuming your theory that showing fully clothed gay characters in comicbooks might lead children to sexually experiment is true, surely the same applies to straight couples in comics? Reed and Sue? Kissing? Shouldn't be allowed in case it causes kids to sexually experiment, right? Yeah THAT'S how crazy your logic is.
"Are you gay, bi or transgendered? Honestly, I don't give a sh*t, but
don't keep bleating on about it."
Strange that someone who doesn't give a sh*t about it would devote a whole blog post to the topic. and if you don't want to see people "bleating on about it" don't read the comments sections of news sites that report on it. I "don't give a sh*t" about tennis, so I don't watch it or read about it. Just chill out and let nature take its course.
My logic would indeed be crazy if your absurd misrepresentation of what you erroneously describe as "my theory" was actually the case. No one is saying that "showing fully clothed gay characters in comicbooks might lead children to sexually experiment" - that is to distort things to a ridiculous level, the better for you to pour scorn upon it. It's interesting that you prefer to tackle outrageous notions of your own invention than actually deal with what is being said.
Which is, to present gay relationships as if they are entirely accepted by the wider society as being absolutely, in every way, on an equal par with straight ones when there is still much debate on the issue, is to present a false picture of how things are. To present the idea that everyone who does not hold that view is an unreasoning, hate-filled, savage bigot (who, it is usually suggested, is in frantic denial of his own sexual leanings) is nothing more than an attempt to quash any type of criticism of gay culture.
The IDEA, however, that homosexuality IS universally accepted as being perfectly okay, if accorded credence, could well contribute to some people who might not otherwise do so, indulging in some same sex experimentation. It's a simple fact that if something is accepted as part of normal culture, with no stigma or inhibitions attached, then it is more likely to be indulged in.
That's why many parents have problems with it being presented as 'no big deal'. Well, to them and others it is a big deal - and a false, cozy, comfy picture of the matter should not be presented as being the 'right' one when there is yet much resistance to the idea. The majority, while quite willing to allow those who pursue that lifestyle to get on with it, are only too well aware that there's a difference between tolerating something and giving it a seal of approval. And they object to politicians and certain sections of the media riding rough-shod over their feelings on the matter as of they don't exist. (The very complaint that gays make in fact, so I don't see why they have such a problem understanding it.)
And, as it seems to have escaped your notice, this is a blog (mainly) about comics, so there is nothing "strange", as you put it, about me "devoting a whole blog post" to a comics-related topic, or to be reading other news-sites about comics. You see, I DO give a shit about comics. (Yeah, I can see just where you were going with that one, buddy - no cigar!)
I'll leave you to your fears and prejudices. You're beyond reasoning with and you just want to appease the bigots by blowing it out of all proportion just as they do.
I have no fears, and my only prejudice is against extremist minority groups (regardless of their sexual, social, political, etc., leanings) being allowed to unfairly exploit the media to promote their own self-righteous agenda.
And I would suggest that to propose that Superman be turned gay is to blow things out of proportion. I was merely responding to the absurdity of such a notion.
You also seem to ignore that I said I don't believe that those who are anti-gay (for whatever reason) should be allowed to exploit comicbooks to attack gays or to try and present them as evil or disgusting. My only proposition was that neither side should be permitted to promote their view on the topic as the 'right' one.
Seems strange to take issue with such a balanced opinion.
And to reiterate - just because some group or other doesn't appear in a comicbook doesn't necessarily mean that readers are being taught they AREN'T equal. So maybe it's you who should chill out, eh?
Superman isn't turning gay. Alan Scott is. Get it right.
Every story has an "agenda". Worry about whether these paerticular ones are good or bad after you've read them, not condemn them sight unseen. (Unless that Northstar wedding cover upset you,in which case you do have problems, getting angry over a fictional wedding.)
Nobody said that Superman is turning gay. What my blog post was responding to (as has been clearly stated several times) was the proposal on someone else's blog that Superman SHOULD be turned gay (or bisexual). Perhaps you shouldn't comment until you know what you're commenting on.
And, the only agenda that a comicbook story should have is to entertain - not promote a minority viewpoint on which there is much disagreement. And I don't think I saw the Northstar wedding cover - if I did it couldn't have registered. Sadly, it seems that you are another who insists on misrepresenting what I'm actually saying. I refer you to the third-last paragraph of my previous response. Once you've read that, I refer you to the last sentence in the paragraph above this one.
All clear now?
Yes the notion of turning Superman gay is absurd (let the gays get their OWN superhero - like Northstar) but it's not happening so you're reacting to a whimsy not a reality. Why bother?
I'm afraid you do come across as prejudiced and homophobic 'though. Guess what? Thousands of kids today will turn out to be gay. Thousands will turn out to be straight. It has ever been thus. Get used to it. Comics aren't "pushing" a gay agenda, they're reflecting a more balanced world than they used to. Just as they did when they introduced black characters as good role models and when they depicted inter-racial romance.
Really, Kid, what must your gay friends think of your opinions? Assuming you actually know some gay people that is.
"the only agenda that a comicbook story should have is to entertain - not promote a minority viewpoint on which there is much disagreement." - Kid Robson
As I said before, replace homosexuality with racial equality and you might see how unpleasant your opinion is. Decades ago comics were promoting the minority viewpoint regarding racial equality (on which there was also much disagreement). Following your logic they should have avoided that too, right?
You're a dinosaur Kid. A society that is more tolerant of other races, or the gay, or the disabled, is a better society, and comics that reflect that are doing good, not bad.
To call me homophobic is to demonstrate that you didn't read that paragraph I directed you to. (Or that you didn't understand it.) And if I'm "reacting to a whimsy", then you're reacting to the echo of a whimsy. To use your own words, why bother?
And once again you've missed the point. Comics aren't reflecting a more 'balanced world' - they're trying to project an idea of what a more 'balanced' world SHOULD be - according to the views of a small section of society, despite it not actually being the case. That's not balance - that's imbalance.
And just because certain racial injustices of the past were later put right, doesn't in itself prove that what you are attempting to change is in itself an injustice - only that you think it's one. A slight but important distinction I think you'll find. You're assuming to be true that which you seek to prove.
And, to be perfectly honest, I don't know if I have any gay friends - I don't quiz them on their sexuality. I DO know that I don't have any obviously gay friends 'though.
Kid, you would have grown up in the days when gay characters on tv were shown as mincing fops just for comic effect. Did you object to gays in the media then, or is it just the idea of them being treated seriously that you don't like?
Well, no, you're not following my logic - you're distorting it to your own ends.
I don't believe it's that simple to replace other examples of prior inequality with 'alternative' sexual expression. For a start, no one is saying that anyone should be prosecuted, isolated, persecuted or discriminated against for being gay - so if you're suggesting that gays not being permitted to promote their point of view in a comic is akin to what blacks had to put up with, then you're rather over-egging the pudding. Comics have always had black characters in them, so your comparison isn't much of one, I'm afraid. And if it suits you, you're perfectly free to assume that any character in comics may have had a gay fling. You can project whatever your imagination is capable of onto a character - so it's hardly comparable to racial injustice.
Going by your logic, people who want to have sex with inanimate objects should likewise be represented. There's probably millions of them ('though still a minority) and they deserve a voice. Ridiculous, you say? I'd probably agree - but not much more so than what you're arguing for.
I really think I've already addressed (more than once) just about anything that anyone will say (it having likewise already been said - more than once), so instead of going 'round in circles and repeating the same arguments and making the same points, why not just try reading what I've already said. It's really not as controversial (or as offensive) as some folk are trying to make out.
But, then again, they're in pursuit of an agenda - I'm not.
When I was growing up, the sexual implications of "mincing fops", as you call them, would have been lost on me. And you seem to have missed the point of what I'm actually saying - I refer you to just about any of my previous responses on this subject. Honest, I've already dealt with it. Do the homework.
"I have no fears, and my only prejudice is against extremist minority groups (regardless of their sexual, social, political, etc., leanings) being allowed to unfairly exploit the media to promote their own self-righteous agenda."
No minority group is "exploiting" the media in this instance. You are aware that Joe Quesada at Marvel and Jim Lee at DC are not gay aren't you? No "minority group" is behind Marvel and DC's decisions to make Northstar and Alan Scott gay.
You just see the equivalent of reds under the bed to suit your own argument. I really don't understand why the idea of fictional gay superheroes disturbs you so much.
I have to say I agree with you Kid. Does that make me a bigot? No, of course not. It just means that we have a differing point of view than the majority of people commenting here, which in this free society we live in we are entitled to have just as they are entitled to theirs.
No doubt the vocal minority will call me for everything under the sun for daring to disagree with their views/agenda but that seems to be the case these days.
It appears the only opinion you are allowed to have is the one they tell you to have. Tolerance works both ways but some people seem to forget that.
Chris B, to you goes the distinction of being the first person brave enough to raise your head above the parapet - well done that man.
In response to the person above you, the two individuals you mention may not be gay, but they're hoping to cash-in on the publicity ensuing from responding to the pervasive pressure that gay minority groups have. So, essentially, you're splitting hairs. Seems there's a lot you don't understand.
On one level, I agree with David B. Our culture is very vocal about the right to express an opinion,just as long as it's a popular one.
To respond to Jase's point: I don't believe Alan Scott has actually been confirmed as the contentious gay character. As far as I'm aware, that's all internet speculation.
There is an agenda at work, however, in my opinion. It's about DC marketing its comics in a recession (especially when the majority are so lacklustre).
There have been a number of gay superheroes for the last thirty years, most recently the reasonably high-profile Starman and Batwoman at DC. While there is of course a history of comics preaching against intolerance, I think this story is merely a sales gimmick and one that lags a bit behind other mass-market entertainment. Dr. Who has been presenting gay and bi characters to mainstream audiences for seven years without having to flag up any special "gay-friendly" episodes.
I don't happen to see any great relevance to a character's sexuality in a superhero comic- would Clash of the Titans be a "better" film if Sam Worthington's Perseus were fighting to rescue a boy? However, I'd probably feel more comfortable giving my nephew (or any other kid) a comic where two men get married than one in which the Joker's face is sliced off with a knife. YMMV (Your mores may vary).
The big difference,Chris, between tolerance of Green Lantern being gay and tolerance of Kid's viewpoint is that Kid wants to STOP such characters appearing. Those comics are trying to PROMOTE tolerance. Kid thinks gay superheroes shouldn't be allowed. One is a positive, the other is a negative.
A truly tolerant person would simply not bother to buy a comic featuring gay characters or just put up with it, not try to generate fears that the comics could cause kids to sexually experiment. Kid is intolerant.
Hi , Anon from the first post here. Actually you lie when you say you haven't treated past posters in a criminal way. You wrote a whole blog post about *name redacted* calling him a thug.And that's just one example. And what the hell is " How's the boat? " all about.And my response to your post about Superman was in reaction to your over the top opinion on the whole topic which is really no biggie. But you obviously have some deep feelings about it. Otherwise you wouldn't have posted.Or maybe you like stirring upo trouble and delight in the war of words that ensues. Or you really that sad and lonely .... maybe even a little gay? Methinks the lady doth protest too much ;-)
First of all, you're wrong - lying, even. The person to whom you refer was accused of being a bully on another forum. I read his comments and thought he was indeed being bullying and overbearing, so - without naming him - I commented on my blog about the situation. No lies were told in the reporting of the story. So, no - that's not even "one example".
And to you goes the distinction of being the first to openly resort to the tedious myth that anyone who isn't as welcoming of gay culture as you obviously are, must themselves be gay. Yes, the lady obviously does protest too much. Guess what, buddy? You're the lady.
Anonymous, it's not that Kid is simply intolerant of people who have opposing views to his, he tries to belittle them as well. He's well known for it. This is just the sort of attention he craves when he plugs into the net 24/7. What else is he going to do with his time? Ignore him.
I always find it strange that the "tolerance brigade" appear to be the most intolerant of any opinion, belief or tradition that is held that is contrary to theirs!
Tolerance Schmolerance!
Guys, guys, FFS let Kid vent his crazy notions and leave him to it. He's like some old lady clutching at the net curtains and tut-tutting at the modern world outside. Don't waste your energy on him.
This is for anon2 .....for 'manic fop' see 'camp'.
Camp is not seen as an insult by the way.
Social agendas are pushed on society via various avenues,its all propaganda and the media we all have an adoration for (comics)are a part of that whole propaganda machine.
As for comics pursuing social agendas,dont kid yourselves that they have any honorable intentions.
Are you aware of the 'pink pound'.
Well the pink pound is a very very lucrative market and comics publishers want their piece of the, em, pie.
Could anonymous posters use some kind of alias, so that I can distinguish them from one another, and so everyone knows exactly which one I'm responding to? It'd make it a lot easier for everyone. Thanks.
Anon, your view is an over-simplified one which doesn't reflect reality. Nobody is using comics to advocate intolerance of gays, and all I'm suggesting is that comics are not the arena in which that battle should be fought. You're saying that to use gay characters only promotes tolerance, but many people see it as more of an attempt to promote homosexuality and to influence society into an acceptance of something they don't wish to accept. People are already tolerant of gays, but - as I've said before - that doesn't necessarily mean that they also have to give them their seal of approval - and that's what using gay characters in comics suggests - not toleration, but approval. To those people, what you suggest is not a positive thing, but a negative one.
And yes, "Kid" can sometimes be intolerant - of self-righteous, self-centered bullies who insist on being allowed to foist their minority views onto society for their own selfish ends.
You can all see just how "intolerant" I am - I don't just publish the dissenting comments, but also the insulting ones. Well-known for belittling people? No - well-known, rather, for being better at 'out-mocking' those who attempt to belittle me.
Anon3 (probably quite a few Anons rolled into one) - don't you think it's ironic that you can't seem to follow your own advice? If you're not persuing an agenda, then you're definitrly pursuing a grudge.
"Nobody is using comics to advocate intolerance of gays, and all I'm suggesting is that comics are not the arena in which that battle should be fought."
Naturally you're entitled to that opinion but the point I and some others are making is I think you're perceiving it as more than it is. Often, gay characters aren't shown to be having a battle against prejudice. They just happen to be gay. (Batwoman for example.) Gay people exist and modern comics are simply trying to reflect that. If Marvel or DC put out a comic called GAY AVENGERS or JUSTICE LEAGUE OF HOMOSEXUALS then I'd agree with you 100% that they were pushing an agenda. I still might, if they call the new comic GAY LANTERN! lol
"You're saying that to use gay characters only promotes tolerance, but many people see it as more of an attempt to promote homosexuality and to influence society into an acceptance of something they don't wish to accept."
Fine. So those people don't need to buy those comics. It really is very simple. Buy what you like, don't try to shout down what others might like to buy. Once you start saying a large proportion of the human race can't be shown in comics, where does it end? Most superhero comics depend on physical conflict, so should they stop putting fights into comics? And masks, in case kids turn into vigilantes?
To say don't buy what you're not interested in is rather too easy I'd suggest. Personally, I tend not to, and I've previously ignored any introduction of gay superheroes without being particulary bothered about it beyond a raised eyebrow and a shake of the head (if even that).
But the simple truth is, these things are always the thin-end of the wedge. (Witness cries for Superman to be turned gay - strewth.) These groups are always pushing for more. "We're offended by the use of the word 'Dad' in medical guides on childbirth as it makes us feel excluded - remove it at once!"
Kids are always swapping comics and reading them when they visit their pals. If someone can't see or appreciate why a parent might be concerned about their kids seeing two men kissing in a comicbook, then they're not very tolerant of the sensitivities or sensibilities of others it seems.
As for your final points, by and large, kids can differentiate between fact and fiction. And it takes more than a mask to be a superhero, vigilante or otherwise.
"Kids are always swapping comics and reading them when they visit their pals."
Kids still buy comics? (Ignoring the fact that 99% of Marvel and DC are labeled Teen or Teen Plus and shouldn't be sold to children.)
"If someone can't see or appreciate why a parent might be concerned about their kids seeing two men kissing in a comicbook, then they're not very tolerant of the sensitivities or sensibilities of others it seems."
Forget fictional characters. What if kids see two men kissing in the street? (Happens in London every day.) Perhaps if those kids were already aware, via comicbooks, that gay people exist, then the sight of real gay people embracing wouldn't be as shocking?
Sad lonely fuckwit! Go back to blabbering about your superhero comics and close the curtains , the neighbours are watching!If credibility were an issue here , I think you've just become the architect of your own demise. The whole online comics community now look on you as a joke. None of your comments hold credence. All because you're a self obsessed turd. Everything you say about others can be literally turned back on yourself. It's almost as if you are descibing yourself. Give up and get out. The comics community doesn't need you nor wants you. Best Before Date .... A long time ago. Maybe 15 years! ;-)
I think people are entitled to be shocked by whatever they find shocking. I wouldn't try to dictate to them what they're permitted to be shocked by, nor attempt to brainwash them out of it by repeated exposure to it.
And why do you quote what I said without seeming to understand it? My earlier comments clearly stated that while teenagers may buy mags for themselves, their younger brothers and sisters have easy access to them. And many parents still think superhero comics are aimed at kids, which, when you think about it is perhaps how it should be.
As for 'Anonymous' below you: At least your carers will know what to get you for your 'coming out' party - a book on basic punctuation and type-spacing. Talking of sad, lonely f*ckwits, I wonder why you insist on visiting this blog so often if you dislike it so much. It certainly can't be to impress us with your 'command' of the English language.
And, on a point of logic, if none of my comments "hold credence" as you claim, then "turning them back" on me is a pretty pointless exercise, don't you think?
Now - back to your inflatable boyfriend with you. We all know what you 'sailors' are like.
If you think reflecting a normal representation of society is brainwashing people there's no resoning with you Kid. Anyway this is getting out of hand with the swearing so I'm out. No not that sort of out.
It's also getting a bit out of hand with the spelling. And if you can't understand that a hell of a lot of people dispute that it is a "normal representation" of society, then you've missed the point.
Yeah I missed an a out, but not as bad as the sweary anon. lol
Ok whether or not you consider homosexuality to be normal is beside the point. What I meant was that comics are trying to represent society. To do stories set in America and pretend that a large percentage of people do not exist (ie gays) would be behind the times when gays are represented in tv, film, literature etc.
It's not about comics pushing an agenda. It's about them representing a more balanced society than they used to. I don't know why you're afraid of that.
Years ago black characters were usually the dumb sidekick, - then things improved when people like Stan Lee gave them a fairer representation TO REFLECT A CHANGING SOCIETY. (Such as Robbie Robertson being a senior staff member on the Daily Bugle.) All Marvel and Dc are doing now is showing gay people in a context TO REFLECT A CHANGING SOCIETY. Seems to me you just want to keep them invisible?
That's my point.
I have held back a bit on this "discussion" just to see how it progressed before I added my tuppenceworth - To be honest I don't really agree with Kid in that having a gay character(s) in comics in anyway promotes anything (certainly in the small numbers they are represented by so far) But I do think if it is the case that some folk are seriously working to put presure on DC etc to make/influence that Superman be the the gay character, then that (to me at any rate) does look a tad like a bit of an agenda could be there. However one of Kids main points in all this was that he was commenting on the intolerance of those oppossed to his view point, and quite frankly the pro gay brigade (not stating that out of contempt for your views just to identify the group) have kinda let themselves down and have done exactly what Kid was trying to say by being aggressive, abusive and pretty rude - ie intolerant of the counter viewpoint - As I said I have no problem with a gay character, even with Archies (far more powerful) Kevin Keelor magazine / graphic novel(which certainly made a point and I thought was very well done) Im more miffed at DC yet again screwing with their continuity if Alan Scott is indeed the gay DC character.
Was really upset to read your viewpoint on Gay people. You say you are not homophobic yet choose to use nautical terms to describe gay people - "Sailor" . Then you retort to saying :" your 'coming out' party ".I believe you are most probably gay and have severe problems dealing with it , but cloaking it in a blog post won't sort out your demons.You're not the first gay blogger and you woi't be the last.Just stop trying to be the big man and 'fess up.There's a good girl. See ,I've done the hard work for you. Maybe people will like you , even love you ; they certainly can't hate you any more.Love and kisses , my big hairy bear.
Captain Storm
(Just in case he deletes his original comment once he realises he forgot to click on the anonymous option.)
Ah kid , I see your paranoia knows no end. Actually a mate of mine alerted me to this whole tread and said I may be interested in reading between the lines. I do believe you were referring to me vis a vis a couple of the anon posts. Sorry buddy , wasn't me. But I am glad to join in the thread and express my amazement at your opening gambit in your main post. You said you fully expect to lose followers. So you were pre - empting what you obviously knew would be the outcome. You like inviting controversy. Only this time you decided on what you thought would be the soft option. Are you really that lonely? As for the Anon post that follows mine ; that has me bewildered. I always post as my own profile. There is even a spelling mistake in the anon copy. Now fellow readers may or may not know , but the good kid here has a habit of spilling vile rethoric and then later passing it off as his sense of humour or his little joke and if folks can't take it , well then tough. Well , my hirsuit friend , that was my little joke; Now a straight guy can laugh it off. But on the other hand ... ;-) Or to put it in your own dialogue " ... appropriate derisory laughter will be indulged in ..." Not nice is it Kid? You knew full well what can of worms this topic would open. Yet you now pursue it with vigour. Gives you a sense of being inclusive in your cold lonely world. Oh , yeah , if you disagree with Kid , you become what he terms his " Detractors" . Kid , are you for real?! Now , I must be off ,the real world calls. Enjoy your digitised world , your very own pixellated creation , where you are the Sod , sorry God. Only there are no subjects. Why? Because they all live in the real world.
Ta Ta
p.s. Appropriate derisory laughter is being indulged in. LOL!
Captain Storm
Well so much for tolerance. Going by most of the comments here, your only tolerated if you agree with a certain view.
I might not agree with everything Kid has ever said but I'll defend to the end his right to say it.
As for the name calling and insults being hurled at him, what age are you people? Stop acting like children. If you don't agree with him, fine. That's your right, give a reasoned response why, but to counter his argument by abuse and questioning his sexuality is infantile.
You come across as stupid and ignorant. The very thing you accuse Kid of being.
Thanks for the wise words, Chris B. And in response to the person above you:
Appropriate derisory laughter is indeed being indulged in, but it's laughter at you, not me. I don't think I've ever seen anybody so enthusiastically make such an utter spectacle of themselves as you just have. First you post abusive anonymous comments, then you accidentally post what was obviously meant to be an anonymous comment, but were just a tad too hasty in sending. Then, to the great amusement of us all, you dig an even deeper hole for yourself with your frantic, cringe-inducing, back-pedalling attempts to salvage any shred of credibility you mistakenly imagine you may have with a bravura display of bizarre, childish behaviour never before seen in the annals of blog history.
Well done that man.
Incidentally, perhaps you really are too obtuse to realise it, but I knew who you were from your very first "anonymous" post. Apart from your individual email "signature" of which you are unaware, it is an easy matter to track your comments back to their source. My use of the word "sailor" and asking about the "boat" were no indiscriminate taunts, but were specifically aimed at you - "Captain".
You obviously have comprehension issues, as the "anonymous" post after yours explains itself in a footnote. Further, it was cut and pasted straight from your original, so any spelling mistakes are your own.
As for "inviting controversy" - wrong! I was responding to someone else's controversial proposal that Superman should be turned gay or bisexual in order to appease the demands of the homosexual minority. This has been clearly stated several times, but you are either too caught up in your obsession with me to have noticed, or deliberately chose to ignore it in order to make the erroneous assertion that I initiated the controversy.
You have revealed yourself to everyone on this page as the utter fraud you really are; as a spiteful, vindictive, scheming, devious, lying, immature, pathetic, nasty-minded malcontent who is all too obviously several sandwiches short of a picnic.
The best detective in the world couldn't have accomplished a more thorough unmasking of your true character than you just did. As 'own goals' go, that must rank as the most spectacular one I've ever seen.
Again, well done that man.
Incidentally, now that your original comments have been up long enough to confirm their authenticity, I've removed them and supplied verbatim 'cut and paste' replacements. I'm not prepared to provide a free link to nutters with a grudge.
that was interesting.
Captain storm posted earlier with his nom de plume and avatar....
I did not know you could post here and then return later and declare anonymity....learning.
I think you are quite challenging by the way,being a fellow scotsman though,I understand the need for a great debate.
This is the 54th post here,that is some going compared to previous posts.
And its wild how the news that you had set up your stall with no intention of leaving had you being surrounded ,quite quickly,by all the ANONS.
there is an add on title for comics ,which states.FOR MATURE READERS ONLY ,or something like that.
comics for adults...
comics for kids on the other hand dont have this warning on the packet,and my son who knows that a certain wee guy called Morales was the new spider-man,has no need to know the character is gay or even sexually active.
On a more serious note,I used to be a government employee and social agendas are filtered through government employees.
Its their duty ,you know.
I packed it in about six years ago because i expressed my opinion too much and did not know my duty.
The next social acceptance is going to be paedophilia.
Well thats what they were pushing just before I left their employ.
So watch out for that hot topic---Paedophiles in Print,Sidekicks and Sodomy,Milfs and Minors.
Son of Andy Capp pales a wee bit beside that title.
more power to yer elbow Kid.
I will post as anon,for a laugh,but you will know who I am.
Bob.
To an earlier Anon, what I'm saying is that comics are doing MORE than reflecting a changing society. What they're effectively doing is representing what a minority group WANT changed in society - by 'promoting' the idea that homosexuality SHOULD be, or IS, accepted by a wider audience than is actually the case.
In short, they're trying to 'represent' the gay brigade's IDEA of a more 'balanced' society, regardless of any and all dissenting opinion on the matter. Sorry, but when they remove the word "Dad" from medical guidebooks on childbirth because female gay couples claim it offends and excludes them, then, to me, that's not balance, that's imbalance.
And again, the race issue is not an equivalent comparison in my view, as I've explained before. Besides, ever considered the idea that not ALL changes in society are desirable ones? (And no, I don't apply that to racial equality.)
Anyway, we're all repeating ourselves now, so unless some bright spark can offer some fresh insight on the matter that isn't merely a retread of what has gone before, it might be wise to consider the topic exhausted.
If nothing more, we've revealed who some of the true bigots are.
Oh, go on then - just one more. If he's determined to keep digging that hole for himself, then why should I try and stop him?
Are you ready for this?
Ah Kid , you really are living in a daydream. My God , how many imaginary friends do you have. The very thing you accuse me of - attributing anon posts to me - says more about you than you realise. In fact the statement about posts being attributed to me is more in keeping with you. Everybody , including the dogs on the street know any anon agreeing with you is in fact " you ". Every defence you put up is perverse. You get tangled up in knots and all your words collapse back on themselves. Trying to be too clever has obviously backfired on you. I would even say you are obsessive about certain bloggers. Why else would you devote time and effort to devoting whole blog posts to them? BTW , all your " detractors " thank you for the exposure and additional traffic you have generated. Really , thanks. Followers are up , hits are up. Good job , that man! BTW , email signatures and being traced back to their source ... this isn't the matrix. You're living in a fantasy , Kid ( strange that you insist on being called this at your age! ... Hmmm... very worrying that actually.)Also you may have this vile rethoric of which you accuse me of right back at you - it fits your description to a tee : KID SAID : "spiteful, vindictive, scheming, devious, lying, immature, pathetic, nasty-minded malcontent " Thanks for telling us about yourself , Kid.Shame it wasn't in a newspaper or on T.V. Could sue the ass off him ( oops , better not say that ). Also , your imaginary friends , again most probably you ,have now moved onto dangerous new ground : " The next social acceptance is going to be paedophilia." Careful about that train of thought and especially publishing it or you will be in real trouble , Kid. Not the sort of gay bashing trouble you're in at the moment. I could go on. You contradict yourself numerous times. Couldn't help but respond to the tread. At least I don't publish a public blog post about people which you have done. I keep it to the comment treads which given this blog are banal anyway.You are contributing basically nothing to the comics community and instead have nothing in life to do but spit your vile over everybody.Folks used to feel sorry for you , now they're just sorry they ever came across you.
Ta Ta.
p.s. To use your words again; You have recieved much unwelcome publicity , you are a joke , your credility is damaged beyond repair . Good job , that man! Now from us all , don't go away mad , just go away!
Good job , that man!
Captain Storm ( promotion to Major pending )
* Archived in case it doesn't get published. Appropriate derisory laughter will be indulged in ;-) *
So much for 'care in the community', eh?
Kid , don't you realise that it is you who is digging the hole for yourself. And it is you who has been found out as a bigot. The truth of the matter is that bullies don't like being hit back! So stop being one. And you won't get hit back. Simple!
Time for your medication, Captain. As I said, you have an exclusive "signature" which gives you away every time - even when you post "anonymously".
Now, not only are you making yourself look silly, but you're coming across as positively unbalanced.
And as for being "hit back", you haven't even landed a blow. 'Bye now.
Hey , just thought of it. Captain and the Kid! Elton John? No? LOL! BTW , really fast re-edit of your reply , Kid! Bye , now!
p.s. Ah , the vile rethoric :" Unbalanced " . Hee Hee , you just can't help it , can you. Kid by name , kid by nature LOL!
Well I see that after last night's late session, everyone is energised again : )
Captain Storm I'm sorry to say it as I value your posts on the Comics UK site but here you have made an absolute jackass of yourself. Stop digging any deeper! I don't know you and I don't know Kid but I do know that we're not going to be moving on to the next blog topic until you cease. Thank you !
The anonymous above Crispynev is our ol' pal the Captain again. Calling him unbalanced isn't vile rhetoric - it's the simple truth.
The simple fact of the matter Kid , is you are living in a fantasy world. You talk about "signature" and the last post vis a vis "Crispynev" is painfully obviously "you". This non de plume is not a member of ComicsUK. I am happy to leave this topic but your insatiable need to have the last word knows no bounds.You can spit out all the nasty words you may about people who don't agree with you but at the end of the day , it is you who has made a complete " jackass " of yourself. BTW , thanks for admitting you like my posts. No true member of ComicsUK would even venture to support you , given that you are also banned from that forum. Pattern forming here folks? This man is a sad lonely soul who uses the Internet to act the big man. Try the real world Kid. No keyboard , just reality. Get my drift? You twist everybody's words , dwell on the mundane , play on words , all in an attempt to make yourself feel big. So , to be fair , go back to your memories of childhood and leave the adult subjects to , well , the adults! And anybody that knows me , knows full well , I have not made a jackass of myself , I have simply stood up to a bully. My lord , were you ever loved? So sad! Bye now , off to post to the new influx of followers thanks to you ;-)
I've never been a member of the Comics UK forum, Captain Bonkers - nor, as far as I remember, have I ever attempted to join it - so how I can be banned from it? And it may be painfully obvious to you that "Crispynev" is me, but you're hardly in touch with reality, are you? Fact is, you don't have to be a member of that forum in order to read the discussions - that's how I knew that your "chum" was accused of being a bully on it.
And it's pretty obvious what I think about you - I don't need to say it anonymously. As for hits, mine are up by thousands this month due to this post - I doubt it's entirely down to your contributions 'though. (Hilarious as they've admittedly been.)
Now tell me, how do you type with your hands tied behind your back in those long-sleeved pajamas?
Sad lonely bully ,still has to have the last word. This could go on ad nauseum but like a child you cannot let go :-0 I've enjoyed unmasking you for what you are. Go back to your imaginary world of imaginary friends and let the comics community fora to the real experts. Ta Ta , child.
p.s . Folks , this is where this well known bully so consumed by hatred is he , will just not be able to control himself. He will have to have the last word LOL! Just wait and see ...
"Real experts" - do you mean the "experts" who said (according to you) that you had published the full first issue of The Beano on your blog when you were four pages short? Or the one who mistakenly agreed with you on your source of the first issue of The Dandy on your blog - even 'though I conclusively demonstrated that you were both wrong?
And the only thing I'm consumed by is astonishment at you not being able to see what a total pillock you're making of yourself. The only person consumed by hatred is you - and it's obvious to anyone who reads your ravings on this page.
And your feeble attempt to psychologically manipulate me into not responding and to categorise any such response as springing from an obsessive desire to have the last word is really quite pathetic. You're overlooking the fact that I can have the last word any time I want by simply not publishing further comments from you.
However, it's fun watching a maniac in meltdown, so feel free to keep 'em coming.
Morning all! To clarify, my Comics UK identity is Shiner. I seldom post but regularly visit a number of comics related sites almost every day.
Captain Storm, I think it unlikely that any blogger is going to concede the final word to someone else in a heated exchange. Probably best to move on.
Well, so far, the ol' Captain has had nine comments published on this page, either under his own name or anonymously. (I know with 100% certainty which ones are his.)
So far he has lied, used obscene language, hurled gross insults, made baseless insinuations and generally made an all-round tit of himself.
I see that another blogger, who published a link to this post on his own blog and said he was not inviting others to leave insulting or offensive remarks, has now joined the Captain's site. He may claim not to be inviting others to be offensive, but he obviously approves of it when they are.
Hopefully. they're both currently enjoying a state of sedation for their own good. We now (tentatively) return you to normal service.
It's confirmed. Alan Scott is the new gay character.
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/06/01/its-official-alan-scott-the-original-green-lantern-is-dcs-newest-gay-hero/
It all looks perfectly harmless .
It all looks perfectly unnecessary.
Life would be very boring if we cut it down to what's absolutely necessary. Your blog would vanish for starters.
Those gay characters might help gay teenagers feel better about themselves. Why not just be positive about something in the modern world for a change?
My blog, and every other one known to man along with it.
It's open to question whether straight characters in comics make straight teenagers feel better about themselves (purely on the basis of being straight), so why should it work for gays?
And I'm positive about a lot of things in the modern world - giving the seal of approval to behaviour that a lot of people consider inappropriate isn't one of them 'though.
I don't recall you raising any objections when Batwoman was outed as a lesbian. It seems that it's only male gay characters that you find unsettling? Hypocritical much?
Unsettling? I recognise a sly insinuation when I read one. However, the truth is, I usually don't pay much attention to these things (if I'm even aware of them at the time) beyond a slight sigh and an upward roll of the eyes.
On this occasion 'though, it was a step too far. Suggesting that Superman gets a gay makeover to appease a minority group with an agenda to push? I have a two-word response to that idea - the second word is "off".
Sorry, but which 'minority group' was pushing that agenda? All I saw was speculation and theory on various news sites from straight and gay people, guessing who the DC gay character would be.
I think your OTT reaction is more to do with you recently being banned from the blog of one of the people who aired this theory. You're not motivated by a desire to 'protect the children', you're motivated by spite and revenge, as usual.
TTFN
The very blog to which you refer was the one which suggested that Superman be turned gay or bisexual so that gay readers could feel good about themselves. That's pushing an agenda, whether you like to think so or not.
As for being banned from that blog for merely politely (and articulately) expressing my dissenting point of view to the blogger's proposal, I think that simply reflects the prejudiced, one-sided mind-set of those who are intolerant of folk who don't see things their way.
To invite comment on a controversial proposal and then not be prepared to discuss it on account of not liking the responses one gets is a pretty redundant exercise. Unless, of course, one is only looking for agreement with one's own point of view.
As you can plainly read for yourself, I have published numerous comments not only from those who disagree with me, but also from those who have resorted to lies, insults and insinuations in their contemptuously-toned expressions of opposition to my post.
As one of them is pursuing a personal grudge merely because I have previously revealed him to be a liar and a fantasist (as well as a peddler of inaccurate information), I think it is obvious as to who is really "motivated by spite and revenge".
Seems to me that's what actually constitutes an "OTT reaction".
In fact, the original suggestion which prompted this discussion (Superman should be made gay) is what is REALLY over the top. You seem to miss that rather sad and obvious truth.
I read that blog. You started out polite but soon became snarky. As always. You were banned for very good reasons and no one took your side but that doesn,t seem to phase you.
There was no "minority group" pushing to make Superman gay. Just a few INDIVIDUALS, gay AND straight who ventured it as an idea. You,ve concocted a strawman arhuement just to suit your own agenda.
The idea of putting a few gay characters in comics is to reflect society. Your homophobia would see them ignored. A whole chunk of humanity made invisible because of your prejudices. Seem to me you,re the one with agendas?
Absolute tosh. If (and it's a BIG if) there's a "snarky" comment from me on that other blog, it's only in direct response to someone else's. Your attempts to rewrite the facts merely reveals how intrinsically prejudiced you are in your ongoing obsession with commenting on this page.
Now, you seem to have difficulty comprehending some things, so let me elucidate. Certain minority groups have been aggressively pursuing an agenda of pressuring society into a state of acceptance and approval of gay, bisexual and transgendered issues for many years now. Anything that seems likely to accomplish that goal has their tacit approval - whether instigated BY the groups themselves, or on their BEHALF by those sympathetic to their cause. So, I'm afraid you're the one with the "strawman argument".
And the use of gay characters in comics is more about "influencing" society than "reflecting" it - propaganda, pure and simple. No one is being taught to hate gays in comics, so there is no anti-gay stance which necessitates being redressed in their favour.
Anyway, I've indulged certain people long enough - I'm no longer prepared to offer an outlet to those whose only purpose is to try and insult me, and who misrepresent the facts in order to do so. (And, tellingly, deny me a right of reply on their blogs.) Or to simply repeat the same argument for the umpteenth time. Saying something over and over again doesn't make it true, so there's absolutely no point in any of us going around in circles.
Therefore, the discussion is now closed - unless someone can offer any new and interesting insights on the matter.
(Interesting use of punctuation you've got going there, by the way.)
I don't have any real problems with Alan Scott being gay, now, not particularly, providing it's written well and his sexuality doesn't become his defining attribute. & I don't have a problem with gay characters in comics, per se ( Killraven was bisexual, & there were gay characters in Black Panther and Sabre, too, &, more recently, Apollo and the Midnighter, and it never adversely affected the storylines/action of the strips ).
my one problem with this is, simply, that I don't believe it has anything to do with adding more diversity to comics, but, rather, it has everything to do with Marvel and DC trying to one-up each other. Marvel does the gay wedding, grabs a crap-load of publicity, so DC does the Gay Lantern thing, and grabs it's own crap-load of headlines. it all stinks a bit too much of cynical corporate jumping on the "we're cool" bandwagon. & picking up on one particular "minority" group to make yourself look right-on is, to me, at least, doing a great dis-service to everyone, regardless of their sexuality/colour/gender.
change for the sake of change - the basic premise of DC's whole relaunch - is annoying enough in itself, but change for the sake of scoring points with perceived minorities is shallow and artistically bankrupt.
I could be wrong, of course. maybe the folks at Marvel and DC do geuinely give a monkey's about the feelings and aspirations of minority groups, but I suspect that their caring doesn't extend too far beyond sales figures.
I believe that what you say is ALSO true, Joe. Dougie and one or two others likewise commented on Marvel and DC's cynical, corporate desire to cash-in from the resulting publicity. (That view is pretty much a given with anything they do.)
On an individual level 'though, the writers, in foisting this ridiculous and unnecessary change on the comics-reading public, are wanting to influence or reshape society's thinking on the matter in accordance with their own views - and that of the minority groups which share them.
Neither approach is mutually exclusive - it's a case of "killing two birds with one stone".
Thanks for commenting.
Interesting discussion. I'm a little confused (but not in that way). Are you saying that gay characters should be kept out of comics just as they used to be? Or is it that it's ok to acknowledge they exist as long as they don't feature as characters that one would expect to see as role models (ie, main good guys in the comics).
What I'm saying has already been said several times already, so you'll forgive me, I'm sure, if I don't repeat myself. You'll just have to start at comment number one and work your way through. Good luck.
People who consider themselves "liberal" or "progressive" are usually intolerant bigots. Anyone who disagrees with them about anything is called a racist, sexist, warmonger, and homophobe. Sigh. They don't even see their own similarity to right-wing paranoids in the 1950's (when, to cloud an issue and squelch dissent, one would accuse the opponent of being a "Red" or a "commie"). And it is not "tolerant" to advocate, say, gay rights if you don't see anything wrong with homosexuality. Tolerance is not approval of something. Tolerance is putting up with something that you personally dislike. Political correctness is a double standard. Certain groups (gays, Muslims, black people) are sacred cows, while others (Christians, working class people) are fair game. And "freedom of speech" means that the left is free to say whatever it wants, but the other side can't express an opinion without being prosecuted for "hate speech."
Certainly a lot of truth in what you say, Anon. Thanks for commenting.
'Comics don't seem to have taught you much tolerance of other people's deeply held views. '
Sorry , but you sound like some religious fundamentalist who wants to stop showing same sex couple in comics because he thinks it's a 'sin'. Homosexuality has always been with us and , yea , so has bigotry , but it's better to be tolerant than a bigot. No , that doesn't mean one has to be tolerant of bigots. That's just crazy talk.
Still trying to get in the last word, eh, Cap? It's far too easy to dismiss anyone who holds a different opinion to yours as a 'bigot'. That isn't an argument - it's just 'crazy talk'. 'Bye now.
You're a religious fundamentalist , so you are bigoted. Who is Cap?
You're just inventing things now, and I think I know more about me than you do. However, your obvious dislike of religious fundamentalists makes YOU the bigot. Who is Cap? YOU are! Now go and play your sad, deluded little games somewhere else.
Hi Kid just skimmed the comments I'm afraid but it wasn't too much of a surprise to see the troops digging themselves into the moral high ground. I'm not that exercised about the portrayal of homosexuality in comics aimed at kids. They wouldn't have appealed to my me or my generation, I doubt even if they'd had much appreciation those of 'em who were a bit bent.
There's a slight irony that it's Scott and not Jordan, with his colour co-ordinated skin tight suit, they've selected for this -honour- It's really just an exercise in self satisfaction, you know, people signalling the obeisance to the new moral code. Do you recall those heroic stalwarts against the communist hoards that populated comics in the early 50's and how quickly they vanished? Well it's part of the same mentality, in itself its quite harmless but the sense of moral superiority it can engender is dangerous.
People feel much more confident in exercising their negative attributes, their vitriol and hatred when they're emboldened by faith in their own virtue. I think the comments here demonstrate that quite nicely. Unfortunately such proscriptive behaviour doesn't restrict itself to blog comments. Those with a more cynical view, those wishing to exercise power, the same people who were locking homosexuals up not so long ago, are willing to exploit the naivety of the self sanctified hoards for their own end. Sir Walter Scott wrote a book about it, Arthur Miller ripped him off and wrote a play. in case you haven't noticed there a bunch of sanctions, legal and otherwise, exercised against those expressing their convictions, even the truth is 'hate speech' in the right context. That's the real danger.
For the sake of clarification, at the time this post was first published I hadn't yet sought to join Comics UK so couldn't have been banned from it. Some time later I did join it, but eventually left after being continually 'baited' by a handful of members, a fact that was confirmed by the site owner. Once I'd resigned from the site, one of the moderators (one Andy Boal), who was one of the guilty parties, banned me AFTER THE FACT - for leaving. He had issued warnings against me for defending myself from attacks by others (though they went unreprimanded) while the site owner was away. The site owner told me when he returned that the warnings were unwarranted and should never have been issued. And I can back that up no problem.
Post a Comment