By [ad_1]
As some people guessed, the recently created son of Superman, named after Kal-El’s adoptive father, Jonathan, has been retconned to bisexual, just like Tim Drake, the 3rd Robin (who’s been around longer). Breitbart reports:
According to a report in the New York Times, the new Superman, Jonathan Kent — son and heir of Clark Kent and Lois Lane — will soon begin a romantic relationship with a male friend, DC Comics announced Monday.
“The idea of replacing Clark Kent with another straight white savior felt like a missed opportunity,” Tom Taylor, who writes the series, said in an interview covered by the newspaper. He said a “new Superman had to have new fights — real world problems — that he could stand up to as one of the most powerful people in the world.”
The concept of a new all woke Man of Steel and or associated comic character(s) is not new.
As the NYT reports, Batman’s sidekick, Robin, recently acknowledged romantic feelings for a male friend (not Dick Grayson — who was Batman’s partner for over four decades — but Tim Drake, a later replacement; there are multiple Robins just as there are multiple Supermen).
The issue of geo-politics has also been broached by the character when in 2011 DC decided Superman would no longer stand for the United States but would become a “citizen of the world.”
Certainly, it’s far from the first time DC’s editorial ever allowed divisive liberal politics to clog up their books. The disgraced Gerard Jones, who’s still in prison for his criminal offenses with child porn, was one of the earliest leftist writers who set comicdom on a path of extremely bad stuff littering mainstream superhero fare in the 90s, and he seems to be the writer who turned Obsidian homosexual in the mid-90s too, which tragically stuck, in a serious insult to character creator Roy Thomas.
As for Taylor, who’s written this stunt with the Super-son, he’s quite a far-leftist himself, having exploited the Suicide Squad for injecting his woke politics into an entertainment product in the past year, and he was among several writers who attacked J.K. Rowling for her brave stand against LGBT propaganda. So it was never shocking he could go this far, and who didn’t see this coming as it did?
And if you think that’s stupefying enough, take a look at what the Verge tells will be the stories:
Superman: Son of Kal-El also looks to offer a more modern take on the character. Jon Kent’s version of the hero will not only face off against the usual run of supervillains but also contemporary issues like climate change and school shootings.
DC isn’t shying away from similarities to Clark Kent’s famous romances, either: like Lois Lane (Jon’s mother), Jay is also a reporter, although Taylor teased in the same IGN interview that he’ll have some superpowers of his own that will allow him to meet Superman on his level instead of serving as another person for Jon to save.
According to the reports, said power may be invincibility, and this certainly demonstrates another serious problem: insularity. It’s been stressed as a huge flaw in superhero comics of that past, most notably in – but not limited to – team titles. This stunt proves they’re no different.
The usual left-wing propagandists took to apologia, predictably. For example, Dani di Placido at Forbes:
Just like his father, Jon’s new love interest is a reporter, Jay Nakamura, who takes care of Superman after he “mentally and physically burns out from trying to save everyone that he can.” A press release from DC says that, “Superman’s symbol has always stood for hope, for truth, and for justice,” and now it “represents something more” since “more people can see themselves in the most powerful superhero in comics.”
The announcement sparked a predictable shockwave, as social conservatives seemed confused and unsettled by the news, many under the impression that it was original Superman Clark Kent who had come out, rather than his son.
This guy really seems to think we’re that stupid. It’s already been reported by most sources that this is a different character, and the man even has the gall to say this:
Fox News (whose viewers are exceedingly unlikely to be purchasing comics starring the son of Superman), had a particularly unhinged segment in which a guest laments the perceived lack of heterosexuality among modern superheroes, blurting out:
“Why are they sexualizing superheroes? …. We just wanted them to get the bad guys, not a venereal disease.”
Strange to assume that non-heterosexual representation translates to “sexualizing superheroes,” especially considering the fact that the vast majority of superhero stories are written for children, and often feature romantic relationships.
I think it’s pretty clear di Placido’s one of a whole generation of propagandists who’re not experts in the comic field, and the only reason they’re giving their responses is because the steps taken are something they agree with. Superhero comics stopped being written solely for children decades ago, and this jerk has the nerve to obscure years of significant stories like Stan Lee writing up the notable Spider-Man tale about drug addiction in 1971? He doesn’t even recognize that the real issue is normalizing the corruption of sexuality, along with perversion of the same. Romantic relations are fine, but if he’s saying there’s no difference between heterosexual depictions and homosexual, that’s dismaying, but expected from somebody who’s obviously not a fan, and has no business lecturing us on how to make an entertainment vehicle.
Not to mention, there’s nothing unusual about a legacy superhero (a new character taking on the mantle of an established superhero) boasting a different kind of identity to their mentor. Introducing new and exciting legacy characters is a common tactic by comic book writers to keep things fresh, as well as an opportunity to introduce diversity to a line-up of fairly homogenous characters.
Sometimes, legacy characters become wildly popular with fans, and can even eclipse the original character; the animated film Into the Spider-Verse famously played with legacy characters from alternate universes, such as Miles Morales and Gwen Stacy, to highlight the fact that anyone can be behind the Spider-Man mask.
Judging from sales numbers lower than 100,000 copies a series, I wonder what his point is? I guess Luke Cage, in his twisted view, is solely “homogenous”, right? Not to mention he makes a big deal out of anybody wearing the Spidey outfits, when there’s plenty of other characters with full masks whose exact identities aren’t clear either (the Red Tornado parody from All-American Comics in the Golden Age is an early example, where Ma Hunkel took up the guise in the Scribbly feature), because that’s all that matters, not story merit.
In fact, comic books, particularly superhero comics, have always been known for experimenting with different scenarios and variations; there have been stories which feature a Soviet-Russian Superman, multiple versions of Evil Superman, a gender-swapped Superman and an African-American Superman (who will soon star in the upcoming Superman film written by Ta-Nehisi Coates).
Recently, superhero comics have seen a greater focus on LGBTQ representation; Marvel Comics has revealed X-Men’s Iceman to be gay, as well as announcing its first gay Captain America, while the latest Robin in the Batman comics came out as bisexual in August.
This says all you need to know where di Placido stands on the issue of Coates, and the Iceman retcon he doesn’t have the courage to describe as such. Not to mention how he thinks LGBTQ ideology is literally the best thing that could happen.
Another apologist, who was surely already prepared for this and notified in advance, is the insufferable Glen Weldon, whom ABC Chicago quotes:
NPR’s Glen Weldon, who’s written a book on Batman and regularly writes about comics, said that the queering of characters like Robin and Superman is “progress,” but because the characters who come out are not the canonical iterations of heroes — Drake isn’t the only Robin in the DC Universe, and Jon Kent’s father will always be the best-known Superman — the plot developments aren’t as significant or genre-shifting as they seem, Weldon wrote this week.
Still, Weldon said, a bisexual Superman and queer Robin are worth celebrating — they’re not a one-dimensional villain or side character who’s quickly killed off, but the “heroes of their own stories.”
He’s still keeping on with that appropriation angle, taking characters people like him never created, and changing them all to suit his narrow visions. This is exactly why I don’t want people like Weldon talking about comics, let alone movies. They’re not really interested in the story merit, but in selfish and entitled ideology.
Somebody with a more realist view of this disgrace is actor Dean Cain, who said:
Cain, 55, who played the superhero for four years in the hit 90s TV series Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, slammed DC for hailing the move as a ‘bold new direction’ during an appearance on Tuesday’s Fox & Friends First – while calling for the company to focus its efforts on ‘fighting real evil in the world’.
The actor pointed out that Superman is the latest in a long line of superhero characters to be given an LGBTQ+ plotline – which comes just two months after DC Comics announced that Batman sidekick Robin was also going to start dating a man.
‘They said it’s a bold new direction… I say they’re bandwagoning,’ Cain said in his on-air interview. ‘Robin, of Batman and Robin, just came out as bi or gay recently and honestly who’s really shocked about that one? I had some thoughts about that a long time ago.
‘The new Captain America is gay, my daughter in [the CW series] Supergirl, where I payed the father, she was gay.
‘So I don’t think it’s bold or brave or some crazy new direction. If they had done this 20 years ago, perhaps that would have been bold or brave.’
At worst, it’s cowardice, and contempt for the original creators. The left complains about “cultural appropriation”, but when they do it with crude stunts like this, suddenly it’s acceptable. Cain continued:
In place of sinister supervillains, Jon takes on several hot-button issues, including high school shootings, climate change, and the deportation of refugees – all of which are a world away from the old-school evil that the Man of Steel once fought.
Cain also took aim at these issues, insisting that DC Comics could have done much more to highlight the impact of ‘real evil in the world’ like human trafficking, women’s rights in Afghanistan, or corruption.
‘Brave would be having him fighting for the rights of gay people in Iran where they’ll throw you off a building for the offence of being gay,‘ he said.
‘They’re talking about him fighting real-world problems like climate change and the deportation of refugees and he’ll be dating a “hacktivist” whatever a “hacktivist” is, I don’t know.
‘Why don’t they have him fight the injustices that created the refugees whose deportation he’s protesting? That would be brave, I’d read that. Or fighting for the rights of women to attend school and have the ability to work and live, and boys not to be raped by men under the new warm and fuzzy Taliban. That would be brave.
‘There’s real evil in this world today, real corruption and government overreach, plenty of things to fight against. Human trafficking, real actual slavery going on… it would be brave to tackle those issues, shine a light on those issues. I’d like to see the character doing that. I’d read that comic.’
That’s what makes this so hypocritical. They’re not doing this as a statement against barbarism in Islamic countries, but rather, as a means to damage morale in western societies. Do writers like Taylor, Weldon and di Placido even care about the dangers the refugee problem’s led to? Not the least bit. Nor does DC editor Marie Javins, who obviously greenlighted this sleazy step. In the end, this is yet another reason why it’s vital to boycott DC. And surely the worst thing about this is that the neglect the Man of Steel fell into during the past decade is obviously one of the reasons why this smut happened, and Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster’s hard work has been desecrated.
I think it’s also worth noting that what’s happened this year also proves why the arguments of the late illustrator Darwyn Cooke have failed miserably. He complained about such PC tactics over a decade ago, and as expected, there were those on the left (quite possibly his side of the political spectrum) who predictably would not accept his objections, as this posting at the dreadful Women Write About Comics, written shortly after his 2016 death, makes clear:
He also called DC and Marvel out on their bullshit. In this interview from 2010, Cooke talked about what needed to change in Marvel and DC:
Interviewer: “Is there anything you would like to see DC or Marvel change about the way they do business?”
Darwyn: “Yeah, I want them to stop catering to the perverted needs of 45 year-old men. I want to stop seeing Batman fucking Black Canary. I don’t want to hear Batman swearing, I don’t want to see him feeding a boy rats. I don’t want to see characters getting raped in the ass. […] I want to see new characters for a new time, and when the industry of superhero comics realizes its sights to the young people it was meant for, I’ll be there with both arms and feet outside.”
Now, within that tirade he also took a shot at “characters who have been straight for 60 years become lesbians overnight because the writer’s too stupid or uncreative to come up with something decent,” meaning Kate Kane, who has turned out to be one of the most important queer women for DC. His comments predated WWAC, but this since deleted post on The Beat covers most of the controversy, and the follow up clarifying statement he made.
I separated out these comments because legacy is never black and white. Legacy is how other people choose to write about you. People are infinitely more complex than the words we have to remember them by can represent, and to highlight one aspect while erasing another doesn’t honor a person’s memory. But those comments and that controversy need context too. Most people, it seems, forgave Cooke for the off-the-cuff comment he made, even if they disagreed with his position, and I think that says as much about him as his words, or his art.
Unfortunately, I think the writer took offense at Cooke for coming within even miles of arguing against normalization of homosexuality, which is certainly how such PC advocates perceive it (did they ever complain about Batman cast member Renee Montoya becoming lesbian overnight in Gotham Central? Guess not). No wonder she edited out the original line from the interview. And in her entitled viewpoint, he “wrote about her”. She didn’t even consider that the whole problem with the creation of Kate Kane is that we’re supposed to care more about the lifestyle, sexual preference and prescribed ideological bent, to say nothing of the costume, more than the actual character, who wouldn’t mean anything to the writer if she wasn’t created as a lesbian. And describing it all as a “tirade” says quite a bit too.
More than a decade after Cooke argued against this ideological shove down the throat, and 5 years after his passing, it’s clear his protests had no impact, as the retcons to Tim Drake and Jonathan Kent have made clear. If Cooke were still alive today, he’d surely be blacklisted, and it wouldn’t shock me if he’s long fallen out of favor with the PC crowds who’re abusing corporate owned characters to suit their selfish agendas. A terrible shame.
Originally published here.
[ad_2]
