Action Comics #1000 creative roster revealed

[Nelliebly]

Lol. I was at that panel, Fabok was joking about the trunks thing.

The panel looks like it was a lot of fun and I hope you had a great time!

I will admit that I was pretty frustrated to read what Marv Wolfman said about Lois.

Lois Lane is also being celebrated in Action Comics #1000 for her 80th birthday. Why is Lois so integral to the Superman mythology? Wolfman said he didn't like Lois: "I hated she had such disregard for Clark, but would always go for the big star — I was more Clark Kent... that hurt for a long time. Fortunately, in the '80s, that started to change — they made her into a real character that you could care about." But Wolfman said that it was still revolutionary to have a character as strong as Lois back in the 1930s.--Marv Wolfman

Sigh. Look, I understand that Wolfman is 71 years old and grew up in a different time. But I'm not sure his age is an excuse here. Because while I can understand thinking this as a more immature reader, the fact that his understanding of the context of Lois and Clark's relationship prior to the Crisis still remains this out of touch is really a shame. It's 2018 and I would really hope that more wisdom might put some of this into better context.

This idea that Lois used to "ignore Clark and wanted the big star" is not fair. It has NEVER been fair to Lois. And men have to stop repeating this sexist lie without the proper context or dialogue about how it came to be. First off, Wolfman's comments ignore that it was not just Lois who "changed" in the 1980's. Clark Kent/Superman went through a massive shift too and it was because he went through such a massive shift that the triangle for 2 changed into something much more subtle and much more reflective of gender dynamics that were progressive and fair to both parties.

But even putting that aside....Clark Kent was the disguise in the early comics. He pretended to be a coward. He pretended to stand by while Lois was sexually assaulted. He wasn't just some "nerd"---he was pretending to be a coward. Lois Lane didn't just love some "big star'---she was rightfully interested in the man who was standing up for injustice and being just as brave and devoted to justice as SHE was. It's so unfair and sexist to keep up this lie that Lois was some mean gold digger because she dared to want the man who was being TRUE to himself vs. the man who was lying about who he was and not being himself. Why should Lois be expected to fall in love with someone who wasn't real? Wolfman says that "he was hurt." Jesus...what about Lois? She was the one being lied to. What about women who identified with her? Does their hurt just not count?

It's also uncomfortable because men like Wolfman grow up wanting to be Superman and yet they punish Lois for wanting to be WITH him. So, essentially, the men get to want the power fantasy of being this heroic guy but then when a woman actually wants to be with the man who stands up and does the right thing...she's the mean one? It's not fair. It has never been fair. The Triangle For 2 prior to the Crisis was so much more complex than just "oh Lois is mean and didn't like Clark Kent." There are deep complexities here and I'm exhausted with older men painting it this way without understanding the context, the societal structure at the time and the way the narrative set Lois up to fail.

It also ignores that we have textual evidence prior to the Crisis that Lois loved CLARK when he was being true to himself. The only reason we got those Mr. and Mrs. Superman stories in the Bronze age was distinctly because we saw first hand that when Clark Kent stopped with the act and just acted like himself and actually pursued her.....she loved him. She married him. She always loved the real person and this should not be ignored because it's important. The dual identity and what parts of Clark are "real" and what parts he's hiding are always playing hand in hand with how Lois feels and how she relates to both Clark Kent AND Superman. To ignore that piece of it is to ignore the story.

It's such a back handed compliment to be like, "Oh but she was still a strong character in the 1930's." Gee, thanks Marv. Yeah, she was. And she had a rich history long before the 1980's just like Clark himself did. Noel Neill was the first woman a lot of girls saw on on TV working alongside the men as an equal. Margot Kidder was a feminist icon for a lot of women in the 70's. A lot of little girls grew up wanting to be journalists distinctly because they saw Lois on screen. She was no less "real" prior to 1985 than Superman himself. Both characters evolved with the times and they did it in reflection of each other.

Anyway, look...I Get it. It is what it is and he's 71 years old. But it's not an excuse to not reflect on the ways in which changing gender roles and sexism over the last 80 years may have influenced the way Lois was treated and perceived. I was so excited to read the transcript from this panel this morning and then I got to the part where they "celebrated" Lois and this is what he said? She just deserves so much better than this back handed stuff. I'm so tired of seeing her history only reflected upon by men through men and without thought or consideration for the context. It's super frustrating. Why were there no women on the panel? Were any women asked to be on it? Different povs are vital for this kind of thing.

Also, I do get that the other men on the panel were all trying to be polite to each other and may have felt odd saying something after Wolfman said this. But someone like Greg Rucka would not have stayed quiet. He would have gently pushed back on this. Neither would Gail Simone etc. Dan Jurgens should NOT have stayed quiet about this. He knows better and knows this is unfair. I think there are gentle and polite ways when you are on a panel like this to very nicely challenge the context of history with these characters and push back a bit on accepted "history" about them and I think that it's vital that people do this for female characters in these kinds of situations. Because if you don't push back on it then these sexist lies continue to become accepted "truths" and continue to go unchecked and unchallenged. And we need to do better in 2018. The myth deserves that much.

[Soubhagya]

The panel looks like it was a lot of fun and I hope you had a great time!

I will admit that I was pretty frustrated to read what Marv Wolfman said about Lois.



Sigh. Look, I understand that Wolfman is 71 years old and grew up in a different time. But I'm not sure his age is an excuse here. Because while I can understand thinking this as a more immature reader, the fact that his understanding of the context of Lois and Clark's relationship prior to the Crisis still remains this out of touch is really a shame. It's 2018 and I would really hope that more wisdom might put some of this into better context.

This idea that Lois used to "ignore Clark and wanted the big star" is not fair. It has NEVER been fair to Lois. And men have to stop repeating this sexist lie without the proper context or dialogue about how it came to be. First off, Wolfman's comments ignore that it was not just Lois who "changed" in the 1980's. Clark Kent/Superman went through a massive shift too and it was because he went through such a massive shift that the triangle for 2 changed into something much more subtle and much more reflective of gender dynamics that were progressive and fair to both parties.

But even putting that aside....Clark Kent was the disguise in the early comics. He pretended to be a coward. He pretended to stand by while Lois was sexually assaulted. He wasn't just some "nerd"---he was pretending to be a coward. Lois Lane didn't just love some "big star'---she was rightfully interested in the man who was standing up for injustice and being just as brave and devoted to justice as SHE was. It's so unfair and sexist to keep up this lie that Lois was some mean gold digger because she dared to want the man who was being TRUE to himself vs. the man who was lying about who he was and not being himself. Why should Lois be expected to fall in love with someone who wasn't real? Wolfman says that "he was hurt." Jesus...what about Lois? She was the one being lied to. What about women who identified with her? Does their hurt just not count?

It's also uncomfortable because men like Wolfman grow up wanting to be Superman and yet they punish Lois for wanting to be WITH him. So, essentially, the men get to want the power fantasy of being this heroic guy but then when a woman actually wants to be with the man who stands up and does the right thing...she's the mean one? It's not fair. It has never been fair. The Triangle For 2 prior to the Crisis was so much more complex than just "oh Lois is mean and didn't like Clark Kent." There are deep complexities here and I'm exhausted with older men painting it this way without understanding the context, the societal structure at the time and the way the narrative set Lois up to fail.

It also ignores that we have textual evidence prior to the Crisis that Lois loved CLARK when he was being true to himself. The only reason we got those Mr. and Mrs. Superman stories in the Bronze age was distinctly because we saw first hand that when Clark Kent stopped with the act and just acted like himself and actually pursued her.....she loved him. She married him. She always loved the real person and this should not be ignored because it's important. The dual identity and what parts of Clark are "real" and what parts he's hiding are always playing hand in hand with how Lois feels and how she relates to both Clark Kent AND Superman. To ignore that piece of it is to ignore the story.

It's such a back handed compliment to be like, "Oh but she was still a strong character in the 1930's." Gee, thanks Marv. Yeah, she was. And she had a rich history long before the 1980's just like Clark himself did. Noel Neill was the first woman a lot of girls saw on on TV working alongside the men as an equal. Margot Kidder was a feminist icon for a lot of women in the 70's. A lot of little girls grew up wanting to be journalists distinctly because they saw Lois on screen. She was no less "real" prior to 1985 than Superman himself. Both characters evolved with the times and they did it in reflection of each other.

Anyway, look...I Get it. It is what it is and he's 71 years old. But it's not an excuse to not reflect on the ways in which changing gender roles and sexism over the last 80 years may have influenced the way Lois was treated and perceived. I was so excited to read the transcript from this panel this morning and then I got to the part where they "celebrated" Lois and this is what he said? She just deserves so much better than this back handed stuff. I'm so tired of seeing her history only reflected upon by men through men and without thought or consideration for the context. It's super frustrating. Why were there no women on the panel? Were any women asked to be on it? Different povs are vital for this kind of thing.

Also, I do get that the other men on the panel were all trying to be polite to each other and may have felt odd saying something after Wolfman said this. But someone like Greg Rucka would not have stayed quiet. He would have gently pushed back on this. Neither would Gail Simone etc. Dan Jurgens should NOT have stayed quiet about this. He knows better and knows this is unfair. I think there are gentle and polite ways when you are on a panel like this to very nicely challenge the context of history with these characters and push back a bit on accepted "history" about them and I think that it's vital that people do this for female characters in these kinds of situations. Because if you don't push back on it then these sexist lies continue to become accepted "truths" and continue to go unchecked and unchallenged. And we need to do better in 2018. The myth deserves that much.

Thank you for taking your time and posting this. For a new fan like me, its literally a new thing to read.

[SiegePerilous02]

Sigh. Look, I understand that Wolfman is 71 years old and grew up in a different time. But I'm not sure his age is an excuse here. Because while I can understand thinking this as a more immature reader, the fact that his understanding of the context of Lois and Clark's relationship prior to the Crisis still remains this out of touch is really a shame. It's 2018 and I would really hope that more wisdom might put some of this into better context.

This idea that Lois used to "ignore Clark and wanted the big star" is not fair. It has NEVER been fair to Lois. And men have to stop repeating this sexist lie without the proper context or dialogue about how it came to be. First off, Wolfman's comments ignore that it was not just Lois who "changed" in the 1980's. Clark Kent/Superman went through a massive shift too and it was because he went through such a massive shift that the triangle for 2 changed into something much more subtle and much more reflective of gender dynamics that were progressive and fair to both parties.

But even putting that aside....Clark Kent was the disguise in the early comics. He pretended to be a coward. He pretended to stand by while Lois was sexually assaulted. He wasn't just some "nerd"---he was pretending to be a coward. Lois Lane didn't just love some "big star'---she was rightfully interested in the man who was standing up for injustice and being just as brave and devoted to justice as SHE was. It's so unfair and sexist to keep up this lie that Lois was some mean gold digger because she dared to want the man who was being TRUE to himself vs. the man who was lying about who he was and not being himself. Why should Lois be expected to fall in love with someone who wasn't real? Wolfman says that "he was hurt." Jesus...what about Lois? She was the one being lied to. What about women who identified with her? Does their hurt just not count?

It's also uncomfortable because men like Wolfman grow up wanting to be Superman and yet they punish Lois for wanting to be WITH him. So, essentially, the men get to want the power fantasy of being this heroic guy but then when a woman actually wants to be with the man who stands up and does the right thing...she's the mean one? It's not fair. It has never been fair. The Triangle For 2 prior to the Crisis was so much more complex than just "oh Lois is mean and didn't like Clark Kent." There are deep complexities here and I'm exhausted with older men painting it this way without understanding the context, the societal structure at the time and the way the narrative set Lois up to fail.

It also ignores that we have textual evidence prior to the Crisis that Lois loved CLARK when he was being true to himself. The only reason we got those Mr. and Mrs. Superman stories in the Bronze age was distinctly because we saw first hand that when Clark Kent stopped with the act and just acted like himself and actually pursued her.....she loved him. She married him. She always loved the real person and this should not be ignored because it's important. The dual identity and what parts of Clark are "real" and what parts he's hiding are always playing hand in hand with how Lois feels and how she relates to both Clark Kent AND Superman. To ignore that piece of it is to ignore the story.

It's such a back handed compliment to be like, "Oh but she was still a strong character in the 1930's." Gee, thanks Marv. Yeah, she was. And she had a rich history long before the 1980's just like Clark himself did. Noel Neill was the first woman a lot of girls saw on on TV working alongside the men as an equal. Margot Kidder was a feminist icon for a lot of women in the 70's. A lot of little girls grew up wanting to be journalists distinctly because they saw Lois on screen. She was no less "real" prior to 1985 than Superman himself. Both characters evolved with the times and they did it in reflection of each other.

Anyway, look...I Get it. It is what it is and he's 71 years old. But it's not an excuse to not reflect on the ways in which changing gender roles and sexism over the last 80 years may have influenced the way Lois was treated and perceived. I was so excited to read the transcript from this panel this morning and then I got to the part where they "celebrated" Lois and this is what he said? She just deserves so much better than this back handed stuff. I'm so tired of seeing her history only reflected upon by men through men and without thought or consideration for the context. It's super frustrating. Why were there no women on the panel? Were any women asked to be on it? Different povs are vital for this kind of thing.

Also, I do get that the other men on the panel were all trying to be polite to each other and may have felt odd saying something after Wolfman said this. But someone like Greg Rucka would not have stayed quiet. He would have gently pushed back on this. Neither would Gail Simone etc. Dan Jurgens should NOT have stayed quiet about this. He knows better and knows this is unfair. I think there are gentle and polite ways when you are on a panel like this to very nicely challenge the context of history with these characters and push back a bit on accepted "history" about them and I think that it's vital that people do this for female characters in these kinds of situations. Because if you don't push back on it then these sexist lies continue to become accepted "truths" and continue to go unchecked and unchallenged. And we need to do better in 2018. The myth deserves that much.

Great post. I suppose it shouldn't come as a surprise that he'd make a comment like this, but it is a bit disappointing. He did once partake in a similar interview about the Spider-Marriage and said one of the appeals of Peter Parker's character is his being a "loser," (??) and that it wasn't realistic for him to be married to a woman like MJ. I guess women are just superficial...? But even that doesn't work, as neither Clark or Peter are unattractive duds even with their superhero sides not being known.

But Wolfman has a lot of ideas about the Superman mythos that don't click with me. Businessman Lex was his idea, and GOOD LORD, do I not care for businessman Lex. And he said in the "Krypton Companion" that he always though Superman's villains were lame. So then he created the likes of Neutron and Satanis.

[The Dying Detective]

Great post. I suppose it shouldn't come as a surprise that he'd make a comment like this, but it is a bit disappointing. He did once partake in a similar interview about the Spider-Marriage and said one of the appeals of Peter Parker's character is his being a "loser," (??) and that it wasn't realistic for him to be married to a woman like MJ. I guess women are just superficial...? But even that doesn't work, as neither Clark or Peter are unattractive duds even with their superhero sides not being known.

But Wolfman has a lot of ideas about the Superman mythos that don't click with me. Businessman Lex was his idea, and GOOD LORD, do I not care for businessman Lex. And he said in the "Krypton Companion" that he always though Superman's villains were lame. So then he created the likes of Neutron and Satanis.

But the businessman thing stuck and now there is some sort of compromise by giving Lex Luthor more focus on being the mad scientist.

[Miles To Go]

Great post. I suppose it shouldn't come as a surprise that he'd make a comment like this, but it is a bit disappointing. He did once partake in a similar interview about the Spider-Marriage and said one of the appeals of Peter Parker's character is his being a "loser," (??) and that it wasn't realistic for him to be married to a woman like MJ. I guess women are just superficial...? But even that doesn't work, as neither Clark or Peter are unattractive duds even with their superhero sides not being known.

Wolfman was the one who first broke up Peter and MJ too, fortunatly this led to a great retconning for her character later on where the reason she stayed away from Peter was a combination of knowing who he was and having commitment issues stemming from her broken family past...all things she ultimately overcame to become Peter's wife for twenty years (and Stan Lee was the one who came up with the idea of marrying them off, and they've been together in his newspaper strip for 31 years now)

[The Dying Detective]

Wolfman was the one who first broke up Peter and MJ too, fortunatly this led to a great retconning for her character later on where the reason she stayed away from Peter was a combination of knowing who he was and having commitment issues stemming from her broken family past...all things she ultimately overcame to become Peter's wife for twenty years (and Stan Lee was the one who came up with the idea of marrying them off, and they've been together in his newspaper strip for 31 years now)

That was set in an era where peopel knew how to use continuity as a tool to make new stories too ah memories wouldn't you say so?

[misslane]

Sigh. Look, I understand that Wolfman is 71 years old and grew up in a different time. But I'm not sure his age is an excuse here. Because while I can understand thinking this as a more immature reader, the fact that his understanding of the context of Lois and Clark's relationship prior to the Crisis still remains this out of touch is really a shame. It's 2018 and I would really hope that more wisdom might put some of this into better context.

This idea that Lois used to "ignore Clark and wanted the big star" is not fair. It has NEVER been fair to Lois. And men have to stop repeating this sexist lie without the proper context or dialogue about how it came to be. First off, Wolfman's comments ignore that it was not just Lois who "changed" in the 1980's. Clark Kent/Superman went through a massive shift too and it was because he went through such a massive shift that the triangle for 2 changed into something much more subtle and much more reflective of gender dynamics that were progressive and fair to both parties.

But even putting that aside....Clark Kent was the disguise in the early comics. He pretended to be a coward. He pretended to stand by while Lois was sexually assaulted. He wasn't just some "nerd"---he was pretending to be a coward. Lois Lane didn't just love some "big star'---she was rightfully interested in the man who was standing up for injustice and being just as brave and devoted to justice as SHE was. It's so unfair and sexist to keep up this lie that Lois was some mean gold digger because she dared to want the man who was being TRUE to himself vs. the man who was lying about who he was and not being himself. Why should Lois be expected to fall in love with someone who wasn't real? Wolfman says that "he was hurt." Jesus...what about Lois? She was the one being lied to. What about women who identified with her? Does their hurt just not count?

It's also uncomfortable because men like Wolfman grow up wanting to be Superman and yet they punish Lois for wanting to be WITH him. So, essentially, the men get to want the power fantasy of being this heroic guy but then when a woman actually wants to be with the man who stands up and does the right thing...she's the mean one? It's not fair. It has never been fair. The Triangle For 2 prior to the Crisis was so much more complex than just "oh Lois is mean and didn't like Clark Kent." There are deep complexities here and I'm exhausted with older men painting it this way without understanding the context, the societal structure at the time and the way the narrative set Lois up to fail.

It also ignores that we have textual evidence prior to the Crisis that Lois loved CLARK when he was being true to himself. The only reason we got those Mr. and Mrs. Superman stories in the Bronze age was distinctly because we saw first hand that when Clark Kent stopped with the act and just acted like himself and actually pursued her.....she loved him. She married him. She always loved the real person and this should not be ignored because it's important. The dual identity and what parts of Clark are "real" and what parts he's hiding are always playing hand in hand with how Lois feels and how she relates to both Clark Kent AND Superman. To ignore that piece of it is to ignore the story.

It's such a back handed compliment to be like, "Oh but she was still a strong character in the 1930's." Gee, thanks Marv. Yeah, she was. And she had a rich history long before the 1980's just like Clark himself did. Noel Neill was the first woman a lot of girls saw on on TV working alongside the men as an equal. Margot Kidder was a feminist icon for a lot of women in the 70's. A lot of little girls grew up wanting to be journalists distinctly because they saw Lois on screen. She was no less "real" prior to 1985 than Superman himself. Both characters evolved with the times and they did it in reflection of each other.

Anyway, look...I Get it. It is what it is and he's 71 years old. But it's not an excuse to not reflect on the ways in which changing gender roles and sexism over the last 80 years may have influenced the way Lois was treated and perceived. I was so excited to read the transcript from this panel this morning and then I got to the part where they "celebrated" Lois and this is what he said? She just deserves so much better than this back handed stuff. I'm so tired of seeing her history only reflected upon by men through men and without thought or consideration for the context. It's super frustrating. Why were there no women on the panel? Were any women asked to be on it? Different povs are vital for this kind of thing.

Also, I do get that the other men on the panel were all trying to be polite to each other and may have felt odd saying something after Wolfman said this. But someone like Greg Rucka would not have stayed quiet. He would have gently pushed back on this. Neither would Gail Simone etc. Dan Jurgens should NOT have stayed quiet about this. He knows better and knows this is unfair. I think there are gentle and polite ways when you are on a panel like this to very nicely challenge the context of history with these characters and push back a bit on accepted "history" about them and I think that it's vital that people do this for female characters in these kinds of situations. Because if you don't push back on it then these sexist lies continue to become accepted "truths" and continue to go unchecked and unchallenged. And we need to do better in 2018. The myth deserves that much.

Yes to all of this. Well said.

[micahbevans88]

Also, I do get that the other men on the panel were all trying to be polite to each other and may have felt odd saying something after Wolfman said this. But someone like Greg Rucka would not have stayed quiet. He would have gently pushed back on this. Neither would Gail Simone etc. Dan Jurgens should NOT have stayed quiet about this. He knows better and knows this is unfair. I think there are gentle and polite ways when you are on a panel like this to very nicely challenge the context of history with these characters and push back a bit on accepted "history" about them and I think that it's vital that people do this for female characters in these kinds of situations. Because if you don't push back on it then these sexist lies continue to become accepted "truths" and continue to go unchecked and unchallenged. And we need to do better in 2018. The myth deserves that much.

In Jurgens' defense, Wolfman has so many offensively bad ideas about the superman mythos that it would take all day to politely challenge them.

[Atlas]

The panel looks like it was a lot of fun and I hope you had a great time!

I will admit that I was pretty frustrated to read what Marv Wolfman said about Lois.



Sigh. Look, I understand that Wolfman is 71 years old and grew up in a different time. But I'm not sure his age is an excuse here. Because while I can understand thinking this as a more immature reader, the fact that his understanding of the context of Lois and Clark's relationship prior to the Crisis still remains this out of touch is really a shame. It's 2018 and I would really hope that more wisdom might put some of this into better context.

This idea that Lois used to "ignore Clark and wanted the big star" is not fair. It has NEVER been fair to Lois. And men have to stop repeating this sexist lie without the proper context or dialogue about how it came to be. First off, Wolfman's comments ignore that it was not just Lois who "changed" in the 1980's. Clark Kent/Superman went through a massive shift too and it was because he went through such a massive shift that the triangle for 2 changed into something much more subtle and much more reflective of gender dynamics that were progressive and fair to both parties.

But even putting that aside....Clark Kent was the disguise in the early comics. He pretended to be a coward. He pretended to stand by while Lois was sexually assaulted.

I'm not suggesting that you're manipulating the history of a comic book character to suit a particular political agenda, but I'd like to know in exactly what issue Clark/Superman stood by while Lois Lane was raped. Unless you're using "sexually assaulted" to describe something other than rape, which I feel is in unfair to that term and what it means. It's certainly possible I am unaware of this particular issue you're referencing, but I suspect my 30+ years of both reading Superman comics and about Superman comics makes that unlikely. When a term like "sexually assaulted" is tossed around with hyperbole, it waters down the impact of the term and makes the person misusing it look either extraordinarily ignorant or dangerously close to fanatical.

[Nelliebly]

I'm not suggesting that you're manipulating the history of a comic book character to suit a particular political agenda, but I'd like to know in exactly what issue Clark/Superman stood by while Lois Lane was raped. Unless you're using "sexually assaulted" to describe something other than rape, which I feel is in unfair to that term and what it means. It's certainly possible I am unaware of this particular issue you're referencing, but I suspect my 30+ years of both reading Superman comics and about Superman comics makes that unlikely. When a term like "sexually assaulted" is tossed around with hyperbole, it waters down the impact of the term and makes the person misusing it look either extraordinarily ignorant or dangerously close to fanatical.

This is a really odd post.

First, Sexual assault doesn’t always mean rape. You are incorrect if that’s what you think. It refers to unconsented to touching and it’s a very complex area of the law and does not require “rape” to constitute as unconsented to behavior. It seems like you need to educate yourself if you don’t understand the definition of assault. That’s concerning. The implication is that a man gets fresh with her in Action Comics #1. A man touching a woman without her consent is called assault. I never said rape. I said assault. The comics were subtle back then about what they showed but the intention was clear: a man was fresh with her. He tries to force Lois to dance with him literally saying “you will dance with me and like it.” Lois did not consent. Clark not only did not defend her but he tells Lois to just dance with this man even though she doesn’t want to. Clark was pretending to be a coward. Lois punched the man herself and Clark did cheer her on under his breath. But the damage was done. From Lois’s POV, Clark has allowed a man to be inappropriate with her and had not stood up for what was right. Superman, on the other hand, came to her defense.

FYI, I’ve been reading Superman comics for over 20 years too and I own every single piece of Superman media. So you listing your “credentials” to try and derail my point in an accusatory manner is not of use because I know just as much about Superman’s history as you do.

The reality is that women have been mistreated in this genre for a long time and men putting their hands on women without their consent is a problem within the genre going all the way back to the Golden Age. That ::is:: assault. If a man forced a woman to touch him against her will as this man did to Lois...that is a form of assault. It’s odd to me that instead of politely asking me to point out the instance I was referring to and just leaving it at that, you instead felt the need to imply that you not only didn’t ::believe:: me but then felt the need to essentially imply I was being “fanatical” and “ignorant” and THEN you felt the need to brag about how long you had been been reading comics as if it couldn’t possibly be true if you didn’t know about it. Deeply insulting and inappropriate.

[Vanguard-01]

The panel looks like it was a lot of fun and I hope you had a great time!

I will admit that I was pretty frustrated to read what Marv Wolfman said about Lois.



Sigh. Look, I understand that Wolfman is 71 years old and grew up in a different time. But I'm not sure his age is an excuse here. Because while I can understand thinking this as a more immature reader, the fact that his understanding of the context of Lois and Clark's relationship prior to the Crisis still remains this out of touch is really a shame. It's 2018 and I would really hope that more wisdom might put some of this into better context.

This idea that Lois used to "ignore Clark and wanted the big star" is not fair. It has NEVER been fair to Lois. And men have to stop repeating this sexist lie without the proper context or dialogue about how it came to be. First off, Wolfman's comments ignore that it was not just Lois who "changed" in the 1980's. Clark Kent/Superman went through a massive shift too and it was because he went through such a massive shift that the triangle for 2 changed into something much more subtle and much more reflective of gender dynamics that were progressive and fair to both parties.

But even putting that aside....Clark Kent was the disguise in the early comics. He pretended to be a coward. He pretended to stand by while Lois was sexually assaulted. He wasn't just some "nerd"---he was pretending to be a coward. Lois Lane didn't just love some "big star'---she was rightfully interested in the man who was standing up for injustice and being just as brave and devoted to justice as SHE was. It's so unfair and sexist to keep up this lie that Lois was some mean gold digger because she dared to want the man who was being TRUE to himself vs. the man who was lying about who he was and not being himself. Why should Lois be expected to fall in love with someone who wasn't real? Wolfman says that "he was hurt." Jesus...what about Lois? She was the one being lied to. What about women who identified with her? Does their hurt just not count?

It's also uncomfortable because men like Wolfman grow up wanting to be Superman and yet they punish Lois for wanting to be WITH him. So, essentially, the men get to want the power fantasy of being this heroic guy but then when a woman actually wants to be with the man who stands up and does the right thing...she's the mean one? It's not fair. It has never been fair. The Triangle For 2 prior to the Crisis was so much more complex than just "oh Lois is mean and didn't like Clark Kent." There are deep complexities here and I'm exhausted with older men painting it this way without understanding the context, the societal structure at the time and the way the narrative set Lois up to fail.

It also ignores that we have textual evidence prior to the Crisis that Lois loved CLARK when he was being true to himself. The only reason we got those Mr. and Mrs. Superman stories in the Bronze age was distinctly because we saw first hand that when Clark Kent stopped with the act and just acted like himself and actually pursued her.....she loved him. She married him. She always loved the real person and this should not be ignored because it's important. The dual identity and what parts of Clark are "real" and what parts he's hiding are always playing hand in hand with how Lois feels and how she relates to both Clark Kent AND Superman. To ignore that piece of it is to ignore the story.

It's such a back handed compliment to be like, "Oh but she was still a strong character in the 1930's." Gee, thanks Marv. Yeah, she was. And she had a rich history long before the 1980's just like Clark himself did. Noel Neill was the first woman a lot of girls saw on on TV working alongside the men as an equal. Margot Kidder was a feminist icon for a lot of women in the 70's. A lot of little girls grew up wanting to be journalists distinctly because they saw Lois on screen. She was no less "real" prior to 1985 than Superman himself. Both characters evolved with the times and they did it in reflection of each other.

Anyway, look...I Get it. It is what it is and he's 71 years old. But it's not an excuse to not reflect on the ways in which changing gender roles and sexism over the last 80 years may have influenced the way Lois was treated and perceived. I was so excited to read the transcript from this panel this morning and then I got to the part where they "celebrated" Lois and this is what he said? She just deserves so much better than this back handed stuff. I'm so tired of seeing her history only reflected upon by men through men and without thought or consideration for the context. It's super frustrating. Why were there no women on the panel? Were any women asked to be on it? Different povs are vital for this kind of thing.

Also, I do get that the other men on the panel were all trying to be polite to each other and may have felt odd saying something after Wolfman said this. But someone like Greg Rucka would not have stayed quiet. He would have gently pushed back on this. Neither would Gail Simone etc. Dan Jurgens should NOT have stayed quiet about this. He knows better and knows this is unfair. I think there are gentle and polite ways when you are on a panel like this to very nicely challenge the context of history with these characters and push back a bit on accepted "history" about them and I think that it's vital that people do this for female characters in these kinds of situations. Because if you don't push back on it then these sexist lies continue to become accepted "truths" and continue to go unchecked and unchallenged. And we need to do better in 2018. The myth deserves that much.

Huh. Never thought about the early Lois/Clark dynamic from that perspective. Seems so obvious when you think about it.

Yeah, it IS kinda hard to imagine Lois developing feelings for a guy who always seems to run and hide at the first hint of danger, as opposed to the other guy, who is genuinely heroic.

I would imagine this would also make it a more powerful moment for Lois when she finally DOES learn the truth. Clark willingly let her see him as this spineless coward in the name of serving the greater good? That's pretty impressive when you think about it.

Great post! I think I've learned something today!

EDIT: Aaaaaand, suddenly I'm wondering if it was ever a good idea to move away from the whole "Clark Kent as coward" approach to the secret identity.

[Atlas]

This is a really odd post.

First, Sexual assault doesn’t always mean rape. You are incorrect if that’s what you think. It refers to unconsented to touching and it’s a very complex area of the law and does not require “rape” to constitute as unconsented to behavior. It seems like you need to educate yourself if you don’t understand the definition of assault. That’s concerning. The implication is that a man gets fresh with her in Action Comics #1. A man touching a woman without her consent is called assault. I never said rape. I said assault. The comics were subtle back then about what they showed but the intention was clear: a man was fresh with her. He tries to force Lois to dance with him literally saying “you will dance with me and like it.” Lois did not consent. Clark not only did not defend her but he tells Lois to just dance with this man even though she doesn’t want to. Clark was pretending to be a coward. Lois punched the man herself and Clark did cheer her on under his breath. But the damage was done. From Lois’s POV, Clark has allowed a man to be inappropriate with her and had not stood up for what was right. Superman, on the other hand, came to her defense.

FYI, I’ve been reading Superman comics for over 20 years too and I own every single piece of Superman media. So you listing your “credentials” to try and derail my point in an accusatory manner is not of use because I know just as much about Superman’s history as you do.

The reality is that women have been mistreated in this genre for a long time and men putting their hands on women without their consent is a problem within the genre going all the way back to the Golden Age. That ::is:: assault. If a man forced a woman to touch him against her will as this man did to Lois...that is a form of assault. It’s odd to me that instead of politely asking me to point out the instance I was referring to and just leaving it at that, you instead felt the need to imply that you not only didn’t ::believe:: me but then felt the need to essentially imply I was being “fanatical” and “ignorant” and THEN you felt the need to brag about how long you had been been reading comics as if it couldn’t possibly be true if you didn’t know about it. Deeply insulting and inappropriate.

I've been reading Superman comics and researching the character for a full decade more than you, so please don't think that gives you the right to lecture me. You're grossly exaggerating the incident you're referring to in Action Comics #1 to push an agenda. Filtering everything through the lens of finding victimization of women where it isn't. Finally, sexual assault is indeed physical, whereas harassment is verbal or psychological. Finally, it was 1938 and Siegel and Shuster created a very strong, very independent woman in Lois, traits that were rare at the time. If anything, their portrayal of Clark in that moment was intended to display her strength and show from her very first appearance that she was Superman's equal. Siegel and Shuster intended to have Lois learn Clark's secret and become his partner in crime-fighting in "The K-Metal From Krypton." This was abandoned by editorial to maintain the status quo.

You're certainly correct that women have been poorly treated in comics for the better part of a century, but you're looking for something here that simply isn't there. Why not better use your time to find legitimate examples of sexism and inappropriate portrayals of women instead? I suspect you'd rather derail threads with specious arguments designed to push an agenda in a forum that is already sensitive to these issues.

[misslane]

I've been reading Superman comics and researching the character for a full decade more than you, so please don't think that gives you the right to lecture me. You're grossly exaggerating the incident you're referring to in Action Comics #1 to push an agenda. Filtering everything through the lens of finding victimization of women where it isn't. Finally, sexual assault is indeed physical, whereas harassment is verbal or psychological. Finally, it was 1938 and Siegel and Shuster created a very strong, very independent woman in Lois, traits that were rare at the time. If anything, their portrayal of Clark in that moment was intended to display her strength and show from her very first appearance that she was Superman's equal. Siegel and Shuster intended to have Lois learn Clark's secret and become his partner in crime-fighting in "The K-Metal From Krypton." This was abandoned by editorial to maintain the status quo.

Quantity doesn't equal quality, and based on your analysis of these characters and your treatment of Nelliebly, I'd say your alleged superior quantity of knowledge and experience with Superman has produced an inferior quality understanding of these issues related to the source material and an inferior quality attitude when it comes to engaging with fellow fans. At least, according to my own subjective point of view.

You're certainly correct that women have been poorly treated in comics for the better part of a century, but you're looking for something here that simply isn't there. Why not better use your time to find legitimate examples of sexism and inappropriate portrayals of women instead? I suspect you'd rather derail threads with specious arguments designed to push an agenda in a forum that is already sensitive to these issues.

Or you could just agree to disagree, like I'm going to do with you. I disagree with you and agree with Nelliebly.

[Nelliebly]

Quantity doesn't equal quality, and based on your analysis of these characters and your treatment of Nelliebly, I'd say your alleged superior quantity of knowledge and experience with Superman has produced an inferior quality understanding of these issues related to the source material and an inferior quality attitude when it comes to engaging with fellow fans. At least, according to my own subjective point of view.



Or you could just agree to disagree, like I'm going to do with you. I disagree with you and agree with Nelliebly.

Thank you very much for this.

The bottom line is that women process media and narratives from a different lens than men do and it is extremely inappropriate for a 40 something man to assume that his POV on what the intentions were here is the only view just as it’s inappropriate for a man to be trying to explain harsssment and assault to women. Also, the idea that because he’s been reading comics for 10 years longer means he ::understands:: sexism better is not only ridiculous but it’s a form of gate keeping.

No one here is even remotely questioning that Jerry Siegel created a strong woman in 1938. What we are discussing is how Lois, as a WOMAN, may have perceived situations that influenced how she felt about Clark vs. Superman and we are discussing how the general public, which is absolutely structured to view things from a male POV, was less empathetic towards her POV of the situations than they should have been. I’m not even going to get into the lecture I got on assault vs. harassment. My POV of that incident is that Lois likely felt she was threatened and assaulted (being forced to dance with someone is extremely uncomfortable) and this colored how she likely viewed Clark.

The very idea that this man thinks it’s ok to belittle and lecture any woman on this site about what “really matters” is a serious problem and contributes to comics and CBR in general being unwelcome and unequal.

[Soubhagya]

Huh. Never thought about the early Lois/Clark dynamic from that perspective. Seems so obvious when you think about it.

Yeah, it IS kinda hard to imagine Lois developing feelings for a guy who always seems to run and hide at the first hint of danger, as opposed to the other guy, who is genuinely heroic.

I would imagine this would also make it a more powerful moment for Lois when she finally DOES learn the truth. Clark willingly let her see him as this spineless coward in the name of serving the greater good? That's pretty impressive when you think about it.

Great post! I think I've learned something today!

EDIT: Aaaaaand, suddenly I'm wondering if it was ever a good idea to move away from the whole "Clark Kent as coward" approach to the secret identity.

I agree with you. This changes so much. And its so obvious. Lois loves the man of Steel Superman, but not the mild mannered reporter Clark Kent is so ingrained in the mythos that we accept that is the truth without even thinking it could be something different.

And i can see it could be great. That's how you do mild mannered reporter now. Don't let it be a secret to Lois for years. At best a year or two, before Lois gets to know the truth. There has to be an impression that he is doing this for the greater good.