Does Parenthood Really Sideline Characters?

[AdamFTF]

This is an idea I've seen put forth in the past, but it recently came up again. I was talking to someone online about the new Uncanny X-Men #1 cover and we were talking about Jubilee. I mentioned that the only development I had liked from the last several years was her adopting Shogo. And he responded that he didn't like Shogo because he contributed to Jubilee being sidelined.

It's an idea that's been stated about superheroes before, that parenthood causes them to be sidelined. But I'm not sure I buy that. The characters who usually get made into parents are usually characters that don't appear very regularly anyway. Largely because they're the ones that writers are allowed to take the biggest risks with. So, they're characters that get sidelined frequently anyway.

Let's use Tigra as an example here. Someone here on the boards once said that her having baby William was unnecessary baggage and caused her to be sidelined or put into Limbo. But Tigra didn't get all that much use anyway. In fact, Greer Nelson had been revamped any number of times and failed.

So, what do you guys think?

[XPac]

I don't think parenthood sidelines a character, but it is one possible way of explaining why a character is being sidelined.

The reality is the simple reason a character is sidelined is because they don't want to use them. If they do, then they will regardless of whether or not they have a kid.

[DragonsChi]

Yep, I think it's been shown time and time again that it does. Having a kid for most characters is like a ticket into comic limbo.

One of the really hard things about having children in comics is that they instantly age , or place an age on the character. For every year that character is in the public eye the more and more it becomes a question as to why their children have not grown up yet.

Limbo is the easiest route since writers can either ignore the child existed when their parents return, make it easier on fans to get rid of the child when the hero returns, or to age up the kid to actually have some use for them in story.

[KurtW95]

Oftentimes, yes. It rarely works. And when it comes to characters like Jubilee and Spider-Woman, them having the kids in the first place are decisions of irresponsibility. Jubilee I said a teenager. She was a vampire. She is a mutant. She lives with people who are regularly attacked in a place with no security. There is no father and she is not equipped to take care of the kid to give him a good life. As far as we can tell, he is not a mutant, therefore, there is no reason for the X-Men to hold onto him. If Jubilee really cared about the kid, she would let an ordinary couple adopt him. It would be putting his future and life above her own. But sadly, at the moment, she seems to be more concerned about herself. Keeping him out of selfishness and irresponsibility. Then there’s Spider-Woman. She pretty much had the kid as a hobby. Knowing that he wouldn’t have a father, Jessica decided to make a baby for fun. And she doesn’t even take care of him. She pawns him off on other people because she wants the baby as a hobby, but at the same time doesn’t want to give up her superheroing. More irresponsibility and putting herself above the kid who she chose to bring into the world for her own pleasure.

When it comes to other characters, Luke Cage and Tigra have definitely been sidelined. Or more accurately, Luke Cage has been neutered. But that has more to do with being tied to Jessica Jones. The kid just cements that. Though, there’s an easy way out for both of these characters. Tigra’s kid is half Skrull, so it wouldn’t be surprising for him to grow up super fast and go evil. Similar with Cage’s daughter. It was teased that she was a Skrull forever ago. You just have to reopen that plotline and separate Luke from Jessica. Then, perhaps, he can be fun character again.

Nadia Whateverherlastnameis is also horrible for Hank and Janet because she will thus forward be pinned to the stories featuring the characters and will minimize Janet as a secondary Wasp and the stepmom.

IMO, the characters that should be allowed to have kids should pretty much be limited to Reed and Sue, Aquaman and Mera, Animal Man, Scott Lang, Pietro and Crystal, and Black Bolt and Medusa. And all of their kids should have fixed ages and not get older. Cable being a weird exception seeing that his aging doesn’t age his parents and he generally takes care of himself.

If you want stories with superheroes having kids, I think it’s best for them to take place in an AU like the original Super Sons.

[WebLurker]

In a post-Ant-Man movie world, I think it's safe to say the answer is "no," but, at the end of the day, it all a case-by-case basis, since success depends on how the writers handle it.

[Anduinel]

In a post-Ant-Man movie world, I think it's safe to say the answer is "no," but, at the end of the day, it all a case-by-case basis, since success depends on how the writers handle it.

Pretty much. And it also depends on how that parenthood comes about. Character that has an established pre-teen/teenaged kid, adopts one, or becomes a mentor figure? Probably not going to get sidelined. An established character who has/acquires a baby? Almost certainly looking at some time on the sidelines. It pretty much comes down to the fact that children are characters that can enhance the story, while babies are props that have to be written around.

[King_Thor13]

Pretty much. And it also depends on how that parenthood comes about. A character that has an established pre-teen/teenaged kid, adopts one, or becomes a mentor figure? Probably not going to get sidelined. An established character who has/acquires a baby? Almost certainly looking at some time on the sidelines. It pretty much comes down to the fact that children are characters that can enhance the story, while babies are props that have to be written around.

Can't really word it much better than this. Cable's existence doesn't sideline Jean Grey or Cyclops, Wiccan doesn't sideline Scarlet Witch, Ahura doesn't sideline Black Bolt, Viv doesn't sideline Vision etc. because their age and independence don't hinder their parents because they aren't reliant on them, and they're capable characters in their own right. When it comes to having a baby, characters like Jubilee and Spider-Woman (probably the most important characters to point out here) have been sidelined because they have the added complication of required workarounds, such as babysitters (Porcupine with Gerry, Chamber with Shogo, Iron Fist with Danielle Cage etc.) and it becomes cumbersome for writers and readers alike when each time the characters are used an explanation is needed as to why they aren't with their child. And of course, there's the argument that they shouldn't be out there risking their lives as superheroes while they have children anyway...

I personally don't think its a great plot device. A child wasn't necessary for Spider-Woman or Cannonball, and I wish they hadn't burdened the characters with a child. Now they're irrevocably connected and it will continue to impact their character. Furthermore, the child will likely never age, or will do so at an extremely slow rate because Marvel do not wish to advance the timeline to a point where certain characters (Spider-Man for example) have to change to match their supposed age in canon, both in terms of appearance and personalities. I personally wouldn't mind a relatively normal timeline, and seeing characters grow up, but editorial is deadset against it. X-Men Editor Jordan D. White spoke about it a while ago and said his idealistic and perceived ages for a few characters. It's a strange thing anyway, because some characters age while others don't- Wiccan and Speed are at least 16, but it def hasn't been sixteen years for the Avengers because that would 100% be reflected in their physicality.

[Drops Of Venus]

I don't think it does; at least not with the characters that I can think of. Jessica Jones and Luke Cage are doing more than fine. Jubilee and Spider-Woman are doing ok. And even if you want to argue some of those characters could be used more, I don't think they would be used more than they already are if they didn't have children, tbh.

And I gotta say, I really don't think babies are that much of a problem outside of specific character-focused stories (like a solo book), because you don't need to focus so much on that character's personal life. Odin and Freyja had a baby a few years ago and the fact we have pretty much not seen the baby ever since that one story has been hardly a problem at all. It didn't stop Odin or Freyja from appearing on any Thor story when it was necessary. I mean, would it be nice to know what's going on with the child? Sure. But we can assume they are somewhere, being taken care of by someone. If a writer really wants to use a character, they will find a way to do so, regardless of parenthood or not. And most readers are smart enough to create their own headcanons whenever the baby isn't around.

[Digifiend]

Yeah, in Spider-Woman's case, no Gerry? Porcupine is babysitting. Jubilee without Shogo? Is Chamber around? If not, he's the sitter. She's also known to have left him with students. Jessica and Luke appeared in Adamantium Agenda. No Dani. Iron Fist was notably absent. The last issue revealed he was the sitter. It'll almost always be that easy to explain.

In Viv Vision's case, Vision ended up as supporting cast in Champions after he left the Avengers a few months ago. He actually avoided being sidelined BECAUSE he has a child.

[gurkle]

There may be a slight bias here in that characters who are chosen to have children are often characters who are in danger of being sidelined anyway.

For example, the Vision and the Scarlet Witch were certainly sidelined for a while after they had their twin sons. But were they sidelined because they had kids, or did they have kids because Marvel had run out of other stories to tell about them? Probably the latter.

When editors buy a pitch for a character to have a baby, it's rarely for a series or character at the peak. It's a way of attracting some short-term interest, but after that's over the character will usually still decline anyway.

[DragonsChi]

Just throwing it out there.... Current Wiccan and Speed are more figuratively Wanda's kids then they actually are her's.

And Vision is probably being prepped to be sideline as we are having this discussion. He currently is receiving less screen time than Viv as is.

But that has little to do with the discussion just wanted to say it.

[Huntsman Spider]

Yeah, in Spider-Woman's case, no Gerry? Porcupine is babysitting. Jubilee without Shogo? Is Chamber around? If not, he's the sitter. She's also known to have left him with students. Jessica and Luke appeared in Adamantium Agenda. No Dani. Iron Fist was notably absent. The last issue revealed he was the sitter. It'll almost always be that easy to explain.

In Viv Vision's case, Vision ended up as supporting cast in Champions after he left the Avengers a few months ago. He actually avoided being sidelined BECAUSE he has a child.

And even in The Adamantium Agenda, once the end of the first issue revealed that it was Dani's DNA up for bidding at that illicit superhuman DNA auction they initially thought was going to be for Wolverine's DNA . . . Jessica and Luke were all over that. I would say that done well, parenthood actually ups the stakes for characters, because they have to actually address what kind of world they're fighting to leave or create for the next generation, instead of just thinking in terms of "punch out the bad guy right now."

[Carabas]

No.

Parenthood doesn't cause characters to become sidelined.

But sometimes becoming sidelined causes characters to become parents, as the in-universe explanation for why such or so is getting sidelined.

[Devaishwarya]

No.
Writers with limited imaginations sideline characters.

[phonogram12]

In a solo book, probably. If it's a part of a team book like FF, no because not only are there other characters they can focus on, it's also a part of the dynamic.