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.

[GrandEleven]

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.

I think you have the cause/effect backwards.

When a writer isn't sure what to do with a character and plans on sidelining them, parenthood/settling down is an easy/ideal story to pick. Even writers who don't write about families can find a million reasons to solo the hero if they really want to use them.

[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.

[phantom1592]

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.

Why would you say that? !st) Cassie was around before the powers and was a plot point during Scott's whole character. It's one thing when the kids are there from the beginning. 2nd) The fact that they aged her up in the comics and made her a hero was part of the problem with the timeline. She's actually a good example of why it SHOULDN'T happen...

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..

This is a huge part of it. A responsible parent retires and protects and provides for their children. People have stopped seeing Kid Sidekicks as wish fulfillment and now just see Child Endangerment. The 'grown up mentality' don't want heroes to be putting on masks and swinging from buildings to fight random crime when they've got kids at home. It's irresponsible. So yeah.... most of the time when a hero has a kid or spouse or something that SHOULD be more important to them... they stick to the background.

The other that's been mentioned is of course the sliding timeline. If you age ONE character, you have to age them all... and it's sloppy and ugly storytelling at it's worst. Comic Editor's can't keep a leash on their writers to even TRY to keep that ball of yarn straight. So at the end of the day, Heroes with babies just isn't worth the trouble it brings.

[WebLurker]

Why would you say that? !st) Cassie was around before the powers and was a plot point during Scott's whole character. It's one thing when the kids are there from the beginning. 2nd) The fact that they aged her up in the comics and made her a hero was part of the problem with the timeline. She's actually a good example of why it SHOULDN'T happen...

I guess we have totally different opinions on the subject. My main point was that the movie was an example of how having a parent superhero can be used for good effect and that it's not inherently bad in and of itself.

So at the end of the day, Heroes with babies just isn't worth the trouble it brings.

Having seen the Incredibles movies, read the Spider-Man: Renew Your Vows and All-New Wolverine series, I would have to disagree. (Note: if you meant infant kids, not kids in general that might be a different situation, but I still stand by the idea that it can be executed well under the right circumstances.)

[Agent Z]

Why would you say that? !st) Cassie was around before the powers and was a plot point during Scott's whole character. It's one thing when the kids are there from the beginning. 2nd) The fact that they aged her up in the comics and made her a hero was part of the problem with the timeline. She's actually a good example of why it SHOULDN'T happen...






This is a huge part of it. A responsible parent retires and protects and provides for their children. People have stopped seeing Kid Sidekicks as wish fulfillment and now just see Child Endangerment. The 'grown up mentality' don't want heroes to be putting on masks and swinging from buildings to fight random crime when they've got kids at home. It's irresponsible. So yeah.... most of the time when a hero has a kid or spouse or something that SHOULD be more important to them... they stick to the background.

.

Except no one is saying these kids have to become sidekicks.

[ed2962]

No it does not.

By the way, Reed and Sue go planet hopping at the drop of a hat, are they irresponsible for depending on the story leaving the kids behind and possibly making them orphans...or how about when they take the kids along possibly placing them in danger?

Right now in those "grown up" DC Comics Superman and Batman have their kids fighting crime!

[phantom1592]

I guess we have totally different opinions on the subject. My main point was that the movie was an example of how having a parent superhero can be used for good effect and that it's not inherently bad in and of itself.


Having seen the Incredibles movies, read the Spider-Man: Renew Your Vows and All-New Wolverine series, I would have to disagree. (Note: if you meant infant kids, not kids in general that might be a different situation, but I still stand by the idea that it can be executed well under the right circumstances.)

Well the question was 'does parenthood sideline characters' which generally implies Infants and babies. If the kids are around from the beginning and are fully formed 'kids'... that's a bit different. But if the kids are old enough to actually be characters in their own right, then obviously they CAN'T sideline the hero... they were there from the beginning. If a baby comes along later in the game... then you've already added at least 9 months to the overall timeline.

As for Renew your Vows... and the Incredibles? Yeah, it's pretty irresponsible. It's usually pointed out that having kids means you retire. Things may happen to get you back in the tights, but it should NOT be taken lightly. AND the baby years were again spent retired. For whatever outside reasons, the kids became the #1 priority.

Also, Ant-man is a fairly unusual situation. Cassie is not HIS responsibility. She's not in his custody. She has a mother, she has a stepfather. she does not live with Scott. He can fight crime without worrying that she'll end up in an orphanage or something. If he's stepped on by Galactus, She will be just as well provided as if he wasn't.

Except no one is saying these kids have to become sidekicks.

I know, but Batman and child endangerment is a common segue whenever 'superhero parents' comes up. He's raised what five robins... and only had 2/5th of them brutally murdered. Nope... 3/5th, forgot Damian died two for a hot second. Maybe 4/5ths if you count the Tim Drake fake out recently... we knew he survived, but they didn't...