DC’s New Superman, Jon Kent, Comes Out as Bisexual in Upcoming Comic

[Journey]

Except it’s not a truthful statement. It’s not. Not unless you are prepared to unpack the way the character was treated specifically in the 50’s and 60’s snd the way the political movement against women forcing them into certain gender roles after the war impacted even fictional women like Lois. “Damsel” is a loaded gender statement weaponized against women specifically. It’s a much more nuanced topic and if you can’t talk about it with nuance you shouldn’t talk about it at all.

Referring to a woman being saved by a male partner as a “damsel” is a loaded, unfair term weaponized against women specifically to make them seem lesser and weak when, in reality, there is literally nothing wrong with Superman saving anyone who doesn’t have his Powers. It’s a nuanced convo that needs to be talked about with nuance or, again, just don’t do it.

The bottom line is it’s a loaded gender conversion with a lot more nuance and it didn’t belong in a convo about Jay period. It was out of place particularly given the sensitive way that misogyny and homophobia can often align. It was a likely a slip up on Taylor’s part and hopefully he learns snd does better next time.

Woah Deep.

[Journey]

Change of Topic what y'all think Jays powers are gonna be? I'm hoping he pulls an All Might & gets all Swol & ass kickery to subvert expectations.

[Nelliebly]

There is nothing wrong with superheroes saving their loved ones but it is also understandable, that the trope of putting the non-powered love one in danger or a superhero loved one is their weakness and therefore made them vulnerable have been overused and as badly as Taylor may have phrased it he was simply saying he didn't want to rely on this dynamic for Jay and Jon's relationship going forward.

Right but, again, the reason that trope is often abused can be traced back to misogyny.

Steve Trevor is viewed as a “lesser man” because, generally speaking, many straight men have a hard time with a relationship where the male figure has less physical power. That’s due to patriarchy.

Lois Lane is often brutally murdered or hurt to cause Superman pain because her humanity is not valued enough by almost exclusively entirely male writing teams who view things only through the lens of the men and forget she deserves agency and humanity.

None of these tropes are “bad” are on their own. It’s misogyny etc that can, at times, abuse them.

And these tropes have entirely ::different:; meaning when you are talking about a queer relationship.

The Supercorp fans in Supergirl fandom (fans of Kara and Lena) love seeing the hero Saves civilian trope employed there because that type of romanticism is so often forbidden between two women.

Barry saving Iris on The Flash can have value distinctly because Black women are so rarely allowed to exist in that role as love interest worthy of saving.

Lois Lane often being played by an actress over 40 also changes the dynamic because, again, women over a certain age are rarely if ever allowed to be treated as “the one” love interests let alone with a younger man. (The Bvs love scene, for instance, hits differently when you remember and understand that Amy Adams is 40 years old—not some 24 year old ingenue in a bathtub etc)

Two men in love may face pressure to deny traditionally feminine roles because it’s seen as beneath them etc.

That’s the issue here though. All of this stuff is complex and nuanced and so you have to be careful when you talk about it. Taylor didn’t do a good job of that which is why people are bothered by it. But I personally wish him luck in the future and just hope we all try to do our best to learn from the dialogue.

[Sacred Knight]

Personally I don't like the things Taylor is saying about Superman or Lois to push his characters. It comes across as arrogant and revisionist history. He's been doing it with Clark, pretending he can possibly do something with Jon that Superman didn't do...when the character's entire foundation has helping the downtrodden, the discriminated again, the non-elite. Periods of really bad writing and bad management don't change that. And now he's doing it with Lois to push the new love interest. If you're passionate about these guys, fine, but don't ignore what Clark and Lois have done and meant in their near century history just because you want to make a mark. Lois was a damsel in distress plenty of times yes. But the periods in which she's not have overshadowed that, for some time. The Silver Age is an iconic time but it was also only 15 or so years. Her more "modern" portrayal is more than double that time. Hell even more than that if you want to throw the Bronze Age in there too. Because SA was so iconic, sure that may still be in the mainstream a little bit to this day. But how much is a pretty big question mark because in recent history there's been notable other media portrayals that they've been privy to where she very much is not the damsel in distress, fitting a modern age mold.

I had said a while back that Taylor reminded me of Scott Snyder with his self hype machine presence. I think now he's surpassed that. Snyder just exaggerated. Taylor's moved onto straight dishonesty.

[Superlad93]

No, he specifically mentions Lois having been portrayed as a damsel and it all flows into the paragraph where he describes Jay as being equal to Jon because he has powers and won't be written that way.

But even then I feel like it's more so talking about the idea of a "damsel in distress" than Lois herself. Lois clearly no longer fits that model, so I doubt he was calling Lois herself, as we know her, one. Rather I think it's about the era she was created it and the role she was made to play at times (regardless of her established character even at the time), and how that role is very easily ascribed to queer male characters of today because of the idea of the one-size fits all "sissy" rule that I've seen in a lot of fiction that use queer male characters. If they're not that then they're the "funny sassy/catty one".

[Nelliebly]

But then you'd have to take into account that he's speaking to a wider audience than just people like you, I, or the people who post on places like this. And also that he's talking about a time where, yes, generally speaking-- especially at the height of the Silver age-- Lois and characters in her general mold were often closer to the general idea of a damsel in distress. You, I, and a bunch of other people who like and are inspired by Lois can bring up instances in that era and further back where that model isn't fair to place on her based on her actions. But when you take into account the general audience and their limited understanding coupled with the stigma around queer male characters and what they're allowed to act like, I think it becomes far less about talking about who and what Lois is today and how far she's come and pushed things.

But like I said, there doesn't feel like there's a lot of nuance in the creation of Jay in combating all of that, so for that I'm not very impressed by what Taylor said. But, like I said before, for the people in the cheap seats a hammer may be more effective than a scalpel.

It’s 2021 and there is literally no need for a straight male writer though to be referencing the silver age when he’s talking about a character who is 83 years old unless, again, he’s specifically prepared to dig into the gender politics weaponized against women during that time period.

I don’t know how nuanced Jay is going to be but I’m rooting for him. I really hope he’s well received and complex.

[Journey]

Is this really that deep? All dude said was Jay & Jon will be able to rely on 1 another in combat situations that was his main point. The rest of this seems to be blown out of proportion.

[Yoda]

But even then I feel like it's more so talking about the idea of a "damsel in distress" than Lois herself. Lois clearly no longer fits that model, so I doubt he was calling Lois herself, as we know her, one. Rather I think it's about the era she was created it and the role she was made to play at times (regardless of her established character even at the time), and how that role is very easily ascribed to queer male characters of today because of the idea of the one-size fits all "sissy" rule that I've seen in a lot of fiction that use queer male characters. If they're not that then they're the "funny sassy/catty one".

I agree I don't think he intended to say it the way he did or for it to be read the way we - who do have a lot more background and knowledge of this than the average audience (though this wasn't like CNN it was IGN if I'm recalling correctly) - did. But you're ascribing context to it that simply is not anywhere within the actual text. The way it is presented never touches on the issue of queer character stereotypes. It all flows from the discussion of Lois' historical role as a damsel in the context of her role as Clark's historical love interest. And that goes directly into a discussion of Jay's powers, how he can't be hurt, and how that makes his and Jon's relationship a relationship of equals.

Fully agree I am like way more touchy about how Lois is referred to or discussed than like 90% of the comic audience, let alone general public. But at the same time the way it was discussed fits into the the way Lois is discussed by many comic people to this day. So if you're Taylor, someone who I truly like as a writer and person and who I think really does like and respect Lois as a character, I'd be more careful about basically paraphrasing the language used to argue why Lois is "out of date" as Superman's love interest. Particularly if I'm the guy best known for a story where she gets killed and Superman goes off the deep end.

[Superlad93]

Change of Topic what y'all think Jays powers are gonna be? I'm hoping he pulls an All Might & gets all Swol & ass kickery to subvert expectations.

Taylor said "he can't be hurt"

Based off that, what we know of what 5G was going to be, the fact that he was also able to sneak up on Jon, and the cover of issue 5, I almost want to say that my throw-away theory that Jay is the reincarnation of Jenny Sparks is legit. Little known fact, but Jenny Sparks couldn't really be hurt ether. She'd just turn into pure electricity and either physical harm would pass through her or she'd heal instantly.

But boy-o-boy do I not think Taylor is cut out to really grapple with the fascinating post-gender/post-sex ideas that would HAVE TO go into that. Because if you don't do that then you'd be effectively killing off fairly major female character in order to create a male character. So you'd need to address that, yes, this was Jenny in a satisfactory way.

My other guess is that Jay has some sort of absorbing ability. He has a chameleon mask, so that would imply something dealing with adapting to your surroundings, right? Maybe he can absorb objects around him like Marvel's Absorbing Man, and absorbing things may heal him? And maybe as a secondary function it also lets him be very stealthy even against a Kryptonian?

[Superlad93]

But you're ascribing context to it that simply is not anywhere within the actual text.

I think it becomes implicit when the whole point of the text is "hey Superman is bi, and this is his new boyfriend".

Fully agree I am like way more touchy about how Lois is referred to or discussed than like 90% of the comic audience, let alone general public. But at the same time the way it was discussed fits into the the way Lois is discussed by many comic people to this day. So if you're Taylor, someone who I truly like as a writer and person and who I think really does like and respect Lois as a character, I'd be more careful about basically paraphrasing the language used to argue why Lois is "out of date" as Superman's love interest. Particularly if I'm the guy best known for a story where she gets killed and Superman goes off the deep end.

It's certainly not like I don't agree with you.

[Journey]

Taylor said "he can't be hurt"

Based off that, what we know of what 5G was going to be, the fact that he was also able to sneak up on Jon, and the cover of issue 5, I almost want to say that my throw-away theory that Jay is the reincarnation of Jenny Sparks is legit. Little known fact, but Jenny Sparks couldn't really be hurt ether. She'd just turn into pure electricity and either physical harm would pass through her or she'd heal instantly.

But boy-o-boy do I not think Taylor is cut out to really grapple with the fascinating post-gender/post-sex ideas that would HAVE TO go into that. Because if you don't do that then you'd be effectively killing off fairly major female character in order to create a male character. So you'd need to address that, yes, this was Jenny in a satisfactory way.

My other guess is that Jay has some sort of absorbing ability. He has a chameleon mask, so that would imply something dealing with adapting to your surroundings, right? Maybe he can absorb objects around him like Marvel's Absorbing Man, and absorbing things may heal him? And maybe as a secondary function it also lets him be very stealthy even against a Kryptonian?

Interesting theory I just feel we have enough electric heroes though IDK if I want another, I like the absorbing idea that could be neat!! My theory is he's like Claire from Heroes with that constant Cell Reproduction so fast to the point he feels no pain at all it's simple & effective.

[Superlad93]

I am 40 years old. I have been staying with my parents for about 8 months now for personal reasons. I walked in after work last night and my Dad looked at me in outrage and said "can you believe they are making Superman's son bisexual'?! My Dad was beyond upset. Now the guy has not read a comic in over 60 years. My Dad is very old school and watches Fox News 24/7. I sat down with my Dad and started to explain a few things to him. I don't know or remember the exact words I told him but it was along the lines that people come from many walks of life. Being different is ok. Being different is actually wonderful. It gives this dark world we all live in some color at times. I ended the conversation by hugging my father and told him being bisexual is ok. I then said what if my 5 year old son, his only grandson comes to one of us someday and says he is bisexual or gay? We would never stop loving him or turn him away. So we should not do the same with Jon, Superman's son.

Now do I agree with making Jon bisexual? I am still not sure. Either way I love Jon and everything about him. I love the new book he is in and I am going to keep on reading it. Jon being bisexual does not change my opinion or him or would ever make me just stop reading his book.

This was really sweet to hear. Really glad you were able to sit down and hash it out like that with your dad.

I myself am not queer (I'm also not white), but Jon's a character that I freakin love, and the idea that now there are some people out there that are going to identify with him in such a strong way genuinely couldn't make me happier as a Superman fan and fan of fiction.

[Superlad93]

Interesting theory I just feel we have enough electric heroes though IDK if I want another, I like the absorbing idea that could be neat!! My theory is he's like Claire from Heroes with that constant Cell Reproduction so fast to the point he feels no pain at all it's simple & effective.

I agree, that's another good point why I'd rather it not be the Jenny theory.

I figure his mask and the fact that he could sneak up on Jon (and get up on that building too, as Jon notes) are clues, but I certainly would enjoy something as simple and effective as hyper cell reproduction.

....especially if he's to one day be Jon's Magneto

[Yoda]

I think it becomes implicit when the whole point of the text is "hey Superman is bi, and this is his new boyfriend".

I'm sure it's possible, if not likely, that was his intention. Just the way it was presented (again likely by the way the interviewer structured the article) doesn't lend itself to that reading. See, now here I'm having trouble shutting off my lawyer brain and ascribing meaning to text not present in the actual language!

It's certainly not like I don't agree with you.

I didn't mean to imply that you did. I don't think Taylor would either. Guy probably was doing like 10 different interviews and made some clumsy analogies at like 3 am Australia time. I'm fully on board with this book and how he's handling Jon and all this.

[RobinGA]

You don't deserve a pass for saying these kinds of things about Lois Lane when you write a Superman book.

We don't live in the 1950s anymore. Since at least the 1960s Lois Lane has been one of the most important
characters not just in the Superman universe, but for DC. She has had her own comic, been a vibrant character
in both comics and media for generations. Untold number of girls and boys have become journalists because
of her.

It reveals a deep, deep patriarchal misogny to make the kind of comments that Taylor made, but also ignorance
about the Lois Lane character. Taylor knew exactly what he was saying. He revealed what he was all about.
It raises questions about how well they know the DC Comics character to say these kinds of things. Go back to
reread the Lois Lane comic, examine the way she has been a multifaceted character. It has been a long,
long, long time since she was just a damsel character.