What if he doesn't come back?

[misslane]

?????

You were.

"They should hire more women. It'll make the stories better." Talent and quality weren't mentioned. Just gender.

It's your assumption that the women that I was calling for to be hired would not be talented or deserving. It's a blatantly sexist response.

So you're including the likes of Ann Nocenti and Meriditch Finch. I'll pass.

I didn't. You know I didn't. Implying that I was suggesting untalented and unproven women be hired to meet a quota was your sexist assumption.

Perhaps you assumed that a requirement of "talented" was obvious enough it didnt need to be mentioned?

Yeah, I did. The fact that you didn't assume talent was important is very telling, don't you think?

FYI: I never said, "They should hire more women. It'll make the stories better." You made that quote up both ignoring accuracy and context. When I said hiring more women would be a positive thing, it was clearly in the context of adding both talent AND diversity to the Superman office.

[Francisco]

I don't know who Max Landis is. He probably is very talented and those who know him probably like his work. Max Landis has a name. If you give a name people knows whom you're talking about. But when you just say men or women without naming names is a lot harder not to get worried about the quality or lack thereof. I'm pretty sure that if instead of Max Landis you've said Frank Miller. A lot of fans would be up in arms scared as hell for the future of Superman. Miller is a man.

[vasir12]

I'm not sure what's the problem here. There is nothing wrong with getting women creators. The problem it's not like there is a lack of women interested. Obviously you gotta be good, but are some of you saying that it's impossible to get someone good and female? Getting diversity in thought will lead to new ideas in the zeitgeist. There is no down side here.

In relation to this post, I do think a change of leader in this office would do some good. The rumors that women are bared from this one is a troubling one and I do think a fresh perspective in life is always good in the creative business.

[Francisco]

I deal if facts not rumors



And yes I think diversity is a good thing. Yes I think Superman could benefit from having talented female artists/writers working on its books.

[Prime]

I think its also time to expant Superman's suppoorting cast. Other than just the DP. We need a Nightwing and Red Hood equivalent. And since Conner is gone. A red robin equivalent too.

[vasir12]

I think its also time to expant Superman's suppoorting cast. Other than just the DP. We need a Nightwing and Red Hood equivalent. And since Conner is gone. A red robin equivalent too.

Yep yep. What role do you think Kenan would fill?

[Prime]

Yep yep. What role do you think Kenan would fill?

Since Conner is gone I think it might be Red Robin...but it looks like Nightwing. I had an idea before. Bruce Kent, Jon Kent, Conner Kent and Christopher Kent.

[Francisco]

Superman would be just fine with Steel, Supergirl, Powergirl and Superboy as his extended superhero family. I just want him to be far away from Batman and his issues. He doesn't need Batman at all. He could bounce science stuff with Steel.

[misslane]

I don't know who Max Landis is. He probably is very talented and those who know him probably like his work. Max Landis has a name. If you give a name people knows whom you're talking about. But when you just say men or women without naming names is a lot harder not to get worried about the quality or lack thereof. I'm pretty sure that if instead of Max Landis you've said Frank Miller. A lot of fans would be up in arms scared as hell for the future of Superman. Miller is a man.

Don't you think it's telling that just the generic "hire more women" is met with the same skepticism as hiring Frank Miller (i.e. someone with a known negative track record)? It's a clear example of prejudice. The unknown prospective female writer generates the same concern that a known hack writer for Superman generates. Miller is judged for his actual work; the unknown woman is judged just because she is a woman. The assumption seems to be that simply suggesting that DC hire more women to write Superman means that a lack of talent is a genuine concern. Why?

There aren't a lot of female writers famous for their Superman-related work due to systemic barriers to their participation. First, there's the people in charge of hiring creative talent who continue to employ someone who has a history of sexually harassing women. That's going to be deterrent to talented women. Second, there's the fact that women, unlike men, do not have a lot of role models in Superman-related properties. Gail Simone wrote Action Comics years ago, which is legitimately encouraging, and there have been several women who have contributed to Superman in the past.

In other words, perhaps it's worthwhile to consider that it's more difficult to name a lot of names for women because there just aren't that many women who have been able to make a name for themselves in male-driven superhero comics. It's just curious, to me, that without naming names, the assumption is that hiring women warrants concerns about talent. Just the mere mention of hiring women is deserving of worry. If I had said something even more generic like DC needs new blood in the Superman office, would your first thought have been about DC hiring talentless hacks? I don't think so.

[Prime]

Superman would be just fine with Steel, Supergirl, Powergirl and Superboy as his extended superhero family. I just want him to be far away from Batman and his issues. He doesn't need Batman at all. He could bounce science stuff with Steel.

They didnt cut it. But I agree on the Batman part.

[Agniwolf]

Again, I don't think you guys realize how unbelievably sexist all of this stuff sounds. When I suggested that I'd like to see more women in comics, your first response isn't to agree but rather to offer numerous concerned caveats related to the talent and agendas of these prospective writers. Your kneejerk reaction to someone expressing a desire to see more gender parity in the Superman office is not that hiring more women means hiring more people who are as talented as men and can offer a unique perspective to Superman comics. No, instead, your first response is to generate a list of concerns and fears about the dangers of hiring more women. For example, it seems common concerns are that hiring more women means confronting the scary possibility that DC would be hiring a bunch of untalented hacks to meet a non-existent affirmative action requirement.

You know, sometimes when someone -- in this case that someone is me -- says that she would like to see more women involved in making Superman comics, she just means that more talented women with good ideas should be hired. They do exist, you know. It's funny, when guys here talk about hiring more innovative writers for Superman (i.e. getting rid of someone like Dan Jurgens in favor of someone like Max Landis) no one writes fearful posts about how these new hires could be untalented social justice warriors hired for the sole reason of increasing diversity. No, when it comes to hiring women, apparently what is between her legs matters a great deal. Because what is in between her legs means that just the idea of hiring her means that boogeymen like special treatment and agenda-driven writing is of the utmost concern.

In other words, the next time someone says that it would be nice to see more women involved in the creation of Superman comics, it would be nice if the first thing that's said isn't that it's important to hire talented people who can write things besides thinly disguised feminist propaganda. Maybe it's okay to just say that with so many talented female creators out there right now, it would be great if some of them could bring those talents to Superman. Hiring more women isn't something that should be the cause of concern. If hiring more women concerns you this much, women aren't the problem, you are.

in my humble opinion maybe the problem was that you had not exemplified a name, i get were you are coming from, but for your context to have been grasped, and it was clearly not if you do have to explain every step of it, (a teacher of mine once said that the obvious must be spoken) a reference could have certainly eased your argument. lets see maybe gail simone? i heard rumors here that she is a clois fan, so for the sake of a preference i would say that i would prefer not, but see she is a good writer and the discussion would get down to preferences in style rather than this mess of segregation that happened here (now,that was scary)

[misslane]

in my humble opinion maybe the problem was that you had not exemplified a name, i get were you are coming from, but for your context to have been grasped, and it was clearly not if you do have to explain every step of it, (a teacher of mine once said that the obvious must be spoken) a reference could have certainly eased your argument. lets see maybe gail simone? i heard rumors here that she is a clois fan, so for the sake of a preference i would say that i would prefer not, but see she is a good writer and the discussion would get down to preferences in style rather than this mess of segregation that happened here (now,that was scary)

Seriously? The fact that naming a specific woman is the only way the suggestion of hiring Generic Woman X can be free from skepticism about talent is a clear example of prejudice and sexism. The default assumption seems to be that hiring more women could be interpreted as a call for carelessly hiring potentially untalented employees. No one would ever assume that a company hiring new employees would set out to hire risky employees who are incapable of fulfilling their duties. Why is that the assumption when hiring more women is mentioned? Of course, if more women are hired, then they would be qualified applicants. The fact that anything else would be assumed is what reveals the underlying sexism at play here.

[vasir12]

Seriously? The fact that naming a specific woman is the only way the suggestion of hiring Generic Woman X can be free from skepticism about talent is a clear example of prejudice and sexism. The default assumption seems to be that hiring more women could be interpreted as a call for carelessly hiring potentially untalented employees. No one would ever assume that a company hiring new employees would set out to hire risky employees who are incapable of fulfilling their duties. Why is that the assumption when hiring more women is mentioned? Of course, if more women are hired, then they would be qualified applicants. The fact that anything else would be assumed is what reveals the underlying sexism at play here.

It is, but people would rather use whatever pseudo-logic they can get to make a straw-man argument. The call to hire women doesn't mean to hire people that don't know what they're doing and that's very obvious.

[Agniwolf]

Seriously? The fact that naming a specific woman is the only way the suggestion of hiring Generic Woman X can be free from skepticism about talent is a clear example of prejudice and sexism. The default assumption seems to be that hiring more women could be interpreted as a call for carelessly hiring potentially untalented employees. No one would ever assume that a company hiring new employees would set out to hire risky employees who are incapable of fulfilling their duties. Why is that the assumption when hiring more women is mentioned? Of course, if more women are hired, then they would be qualified applicants. The fact that anything else would be assumed is what reveals the underlying sexism at play here.

it was just a example of reference, calm down

references, like it or not, do have a weight to things they pertain. wenever i go to interviews they do ask me about my references on the subject, i i fail to refer to pesavento, foucault an veyne i just go home knowing i wont receive the job call. they could be new writers and you just say, dunno, i would like a J.K.Rowling style of writing or a Anne Rice elseworlds or Arakawa Hiromu art

geez, see there i go taking bullets for messing were i was not called

[vasir12]

it was just a example of reference, calm down

references, like it or not, do have a weight to things they pertain. wenever i go to interviews they do ask me about my references on the subject, i i fail to refer to pesavento, foucault an veyne i just go home knowing i wont receive the job call. they could be new writers and you just say, dunno, i would like a J.K.Rowling style of writing or a Anne Rice elseworlds or Arakawa Hiromu art

geez, see there i go taking bullets for messing were i was not called

I don't think she was throwing hostility your way.