Controversial Superman Opinions

[Nelliebly]

It doesn't steal her agency. She wasn't designed as Superman's wife. She was designed as his main love interest and main supporting cast member. You keep those things and the agency that is Lois Lane will always be intact. The classic set up is more fun for me as a reader because I find their relationship to be more interesting that way. And its really not that fresh for them to have to hide their relationship from the public. That's been a thing for over 20 years now. That's not to say the classic set-up isn't even more aged. That lasted around 50 years. So both are old set ups now. I just happen to prefer the latter more.

In the end this is moot because its obvious DC isn't going to go back to that again any time soon. But, in my opinion, after reading them as a married couple from the very beginning in 1996, I've come to the*opinion that their dynamic is better*as*rivals/friends whom are*mutually attracted to each other but not*monogamous. This is not rooted in patriarchy but*rather rooted in the idea that in fiction, the spark and the drama and the intensity of a romance story is always at its highest during the chase, and tends to fizzle out after the pay off. This isn't the case for every consumer of course,*and maybe when it comes to Superman fandom is a rare opinion, but for me, these days I fall into that category.

Edit...forgive the weird placements of asterisks. I think its a bug with my browser.

Yes, it steals her agency. Look, you are entitled to your opinion (and I know from looking at your other posts that you favor Superman/WW so obviously that is also influencing you here) but I'm trying to carefully ask you to reflect on how gender can and does impact how we are trained to see media.

Lois and Superman were created together in 1938. To say that things were different back then for women (just as they were different in the 70's) is an understatement. Yet, even Jerry Siegel himself by the early 1940's realized that Lois and Superman should be working as partners. We know that from the K-Metal story.

Media has trained us for decades to believe that romantic relationships are more "exciting" during the chase and that is absolutely tied to patriarchy. It stems from centuries of stories where women were viewed as a "prize" that a man "wins" and once a man wins the prize the narrative is over. These stories rarely ever take into account what the woman wants, how she feels, what she desires. This is how media has trained people to view love and we need to break it.

There is nothing "modern" about a Clark Kent who can't be monogamous with the woman he loves. The idea that it's more exciting is a dated view of masculinity that upholds this idea that romance is more exciting when you "aren't tied down." We know now that this kind of viewpoint generally isn't fair to the women involved and rarely takes into account what they want or think. Just as we know now that the idea that "the chase" is always the most important part of love is also a fallacy because it creates this situation where people think life and adventure is "over" when you get married and that's just not fair to anyone to imply that.

Years ago, Hollywood was dominated by these eternal bachelor heroes who strung women along and just couldn't be monogamous. The Warren Beatty types were very popular. James Bond with a new woman in every movie was this masculine ideal. But in the last 25-30 years...our view of masculinity has changed. And this is a GOOD thing. Our "sexiest man alive" used to be a playboy or a guy who couldn't commit. Today? Our sexiest man alive is almost always a committed husband and father. Being a good husband and father is considered "hot" and sexy now in a way it didn't used to be and this is a genuinely GREAT thing. And our media really has to reflect this too. The idea of the long time single guy who just can't be monogamous is not viewed the same way as it was 30 years ago. It's considered pathetic now. The ideal now is that men are emotionally mature which is what Superman NEVER was in all those years of stories where he strung Lois along or couldn't marry her out of some kind of duty. Our culture celebrates men now who go all in for their families. In turn, this allows Lois to have a full experience of female emotions too. Do all women need to get married or be mothers? No. But they also need to be ::allowed:: the choice if it's something they want and narrative has shown us repeatedly that she wants to be with Superman. She loves him. And he loves her.

Superman is such a unique hero because he is monogamous. It's not like comics or superheroes are lacking for a male character who isn't monogamous and just keeps several women in the picture as that's literally every other male hero. Batman, Iron Man, Green Arrow...the list goes on. There are so few marriages in the genre and it's one of the things that makes Superman special.

I just think it really is important to evaluate (and I genuinely say this with zero judgment) how we've been trained to view romance through the lens of culture. The idea that the "chase" is better ::is:: rooted in patriarchy. You can't control how you feel and it's not your fault you feel that way but it's worth some reflection about how these things get formed.

In the meantime? I agree that Lois and Clark are fun as rivals and competing with each other. I would genuinely love to see a writer on Superman who pushes the boundaries a bit of their marriage and shows how two people can love each other but also be in competition. "Lois and Clark" had an episode like that in the 4th season where Lois got promoted over Clark and it was pretty cool. I also come back o reality that this would benefit from a female writer as a younger female writer might know how to push things in a way an older guy isn't going to. And I repeat my broken record of using Outlander as a guide. Outlander has proven once and for all that the myth that the "chase" is the most exciting part of romance is just that...a myth. Outlander has completely changed the landscape of the ways fandom will show up and obsess over the drama and love and sex within a marriage and I think it's a good guide for DC as the characters of Jamie and Claire do share some similarities in archetype to Superman and Lois Lane. It's just that it's time travel as opposed to superpowers. But it's the same archetypes of the noble/farmer/Lord warrior and the feisty civilian who doesn't use a sword/saves day with her brain. In fact, I think Henry Cavill himself actually noticed the similarity as he's a fan of the show. He called Jamie the "a kind of Scottish Superman."

Either way, I appreciate the discussion as it's fun to even talk about this stuff and share ideas. So thank you guys for letting me share my thoughts! I appreciate it.

[Nelliebly]

Stop depowering Superman

I definitely agree that it's been overdone in comics at this point. Though, I admit that I do have a soft spot for a few TV episodes where it's happened just because they tended to be very thoughtful at times. But no question it's overdone as a concept in comics!

[Francisco]

The only agency that matters is Superman. It's his universe not Lois's or Jimmy's or Perry's or any other supporting character.

[Nelliebly]

The only agency that matters is Superman. It's his universe not Lois's or Jimmy's or Perry's or any other supporting character.

Given the nature of a lot of your other posts, I can see that we are not on the same page and that's ok.

Lois is not Perry or Jimmy. She's Lois. I love Jimmy and Perry but neither of them are as important in terms of POV.

The only thing I will say is that I think the Superman franchise is going to struggle going forward and face outright rejection from more diverse readers if Lois's agency and POV is not respected. In media, Lois's feelings are almost almost given a clear voice and history has shown that the franchise is better for it when she gets that. Her YA novels boost the franchise. She is important to the franchise. If you don't care about her agency---if you really don't think her POV matters---I think you are going to find the Superman books become more and more irrelevant and distant from where comics are going. Because this need to put down the female franchise lead and insist how much she doesn't matter or "needs to be kept in her place" is a view that is just not palatable anymore and it's going to be even less palatable going forward.

[Francisco]

Given the nature of a lot of your other posts, I can see that we are not on the same page and that's ok.

Lois is not Perry or Jimmy. She's Lois. I love Jimmy and Perry but neither of them are as important in terms of POV.

The only thing I will say is that I think the Superman franchise is going to struggle going forward and face outright rejection from more diverse readers if Lois's agency and POV is not respected. In media, Lois's feelings are almost almost given a clear voice and history has shown that the franchise is better for it when she gets that. Her YA novels boost the franchise. She is important to the franchise. If you don't care about her agency---if you really don't think her POV matters---I think you are going to find the Superman books become more and more irrelevant and distant from where comics are going. Because this need to put down the female franchise lead and insist how much she doesn't matter or "needs to be kept in her place" is a view that is just not palatable anymore and it's going to be even less palatable going forward.

Lois is not a lead, female or otherwise. She is a supporting character. Superman is the star the sole star of his world. Lois pov is important and yes it is more important that other supporting characters but she is not Superman's equal. Superman pov will always be more important. Superman does need an interesting cast of supporting characters but the story must always be centered around him.

[misslane]

To Nelliebly:

[Nelliebly]

To Nelliebly:

Ha! Thanks for the Lorelei gif! I love her.

Ok an actual controversial Superman position that does not involve Lois (seriously can she get a break here please?)

I...kind of don't mind Supergirl'a reimagining of Jimmy Olsen as "James." Mind you. I think the show has done a terrible job in how they treat him but I like the concept.

[MeloDet]

Either way, I appreciate the discussion as it's fun to even talk about this stuff and share ideas. So thank you guys for letting me share my thoughts! I appreciate it.

Just going to quote that to save space.

By and large I agree with you. Superman is absolutely (to me) a monogamous character; in fact I don't think many people would disagree with that. I personally don't tie monogamy to marriage (which I don't hold in particularly high esteem) all that much and don't view it as a one person per lifetime kind of thing, but maybe that's just me. However, the part that I disagree with is married romances being "exciting." Interesting? yes, enjoyable? sure, but I don't think I'd call them exciting. Stories that feature a married couple (who have romantic moments) can be exciting, but the romance itself isn't exciting (again to me at least). They may be exciting to the people involved in them, but I don't find them exciting to hear about as a third party. Even the Outlander example would be something of an outlier if my knowledge of the series holds out. From what I understand there's some time travel shenanigans going on and the characters aren't really a married couple in the traditional sense that Lois and Clark would be. They aren't (or weren't as far as I know) "settled down."

Where I strongly disagree with you though is that society has (as a whole) changed how it views married vs single men. While we may have moved away from James Bond-esque characters I don't think there's been any sort of push towards marriage as masculine ideal, at least among men themselves. There may have been a shift amongst women or perhaps it's simply the result of media taking women's preferences into account more often. If anything I think there's been a fairly strong push back amongst guys my age against marriage. Not against monogamy mind you; most guys I know are still very much interested in long term monogamous relationships. Marriage and children, however, have lost a lot of their luster. That isn't to say that the majority of people don't still plan on marrying and having kids, just that more and more people seem to be deciding that it's not for them. Honestly this doesn't even have that much to do with Superman since I probably agree that he'd be the sort of person to want to marry (though Lois would probably be more debatable). I just had to voice my disagreement with the general view of romance/marriage I suppose.

[Sacred Knight]

Actually, Wonder Woman doesn't influence me at all here, , as I like both Superman/WW and Superman/Lois. I can, and have, enjoyed the idea of both pairings simultaneously for many years, long before the New 52 and their canon relationship was ever a thing. * I'm mad at how they've crafted things lately to GET to the current status quo, but not necessarily the status quo in of itself. In fact, being a fan of their dynamic is why my feelings are the way the are. I like them together just fine but I 've been reading that since 1992. On the other hand, in the comics I never experienced the classic dynamic first-hand. And I grew to prefer it over time going back, and wished to see it return in the current day. Do I like Superman and WW too? Sure. But I don't want them married and with a kid in any current continuity either.*

[spirit2011]

Superman should get the trnks back, but use only the Trunks. Nops, I'm not a perv, it is all for practical reasons: he can absorb more solar light and also nobody would ever look at his face, so the secret ID would be safe.
No doubt superman would be the most popular hero again.

[Nelliebly]

Just going to quote that to save space.

By and large I agree with you. Superman is absolutely (to me) a monogamous character; in fact I don't think many people would disagree with that. I personally don't tie monogamy to marriage (which I don't hold in particularly high esteem) all that much and don't view it as a one person per lifetime kind of thing, but maybe that's just me. However, the part that I disagree with is married romances being "exciting." Interesting? yes, enjoyable? sure, but I don't think I'd call them exciting. Stories that feature a married couple (who have romantic moments) can be exciting, but the romance itself isn't exciting (again to me at least). They may be exciting to the people involved in them, but I don't find them exciting to hear about as a third party. Even the Outlander example would be something of an outlier if my knowledge of the series holds out. From what I understand there's some time travel shenanigans going on and the characters aren't really a married couple in the traditional sense that Lois and Clark would be. They aren't (or weren't as far as I know) "settled down."

Where I strongly disagree with you though is that society has (as a whole) changed how it views married vs single men. While we may have moved away from James Bond-esque characters I don't think there's been any sort of push towards marriage as masculine ideal, at least among men themselves. There may have been a shift amongst women or perhaps it's simply the result of media taking women's preferences into account more often. If anything I think there's been a fairly strong push back amongst guys my age against marriage. Not against monogamy mind you; most guys I know are still very much interested in long term monogamous relationships. Marriage and children, however, have lost a lot of their luster. That isn't to say that the majority of people don't still plan on marrying and having kids, just that more and more people seem to be deciding that it's not for them. Honestly this doesn't even have that much to do with Superman since I probably agree that he'd be the sort of person to want to marry (though Lois would probably be more debatable). I just had to voice my disagreement with the general view of romance/marriage I suppose.

So for what it's worth? I'm pretty young. And I keep up with celeb trends and I read about celebs and all that stuff. I definitely see a shift in the way younger celeb men (20's and 30's) view marriage now. I think it's absolutely considered more masculine now in progressive circles for sexy guys to want to be committed if that's what they are into. And that's what I see amongst the men I know all of whom are young, attractive, successful men. They look at friends who refuse to commit and view it as Peter Pan syndrome. They don't have this outdated view that kids are a chain around your neck. The pushback I DO see is not about marriage but about heteronormativity. The pushback in progressive circles tends to be about queer men being able to express their feelings and have equal rights. For bisexual men to come out and be themselves. But when I look at celeb culture and the young men I know? Most of them are happy to be married so long as people who are given the same rights. Marriage and children have not "lost their luster" for any guy i know. In fact, most of the men I know (both gay and straight) are thrilled to become fathers and are super excited to be active in their lives. What I personally see (among my admittedly very progressive group of friends) is a rejection of the idea that marriage and kids is some kind of "ball and chain." That's a really outdated view that was predicated by years of sitcoms with the "dumb" husband and his "nagging" wife but even entertainment doesn't really reflect that bad stereotype anymore because I think enough people pointed out it was BS. Again, I'm pretty young and this is my experience as a young married person.

But either way, I think the point is that Clark Kent is a traditional guy who wants to be married. I also think it fits Lois. We see time and time again in canon that she loves Clark and wants to be with him and I'm not down with this idea that career oriented women have to end up alone to pursue her dreams. Marriage and kids have certainly not "lost their luster" to him as he's just not that cynical about life.


If you have not seen Outlander...you prob shouldn't try to comment on it. Yes, it's about time travel. But it's also a love story and the couple in the love story are husband and wife and they have a kid. It's no more untraditional than a story about Superman and Lois Lane has to be. They are a committed couple who go through a ton of drama and connect and reconnect passionately over many years as husband and wife. The term "settled down" is a weird term to begin with as it has roots in sexism. There is literally no reason why Lois and Clark can't live exciting lives while being married to each other.

You say that marriage is "never exciting" but....that's just not true, dude. It can be very exciting and very passionate in the same way that courtship is and I say that from personal experienced. I can tell that you have a personal aversion to it and there is no judgement there but I think you need to look at this narrative removed from that more cynical view because that doesn't fit Clark Kent. And frankly,it doesn't fit Lois either. They like being together.

Marriage is not for everyone and no one needs to be married to be complete. But some people--both men and women----genuinely love being married and having kids and we need to shed both sides of this stigma. We need to shed the stigma that people have to be married to have worth (not true and can and has alienated queer people who went always given same rights) but we also need to shed this stigma that marriage is this "ball and chain" thing where you "settle down" and that it's not masculine to want it. Both stigmas are equally damaging and they both hold people back from living the life they want to live.

Personally I'm inspired by the idea that Lois and Clark are this "us against the world" couple out there living in such a crazy world but trying to survive and loving each other and their kid through it all. That's really cool to me and fresh. But I appreciate you sharing your thoughts.

[Prime]

Given the nature of a lot of your other posts, I can see that we are not on the same page and that's ok.

Lois is not Perry or Jimmy. She's Lois. I love Jimmy and Perry but neither of them are as important in terms of POV.

The only thing I will say is that I think the Superman franchise is going to struggle going forward and face outright rejection from more diverse readers if Lois's agency and POV is not respected. In media, Lois's feelings are almost almost given a clear voice and history has shown that the franchise is better for it when she gets that. Her YA novels boost the franchise. She is important to the franchise. If you don't care about her agency---if you really don't think her POV matters---I think you are going to find the Superman books become more and more irrelevant and distant from where comics are going. Because this need to put down the female franchise lead and insist how much she doesn't matter or "needs to be kept in her place" is a view that is just not palatable anymore and it's going to be even less palatable going forward.

I know this is controversial opinions, but did you just imply that Lois is more important than Superman? Regardless that's your opinion and I personally don't care about Lois or Superman's supporting cast since they are pretty weak compared to Batman's and Spiderman and my eyes only care about the man himself Superman. Which is why I am mad about the whole Superdad business.

[Prime]

I like Superman having different romantic partners. Silver Age Superman was pretty much a ladies man. Sure Superman could end up with Lois, but wait if he had a child with Maxima or one of the female furies and decides to raise him or her with Lois? That was the plan in the original JLU ending episodes. It was going to be revealed that one of the female furies gave birth to Superman's offspring. I think it was the one with the bandages.

[Francisco]

I like Superman having different romantic partners. Silver Age Superman was pretty much a ladies man. Sure Superman could end up with Lois, but wait if he had a child with Maxima or one of the female furies and decides to raise him or her with Lois? That was the plan in the original JLU ending episodes. It was going to be revealed that one of the female furies gave birth to Superman's offspring. I think it was the one with the bandages.

Yup. He supposedly knocked up, Lashina. They had a relationship (more like she took advantage of him) when he was mind controlled by Granny Goodness and at the service of Darkseid. If Superman was to have a son with another woman instead of Lois I rather he was in complete use of his mental capabilities at the time.

[Jim Kelly]

Lois Lane quickly became an individual character like Robin or Black Canary. She could exist on her own and support her own series.

I think the reason some people want to see her gone now has been an indirect result of the marriage. When Lois existed as Superman's wife, a lot of readers stopped seeing her as the independent character who did not have to always be attached to Superman. And they didn't like her for that, because that's all she seemed to be.

That's one reason I want Lois not to be married to Superman, because I want her to exist. I don't want her to be killed off, so Superman can be free to date around. Making her the wife made her a target.

I also don't like pairing Wonder Woman with Superman. WW should be an independent character and not subordinate to Superman. If there was nothing romantic in their partnership that would be different.

But if Superman is always teamed with Batman and Wonder Woman, when does he get to team with other characters? I'd like to see Superman team-ups with a variety of DC characters. However, his appointment book is so full, I don't know when he'd have the time.