Just a Male Power Fantasy…

Leave a comment

(This was written in response to a piece about male privilege in the comic book world.)

Keep in mind the entire superhero genre sprung from the unfulfilled romantic yearnings/self defeating masochism of young men.

Clark Kent (Superman) was the first superhero and carried a torch for Lois Lane.
Lois Lane was inspired by “Lois Amster.”
When asked half a century later, she indicated Jerry Siegel was a strange guy who had no friendship or conversation with who occasionally stared at her.

I thought: “the bastard never worked up the courage to approach her at ALL!”

In 1983, Siegel said, “Clark Kent grew not only out of my private life, but also out of Joe Shuster’s. As a high school student, I thought that someday I might become a reporter, and I had crushes on several attractive girls who either didn’t know I existed or didn’t care I existed. So it occured to me: What if I was really terrific? What if I had something special going for me, like jumping over buildings or throwing cars around or something like that? ”

My point is driven home by what Lois said to Clark in the original Action Comics #1…
Lois has to defend herself from a thug while Clark does nothing (to hide the fact that he’s Superman), but tells him: “You asked me earlier in the evening why I avoid you. I’ll tell you why now: Because you’re a spineless, unbearable coward!”

Talking to himself, much?

There’s a happy ending, though!

Siegel eventually married the original model for Lois Lane, who’s beauty, intelligence, and determination also inspired Lois’s personality.

After her husband’s death, and for most of her remaining life she continued to hound DC comics for to ensure her family got every penny that was rightfully theirs.

Following her death, Siegel’s lawyer noted, “All her life she carried the torch for Jerry and Joe — and other artists. There was a lot of Lois Lane in Joanne Siegel.”

How does this translate to how the comic book industry should operate?
…Idk … I lost my train of thought.

Sexualization

Leave a comment

So let me get this straight:
When men measure their own self-worth by their sexual competence, then women are reduced to sexual capitol… okay, sure.

And when they measure a woman’s worth by her sexual competence, then she’s being reduced to a sex objection… sure, whatever.

if THIS is wrong… then let me ask:
What objective basis do we have for determining the right or wrong way to measure human worth?

What is the RIGHT way, then?

Money? Athletic prowess? Contribution to society? Job title? Level of education? Their ability to make you laugh? How well they adhere to your concept of morality?
Whatever you decide you run into a similar and different set of problems.

Wouldn’t we be better off scrapping the concept of esteem altogether?

Feminism: Why the terminology?

2 Comments

The main argument I hear for why “feminism” shouldn’t switch to a more gender-neutral name is “it doesn’t emphasize what women (reformers/suffragists) have went through. Historically.

My question: Why should it?

What obligation does a movement for gender-equality have to emphasize the work/suffering of ONE gender over the other? And what qualitative basis do they have for deciding?


    • Where the movement originated?
      The were quite a few “Pre-Feminist” men, you know.
      Those women didn’t draw their ideology from thin air.The seeds were sown in ancient Greece (Plato) in speculation of a perfect society.
      You know… old guys with white beards talking to each other.

      Abolitionists didn’t name their movement after black people or Africans, they named it after their ideology.IF feminism does NOT begin and and with women. Then it should change its name.You did good, but your goal has expanded.
    • Same goes for masculinists.
    • Or… masculists. Whatever the Hell they call themselves.