|
|
Post by zaku on Feb 2, 2022 3:47:42 GMT -5
Hello everyone! Lately in the thread "Ask a quick question here" an interesting discussion has started about how much, well, an a$$hole Superman was, a discussion that I think deserves a thread of its own!  It began with a question of mine: I'll probably dedicate a more in-depth post to this question with various examples as well, but Superman wasn't too much of an a$$hole even for Silver Age lax standards? I mean, usually when I read other Silver Age heroes adventures I think "What a wacky story!!!", not "My God Barry Allen what's wrong with you!!!". A great example is when Kara arrives on Earth. Superman's move to abandon a traumatized girl in an orphanage on an alien planet practically 5 minutes her arrival rises to an almost sociopath level. And not only Clark refused to take care of her but also asked her to protect his secret identity. Now, the standard answer is that it was a different time, you are not supposed to take these stories seriously etc but still the authors chose to portray consistently Superman as a psychopath monster. And I mean, have you ever seen Hal or Barry do something like that to Carol or Iris?  Followed by an interesting real-world explanation by Cei-U! If Superman was a "super-dick" in the Silver Age, it's because he reflected the personality of sociopathic editor Mort Weisinger. Cei-U! I place the blame! and an interesting point of view by Commander Benson O.K., this perspective has been mentioned enough times now that I have to weigh in. While it could have been handled better, I see no problem with how Superman set his newly arrived cousin aside. Right off, let's dispense with one description. Kara scarcely arrived on Earth "traumatized". If you read her début in Action Comics # 252 (May, 1959), she pops out of the rocket smiling, optimistic, excited to be on Earth. Certainly, more incisive writing would have shown her as traumatised, but we have to go with how she's depicted, and she's pretty chipper about the whole situation. Now, in examining that situation, I compare Superman's position to my own when I was a commanding officer in the Navy. I was single, and marginal time for a social life that might might lead to changing that status. I worked ten-to-sometimes-fourteen-hour days, few full week-ends, and when I had my at-sea command, forget it. Three-quarters of the year I was deployed across the ocean, spending twenty-four-hours a day at sea. Even when I did have free time, I was preöccupied with what needed to be done at work/ Now, suppose in the middle of all this, a fifteen-year-old girl, a girl I had never seen before, appeared at my door, claiming to be my cousin. No proof of that, mind you, no documentation of her identity or relationship to me. Just her word for it. And she tells me that she's just arrived in town and has no place to go, showing the same degree of emotional distress as Supergirl did upon her arrival. Sorry, I have no obligation to this girl. My responsibility is to turn her over to whatever social service deals with teen-age runaways or orphans. I'm not going to put her up in my home---that's just asking for trouble. I'm not going to invite her into my life or assume her care and feeding, beyond her immediate needs. I don't have time to see to her long-term requirements---clothing, shelter, identification, admission to school. Nor do I have that responsibility, even if she were my cousin. I'm not obligated to someone who thrusts herself upon me. Superman, who has greater responsibilities than I did and was certainly busier than I was, was confronted with the same situation. All he knew for certain about Kara when she landed on Earth was that she was from Krypton or, at least, a Krypton-like planet. Were there better ways of dealing with her than turning her over to an Earth orphanage and telling her to keep her powers a secret by pretending to be an Earth girl? Sure. He should have taken her to Kandor and turned her over to the authorities there, or maybe his father's old friend, Professor Kimda. Then Kara would be raised in her familiar culture. But I stand by the episteme that Superman was not obligated to take an unknown underage female into his home, upending his life and interfering with his weighty responsibilities. and wildfire2099 noted... I hear you about Supergirl.... but the this is she was always so HAPPY about it. She is clearly desperate for Superman's approval, and he is very slow to give it. It's a product of the time, but to this modern reader it seems really sad. While I wouldn't expect Superman to support her, refusing to let her get adopted for a long time was pretty mean, in the interest of using her as a free intern essentially. followed by berkley Admittedly I'm not a fan and thus abysmally ignorant of the finer details of Superman's history, but I don't buy this for a minute. He's Superman! The moral paragon of comics! Helping raise his cousin is going to interfere with his superhero obligations? What about his pointless newspaper job, his never-going-to-go-anywhere non-relationship with Lois Lane, etc, etc - didn't they interfere with his "superhero obligations"? Why doesn't he give one of those up, if he's so pressed for time? All he had to do was say, "Well, Jimmy, Lois, Perry, I won the lottery so I don't need this job anymore, nice knowin yas!" At least his cousin wouldn't have spent all her time trying to expose his secret identity.
Actually, this is one area where the mostly not very good Smallville had a better idea, because IIRC Clark takes his infinitely more interesting cousin Kara who should have had her own show into his home. Made sens ein the show and would have made just as much sense in the comics. but then Commander Benson ... As to the matter of Superman's identity as Clark Kent, it's more than just a disguise accomplished by donning a suit and a pair of glasses. As you stated, sir, you are not a fan of the character; therefore, you may be unaware that he's as much Clark Kent as Superman. He was raised from toddlerhood as Clark Kent. It was the first identity of which he was cognizant. (He didn't adopt the identity of Superboy until he was ten years old, and it wasn't until he invented and subjected himself to his mind-prober ray that he became aware of his life on Krypton as Kal-El.) As Superman himself put it in "If I Can't Be Clark Kent . . . Nobody Can!", from Action Comics # 524 (Oct., 1981): "But I need being Clark---and I need a private life just like anyone! In the past, I've tried assuming other identities---but it just didn't work! "Clark Kent is as much a part of what I am as Kal-El of Krypton is!" He's built a life for himself as Clark Kent, just as you have built your life, or I have, mine. And he's not going to toss it all away to take care of a fifteen-year-old girl he's never seen before. You are correct, sir, in that Superman certainly could have dramatically reärranged his life in order to take care of his cousin. But you missed my point: he wasn't OBLIGED to do so. Nothing about having an unknown girl, cousin or not, suddenly show up compels Superman to completely upend his life. Nor does that violate his moral standing. While not a perfect fit, entrusting Kara to Midvale Orphanage affords her a better opportunity for regular care and education than he can provide. And, as I allowed, placing her in Kandor, where she would be with her own people, would've been even more apt. Moreover, I will venture that if that first Supergirl story had ended with the Man of Steel leaving her in the care of the proper social authorities in Kandor, there wouldn't be anyone saying now how cruel and uncaring he was. By your model, sir, if Superman discovered an abandoned infant and could not determine who the parents were, then, as a "moral paragon", he would be obliged to alter his life, no matter to what extreme, to raise the child himself. There is a popular trend among some---I suspect most of them are at least one generation after me---who point to various scenes in Silver-Age-Superman stories as examples of . . . Superdickerery, I believe is the term. (Note: I am not ascribing this to you; I haven't followed your posts long enough to gauge one way or the other.) Many, if not most, of those allegations are unfair, called out simply for purposes of virtue-signaling. Condemning Superman for how he dealt with Kara is one of these. Then I noted that his treatment of Kara wasn't his only act of superdickery We are talking about someone who spent a good chunk of his time mindwiping or gaslighting people instead, I don't know, help them He has always been someone who put his own selfish interests above the well-being of others, even at the cost of committing immoral or unethical actions. At best by lying and making others question their own sanity, at worst by brainwashing. And worst of all, he did all of this claiming to represent Truth, Justice and The American Way. I think we can count super-hypocrisy as one of his powers. (continue on the next post for better readability) |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Feb 2, 2022 3:55:48 GMT -5
And if I come across any foundlings or orphaned teen-agers. I'll be sure to send them to your house, where I know you'll compassionately take them in. (Please insert the same tone of good humour as your post had, as it is so intended.) We are not talking about your average teen-ager. She is Supergirl, someone who with a sneeze can cause an earthquake. Leaving her around unsupervised is borderline criminal. But even admitting absurdly that abandoning her was the best solution (and not, I don't know, take a week off from work to make sure she was acclimatized), let's not forget that for years she used her as an unpaid underage intern and took all the merits of her actions, while never taking responsibility for her (and making her life in orphanages and adoptive families very difficult). Another interesting point of view: I agree with you that Superman's refusal to let her get adopted was a bit thoughtless and certainly unnecessary. To wit . . . One, it goes back to my insistence that the best place for her was Kandor, where she could get adopted by Kryptonian parents and live in her own culture. Two, there were certainly people on Earth whom Superman could have trusted with the secret of Supergirl's existence and been allowed to take care of her. Perry and Alice White, for example. Or, a year later, after the Justice League was formed, the Man of Steel could have asked Wonder Woman to take Supergirl to Paradise Island. There, she could be cared for and trained in the use of her powers by the Amazon's. Three, a perfect set-up was introduced in "Supergirl Gets Adopted", from Action Comics # 264 (May, 1960), when Linda is adopted by the Wilkins. He's a captain of police. The story is quite poignant, especially for the day, and ends with Linda being returned to Midvale Orphanage. But, just a slight tweaking could have kept Linda with the Wilkins. Linda was already beginning to love her new parents. Especially her police officer father, who threw himself on a grenade to protect Linda (not knowing she was invulnerable, of course). Linda secretly used her super-powers to keep the grenade from detonating, but she was overcome by her adoptive father's love in being willing to sacrifice his life for her. It would not be a literary stretch to limn Superman as not being able to separate Linda from a couple who loves her so much and whom she is growing to love in return. The premise of having the secret Supergirl have a police officer for a father would've opened all kinds of plot possibilities. And, at some point, Superman would realise that he could trust Captain and Mrs. Wilkins with Linda's secret. At least, that's how I would have done it. And another egregious example of super-dickery! This is probably one of his most egregious and memorable acts of super-dickery  He was set when the Maiden Steel was "Superman's Secret Weapon" (It's so great calling a fifteen year old orphan a "secret weapon"). He banishes Supergirl off the planet and tells her, "I'm sorry to end your career, but you're a failure as Supergirl! I must exile you to another world!" But in the actual story, he only banishes her for a year, and for a far pettier reason — she revealed her existence to Krypto. The exile was really a Secret Test of Character concerning the security of her Secret Identity, but it's still pretty dickish. And of course her adoptive family was incredibly worried about her absence (she couldn't even say hello). But look at her horrible sin!  Remember, she's just a little girl, she's seen her people die, she's been to an orphanage, her only living relative has told her he doesn't intend to take care of her but that she'll have to obey all his orders anyway. Furthermore she has been ordered not to reveal herself to the world and all of her credit for her good deeds goes to her cousin. So this is the first time she can enjoy being herself. Then Icctrombone remembered us not to take these stories too seriously because... All you have t know is that in the present day, he is not written that way.SA Writing was for kids. but Crimebuster replied Ah, c'mon. There were lots of other heroes during the Silver Age who didn't act like complete jerks. In fact, during the Golden and Silver Ages, superhero stories are littered with other examples of superheroes meeting kids who need a family, and almost invariably, they end up adopting those kids. Dick Grayson's family dies? Bruce Wayne, a total stranger, takes him as a ward. Speedy becomes Green Arrow's ward. Aqualad's father was killed, so Aquaman took him under his wing. Steve Rogers becomes a surrogate father to Bucky, the "camp mascot." Superman being a total dilweed has nothing to do with Silver Age writing and everything to do with Mort Weisinger being a tool. Further, moving out of the realm of the hypothetical, this actually happened to me and my family. When I was in my 30s, a woman none of us had ever met before showed up claiming to be my first cousin. Yes, some members of the family were suspicious and standoffish, even after it was proven she was indeed my first cousin. My mother, however, took her into the family. My mom had plenty of responsibilities in her life, and she didn't have superpowers, but she was a good, caring person - which seems like the bare minimum we should ask from freaking Superman. @jaska weighted in... I read a ton of Silver Age Superman growing up and it's still some of my favorite content ever. It seemed so much more innocent and positive than the 80's world I was growing up in. It was a complete fantasy of a simplified world where good and bad were very clearly delineated, and very harmless to the young reader (along the lines of what Icctrombone put very well). A simplified world that was NOT looking to emulate the grit of the modern world. Superman's relationship with Lois was not that of real world mature adults and all the connotations thereof. It was a playful and harmless continuing riff on protecting a secret identity in a manner that would make a child smile. The fantasy orphanage setting for Kara was a pleasant idealistic home where everyone is very nice, and again, does not explore the "real world" realities of what an orphanage upbringing might entail. I no more believed this was the real world or how I should view the real world growing up than I did say the physics of Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner in Looney Tunes. If you project all of this material into a modern world "real lens", you can conjure up all kinds of evil this material represents. But why do that? It feels a bit like Seduction of the Innocent all over again. Quite simply put...the material doesn't have that kind of inner depth of meaning. I totally respect if other people disagree and their opinion on Silver Age Superman remains the same (I mean that genuinely). But it does seem to come up here fairly regularly, and it feels like there's a bit of an obsession at times with deriving disturbing conclusions from content that really seems pretty harmless. It almost feels like folks don't want Superman to be the greatest Boy Scout ever, and are on a mission to take him out. Which just isn't going to happen, Silver Age Superman is a beloved character by many and I think rightfully so. (continue on the next post for better readability) |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Feb 2, 2022 4:00:46 GMT -5
and the opinion of Icctrombone was... Creating a Supergirl character who is not living with Clark Kent creates many more story possibilities and also ties up the "Supergirl" name. Yeah placing her in an orphanage was kind of clunky and cold. I wonder what the thinking on that was? As for your opinion that he was a total jerk Crimebuster , many of the Dickory occurrences were on covers of these comics and not the actual insides. Most of those stories showed his behavior to have some hidden benefit. Those Superman books were puzzles , where he would have to out think his situations. And , This is a made up character , it's not as if there was a real Superman who was a jerk relating his adventures to the writers at DC comics. added a historical and sociological context... Sadly a lot of boys in the 1950s/early 1960s treated "icky girls" (sisters and classmates) like how Superman treated Supergirl and Lois. Mort knew it, and made Superman act like that. That entire generation is warped when it comes to gender roles. Sorry if that offends people. That said, Silver Age Superboy/Man/Girl were DC highlights, and were joys to read. They were never supposed to be realistic. It was only until the 70s where DC experimented with realism, which was fully realized in the mid-1980s. Modern generations and creators seem to believe realism is a truer form of art. They would be incorrect. I understand why the older Navy men in this thread support Superman not adopting Supergirl because they are taught to be self-sustaining and to be responsible for their own families. But, boy, does it come off callous to say that they would be "too busy" to help a vulnerable extended family member or that Superman was too busy. When did the Silver Age Superman have to be stoic and practical? Projecting much? I'm not sure why a long lost cousin being a 15-year old girl matters, as it was argued upthread. Would it be more acceptable if Kara was a 25-year old man?T here's no need to act like she was a stranger or danger to Superman- or even an inconvenience. As others mentioned, heroes always adopted wards. And people do it in real life, especially for a cousin who needs help. Kara proved herself to be just as strong, intelligent, and even more compassionate + self-sacrificing than Superman was. So in the end, she showed us that she was the absolute paragon of pure goodness in the DCU, and Superman was wrong to ever treat her differently for being a "girl"- which was seen as being an inferior person back then. Superman thought girls were immature, couldn't be trusted, caused problems, and were not as capable. The bottom line is that he was very controlling to her with the orphanage, hiding her from the public (I cried when I read the issue where she is introduced to the world), lecturing her for Krypto, etc. This is why in 2022 there are movements against "toxic masculinity" and "gaslighting". Let's not defend this crap anymore. As others have said, Mort didn't want to upset the format of Superman's solo adventures by having Supergirl teaming with him for every adventure in Action and Superman. That's the only reason. So there's no need to rationalize Superman's decision. And on the other end of the spectrum, there's no reason to attack him, since it was a real word editorial decision. These were fictional characters who were controlled by Mort. Let's not try to "cancel" Superman over this. Silver Age Superman was a product of Mort and to an extent the times (it was phased out by the late 1960s after all the social revolution). But I will not rationalize the character's decisions or say it was OK. and codystarbuck said some really interesting things. Whoa; lets back up a bit. I support the idea that Superman placed Kara with people better suited to helping her adapt and he had responsibilities to attend. However, as I said, he was still involved in her life and did not abandon his responsibilities to her. We are still discussing a fictional character, not a real world situation. I come from a strong family background and we take care of one another, even when we don't always get along. So let's not talk too much about "projecting." Within the story logic, it is quite easy to conceive that Superman would consider taking Kara in; but, would also see how that could over complicate her life, even more than his own and make it harder to adapt. He was raised by an adoptive family and felt that she needed a stronger family presence than he could reasonably give. He felt that mother and father figures were more important than a brotherly figure and that's ultimately what he set up. I wasn't around when she was in an orphanage and have no idea how long it was between her going to the orphanage and being adopted by the Danvers family. It fit as a parallel to Clark, though, as he spent time in an orphanage, as a tot, before the Kents could formally adopt him. Looking at a parallel example, in Elliot Maggin's Last Son of Krypton novel, Albert Einstein is contacted by a device that carries a message from Jor-El, singling him out as the greatest mind on the planet and the person to care for his orphaned son, en route to the planet. Einstein knew that he was A) too old and not in great health; and, B) not a great father in his own family. He therefore concocted a scheme to put Jonathan and Martha Kent, a loving and wise couple, in the right spot to find Clark, when he lands on Earth. Einstein doesn't abandon his own world and responsibilities to be Clark's parent because he recognized he wasn't the right person to do it. Superman makes the same decision with Kara. He isn't the right person to raise her and develop her character. He can contribute to the process, but, it takes more than that and he sets up the situation, as Einstein did, for a better equipped couple to fulfill the role. Kara was not Oliver Twist and did not languish in some horrible work house until she was freed and adopted. These stories were informed by ones that came before and tales of orphans were common in children's literature and Weisinger carried on the tradition, just as Stan & Jack did, just as Otto Binder did, just as a large proportion of the writers of the era did. Also, it was a generation that had lived through and fought in a war and understood that there are all kinds of responsibilities in the world and sometimes, a greater responsibility overrides personal ones. You can condemn it in hindsight and through the lens of a different era; but there are responsibilities in this world that cause people to make personal sacrifices, for a greater good. Firemen, police and military personnel sacrifice much of their personal lives in service to their communities and country. Superman carries those responsibilities to a wider community. There were editorial reasons for keeping him from having a real love life and family (presuming that kids didn't want to read that); but, there are real world reasons why some have had to make those same sacrifices or their personal lives have suffered. Everyone in the real world makes a choice and does the best they can to balance profession and family; but, most miss a lot of their family's lives and failed marriages are statistically high. You do the best you can with what you've got and have faith that it will work out, if you work hard enough. Sometimes it doesn't; but, not for lack of trying. |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Feb 2, 2022 4:42:32 GMT -5
Just for context, these are the most significative events in Kara's life after her arrival on Earth: - Action Comics #252(1959-03-31): Kara arrives on earth and is immediately left in an orphanage
- Action Comics #253(1959-04-30): At Midvale Orphanage, couples looking to adopt children are invited to meet the orphans. Kara, tries to avoid getting adopted because her cousin ordered so.
- Action Comics #254(1959-05-28): Kara is adopted by the Dales, but they are a couple of crooks so she has to return to the orphanage
- Action Comics #258(1959-09-29): Kara is exiled to a deserted planet by because she played with Krypto (Yes, for real!). Then finally Kara finds that Superman is Clark Kent
- Action Comics #260(1959-09-29): Superman disguises Supergirl as Mighty Maid for some reasons. Than this happens:
 (remember, she is fifteen and his first cousin - Action Comics #264(1960-03-31):Kara is adopted again by a nice couple, but she tries to get sent back to the orphanage and she is successful!
- Action Comics #265(1960-04-28):Superman continues to use Kara as an unpaid intern and orders her to take care of some criminals because he has no time for this nonsense. For a series of events she performs super-deeds in Smallville and is seen by the locals (who are very happy to have someone like Superboy back in town!). Obviously Superman is annoyed with that so he mindwipes an entire city to be sure theyforget about Supergirl’s existance.
(Continue...) |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Feb 2, 2022 7:03:39 GMT -5
This is an interesting point by MDGYes, but he wasn't supposed to be some kind of role model? I mean, it wasn't the whole point of the Comics Code, to be sure comics weren't non-educational for kids? So, what was the message? "Remember kid, if you are very strong you can lie and be a jerk toward your friend!!!" If someone comes close to exposing your secret identity, all bets are off. This struck me, because protecting one's secret identity was such an imperative that it justified any action, however immoral or unethical it was. Even during the Bronze Age (so when the stories were supposed to be more "adult" and with a more modern sensibility) the Man of Steel did not mind hurting people or making them act against their will without their consent in order not to endanger one's own double life (a goal therefore, if you like, selfish).   If anyone else had done the exact same things, Superman would have rightfully treated him like a criminal and put him behind bars. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 2, 2022 7:12:01 GMT -5
Steve Lombard was more of a D**k than Superman was. He always had it coming.
|
|
|
|
Post by Commander Benson on Feb 2, 2022 8:48:30 GMT -5
Kara is adopted again by a nice couple but she tries to get sent back to the orphanage and she is successful I don't intend to get involved in this thread. You, sir, have fairly presented what I said before, and that's all I have to say. I did want to insert here, though, on your inaccurate blurb about the Supergirl story in Action Comics # 264 (May, 1960). Your description was only slightly off, not even enough to merit a correxion, really. But I wanted to speak up because it unintentionally undercuts one of the more remarkably sensitive Supergirl stories for the time. This is the tale that, in one of my posts above, I said, from which, I would have developed the series. This is the story in which Linda Lee is adopted by Police Captain Wilkins and his wife. Linda is torn between trying to get the Wilkins to call off the adoption before the end of the trial period (thus complying with Superman's wishes), and not wanting to hurt the couple, whose love for her is strong and sincere. Moreover, she has started to reciprocate that love after Captain Wilkins throws himself over a grenade (tossed by a criminal while Wilkins is walking with Linda) to save her life. Linda prevents the grenade from exploding, but she is staggered at the love shown by her adoptive father. She cannot bring herself to hurt the Wilkins, now. It's the Wilkins who resolve the situation. Though it breaks their hearts to do so, they're sending her back to the orphanage. Linda is surprised and genuinely hurt by their decision. They explain. Several years ago, their own natural daughter was inadvertently killed by criminals seeking revenge on Captain Wilkins. Eventually, their desire to raise another child grew too strong and they adopted Linda. But the recent incident with the grenade made them realise that her life was now, too, at risk. It's unfair to Linda to place her in potential danger, no matter how much they want her as their daughter. Despite the Wilkins' heartbreak and her own desire to stay with them, Linda cannot divulge that she's Supergirl, invulnerable to death threats, and she allows the adoption to be terminated. I guess, just as with the Sally Selwyn Superman story, "Supergirl Gets Adopted" had to end sadly to have its impact. But there was so much story potential lost by not keeping Linda with the Wilkins. |
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Feb 2, 2022 9:01:43 GMT -5
90% of Superdickery came about because it led to covers that readers would want to pick up.
|
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Feb 2, 2022 9:40:56 GMT -5
The only incident of superdickery I've seen firsthand (i.e. a comic I read rather than online) was in World's Finest #249, written by Bob Haney. There's oil rig damage and oil is leaking out into the ocean. Batman asks Superman to help but he refuses, because he "never gives super help to corporations or private persons." What? What? Batman has to bribe Superman by doubling his donations to charity to get him to finally agree. "Oh alright, I'll do it for the ocean." Gee that's big of you Supes. Maybe you could make an effort to look at the bigger picture from now on.
|
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Feb 2, 2022 13:24:58 GMT -5
Steve Lombard was more of a D**k than Superman was. He always had it coming. In a way, that's exactly my point.  Yes, Lombard is detestable on so many level. But the object of his pranks is SUPERMAN, who in theory should be the noblest hero on Earth and paragone of virtue. And how he reacts? Engaging in some stupid prank war. He is one of the most powerful men in the universe and use his vast powers to humiliate and hurt another human being. One of the most intelligent and wise being on this Earth could have done something more mature like: - Simply, confront him, explaining that no one is laughing at his pranks, some of which are also dangerous to others. - if this don't work, report him to HR because a person like this can create a toxic workplace - Just endure his pranks. You are Superman. You can survive inside a nova. So you can survive to a water bucket. If you have chosen the facade of an amoeba unable to react, well, live with the consequences of this choice. And really, what is the rationale behind this choice? "Oh, Clark has grown a spine, this means that... HE'S SUPERMAN!!!". Come on.... As an adult, the situation is at least problematic. As a kid what is the message? If someone bullies you, bully him HARDER? You can survive to bullies only if you are Superman? I'm a big Superman fan and I don't think he was ever willfully a jerk in those SA stories. I disagree that he wasn't inspiring. Well, first of all let's distinguish the two cases: - There are situations in which Superman's actions are clearly considered perfectly normal in the context, but with hindsight and a more modern sensibility they appear to some at least questionable (like abandoning Kara at the orphanage) - Then situations where he behaves badly toward his friends, in the context of the story people acknowledge that his action are hurtful to them and at the end there is some kind of explanation why he did what he did. These are two famous examples:   In the first case we have two factors: - A different sensibility at the time - For every accounts Weisinger wasn't, well, a nice person, so behaviours perfectly ok for him were at least problematic for others. So in this particular case we can say (if we want analyze Superman as is was a real person) that he obviously wasn't knowingly acting like a jerk, no more than when Weisinger was bullying a fourteen year old Jim Shooter (who desperately needed the money for his family) calling him a "fucking moron". The second case is a little more complex. A lot of these stories were written after the cover (where he was acting like a jerk) was drawn and in the aforementioned stories the author had to explain why he was acting like a jerk. And almost all these stories follow the same pattern: Superman does something very hurtful toward his friends, his friends are, well, hurt. At the end he gives some kind of explanation, he is absolutely not sorry for what his friends have been through except for something like "It was the only thing I could do" (by the way, in almost all of these stories he would have gotten the same result if he had actually talked to his friends, but I admit it wouldn't have been the same from a dramatic point of view). So, both situations are evidently result of a very 50s patriarchal "Daddy is always right, even when is wrong" attitude. Superman is the uberdaddy of all the humanity, so his actions are always justified, even when the stories acknowledge that people are hurt by these actions. He and his editor are people in position of power, so they know better and they can't be questionated. And even when they hurt us, they will always claim it's for our good. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Feb 2, 2022 14:32:58 GMT -5
Steve Lombard was more of a D**k than Superman was. He always had it coming. In a way, that's exactly my point. Yes, Lombard is detestable on so many level. But the object of his pranks is SUPERMAN, who in theory should be the noblest hero on Earth and paragone of virtue. And how he reacts? Engaging in some stupid prank war. He is one of the most powerful men in the universe and use his vast powers to humiliate and hurt another human being. One of the most intelligent and wise being on this Earth could have done something more mature like: - Simply, confront him, explaining that no one is laughing at his pranks, some of which are also dangerous to others. - if this don't work, report him to HR because a person like this can create a toxic workplace - Just endure his pranks. You are Superman. You can survive inside a nova. So you can survive to a water bucket. If you have chosen the facade of an amoeba unable to react, well, live with the consequences of this choice. And really, what is the rationale behind this choice? "Oh, Clark has grown a spine, this means that... HE'S SUPERMAN!!!". Come on.... As an adult, the situation is at least problematic. As a kid what is the message? If someone bullies you, bully him HARDER? You can survive to bullies only if you are Superman? I'm a big Superman fan and I don't think he was ever willfully a jerk in those SA stories. I disagree that he wasn't inspiring. Well, first of all let's distinguish the two cases: - There are situations in which Superman's actions are clearly considered perfectly normal in the context, but with hindsight and a more modern sensibility they appear to some at least questionable (like abandoning Kara at the orphanage) - Then situations where he behaves badly toward his friends, in the context of the story people acknowledge that his action are hurtful to them and at the end there is some kind of explanation why he did what he did. These are two famous examples: In the first case we have two factors: - A different sensibility at the time - For every accounts Weisinger wasn't, well, a nice person, so behaviours perfectly ok for him were at least problematic for others. So in this particular case we can say (if we want analyze Superman as is was a real person) that he obviously wasn't knowingly acting like a jerk, no more than when Weisinger was bullying a fourteen year old Jim Shooter (who desperately needed the money for his family) calling him a "fucking moron". The second case is a little more complex. A lot of these stories were written after the cover (where he was acting like a jerk) was drawn and in the aforementioned stories the author had to explain why he was acting like a jerk. And almost all these stories follow the same pattern: Superman does something very hurtful toward his friends, his friends are, well, hurt. At the end he gives some kind of explanation, he is absolutely not sorry for what his friends have been through except for something like "It was the only thing I could do" (by the way, in almost all of these stories he would have gotten the same result if he had actually talked to his friends, but I admit it wouldn't have been the same from a dramatic point of view). So, both situations are evidently result of a very 50s patriarchal "Daddy is always right, even when is wrong" attitude. Superman is the uberdaddy of all the humanity, so his actions are always justified, even when the stories acknowledge that people are hurt by these actions. He and his editor are people in position of power, so they know better and they can't be questionated. And even when they hurt us, they will always claim it's for our good. In that era, there was no HR and no such thing as a "toxic workplace." Bullying happened in schools and in the workplace. The APA hadn't inundated the world with papers about the psychological effects of bullying and such, there hadn't been lawsuits about workplace conditions relating to behaviors. The time honored method for dealing with a bully was to stand up to them, either through direct confrontation or humiliating them indirectly (and avoid reprisals). More often than not, institutions of this era didn't address such situations and even went as far as to say stand up for yourself, like a man. Buzz words like "toxic workplace" or toxic masculinity" didn't appear until the last couple of decades. This is the problem of looking at examples from different eras and applying current standards, because you are removing context and experience. Within the context of the 70s, Clark Kent making a buffoon of Steve Lombardi was accepted, because he got his own back. Should he have confronted him directly? Most certainly; but, that wasn't the gimmick that Julie Schwartz wanted in his stories. Clark Kent had to maintain the facade of being a wimp, who didn't stand up to bullies. I thought it was a bit stupid to go that far; but, only when I was older. The timing of the panels often made the comeuppance work, as a child, and you laughed at Steve getting payback. To be fair, Clark Kent squaring off with Steve Lombard, even verbally, could escalate into physical and Lombard would be hurt; or, at least, that was the rationale given for the more covert responses. Lombard was an ex-jock and a jerk and Clark telling him off was likely to push his buttons and lead him into something more physical and Clark couldn't risk that. That was as far as Julie Schwartz would allow payback. Lois could tell him off, Morgan Edge could yell at him; but not Clark. Comics follow society, reflecting their times. Superman comics reflect their eras, at all stages, as do the editorial dictates. A lot of things changed at DC, when the old editors either retired or were pushed into retirement. Jenette Kahn's biggest hurdle was changing some of the editorial offices, particularly the Superman office. She didn't have many allies when she took over, as publisher, and had to do a lot of scrapping to get to the Post-Crisis DC. She made key allies along the way and enticed some of the old guard to call it a day and instituted policies that helped entice a younger generation of creators. A lot of the modern response to bullying and workplace environments came about after extreme situations. Bullying really only got addressed after Columbine and the school shootings that followed. Workplace behaviors only got addressed after lawsuits that proved costly. HR departments didn't really start appearing until the 90s. You had personnel and administrative departments; but, they handle paperwork and hiring. They did not get involved in disciplinary actions. The boss fired people and personnel handled the paperwork. There wasn't even an HR profession taught in universities; it's a relatively recent program. In my lifetime, school discipline has gone from teachers being able to spank a student, for whatever reason they chose, to only administrators, to only if the parent has given the school permission, to not under any circumstances. School suspensions were for serious offenses; these days they are given for a wide variety of lesser disciplinary problems that would have been detentions, when I was in school. Not saying one is better than another; just that you have to include context when discussing things like this. |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Feb 2, 2022 14:33:09 GMT -5
..and in the case of Lois Lane, one could make the reasonable claim that any alleged "dick-ish" behavior on his part was triggered by being the eternal victim of stalking and harassment from Lane. The man could barely punch planets and enjoy his good work before Ms. Bad Hair Days was scheming to force him into a relationship he obviously did not desire (if you consider his other girlfriends). The defendant is not guilty.
|
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,922 
|
Post by Crimebuster on Feb 2, 2022 15:45:11 GMT -5
..and in the case of Lois Lane, one could make the reasonable claim that any alleged "dick-ish" behavior on his part was triggered by being the eternal victim of stalking and harassment from Lane. The man could barely punch planets and enjoy his good work before Ms. Bad Hair Days was scheming to force him into a relationship he obviously did not desire (if you consider his other girlfriends). The defendant is not guilty. Except you have this completely backwards. Lois is 100% correct that Clark is Superman. But because he uses his superpowers to constantly gaslight her, she ends up going to great lengths to prove to herself and everyone else around her that she's not stupid, or crazy, or wrong, as Superman and Clark keep claiming. I give her credit for sticking to her guns and having the perseverance of her convictions. None of Lois' so called "stalking" or harassment" would happen if Superman wasn't constantly screwing with her. And not for nothing, his claim that he can't marry her because it would put her in danger doesn't make any sense considering it seems to be public knowledge that she's "Superman's Girl Friend." How is she in any more danger as his wife than as his girlfriend? He's full of it, and she knows it, and she's not going to let him get away with it. Good for her. TEAM LOIS!! |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Feb 2, 2022 17:10:46 GMT -5
..and in the case of Lois Lane, one could make the reasonable claim that any alleged "dick-ish" behavior on his part was triggered by being the eternal victim of stalking and harassment from Lane. The man could barely punch planets and enjoy his good work before Ms. Bad Hair Days was scheming to force him into a relationship he obviously did not desire (if you consider his other girlfriends). The defendant is not guilty. Except you have this completely backwards. Lois is 100% correct that Clark is Superman. But because he uses his superpowers to constantly gaslight her, she ends up going to great lengths to prove to herself and everyone else around her that she's not stupid, or crazy, or wrong, as Superman and Clark keep claiming. I give her credit for sticking to her guns and having the perseverance of her convictions. None of Lois' so called "stalking" or harassment" would happen if Superman wasn't constantly screwing with her. And not for nothing, his claim that he can't marry her because it would put her in danger doesn't make any sense considering it seems to be public knowledge that she's "Superman's Girl Friend." How is she in any more danger as his wife than as his girlfriend? He's full of it, and she knows it, and she's not going to let him get away with it. Good for her. TEAM LOIS!! "My powers transcend human understanding. I will only use them for good. And to humiliate, ridicule and make a woman who has always been right to question her own sanity. And all this in the name of Truth and Justice." TEAM LOIS!! TEAM LOIS!! TEAM LOIS!! |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 2, 2022 21:03:42 GMT -5
To quote the esteemed MDGIf someone comes close to exposing your secret identity, all bets are off.Lois must ALWAYS be taught a lesson. |
|
I'll probably dedicate a more in-depth post to this question with various examples as well, but Superman wasn't too much of an a$$hole even for Silver Age lax standards? I mean, usually when I read other Silver Age heroes adventures I think "What a wacky story!!!", not "My God Barry Allen what's wrong with you!!!". A great example is when Kara arrives on Earth. Superman's move to abandon a traumatized girl in an orphanage on an alien planet practically 5 minutes her arrival rises to an almost sociopath level. And not only Clark refused to take care of her but also asked her to protect his secret identity. Now, the standard answer is that it was a different time, you are not supposed to take these stories seriously etc but still the authors chose to portray consistently Superman as a psychopath monster. And I mean, have you ever seen Hal or Barry do something like that to Carol or Iris?
If Superman was a "super-dick" in the Silver Age, it's because he reflected the personality of sociopathic editor Mort Weisinger.
O.K., this perspective has been mentioned enough times now that I have to weigh in. While it could have been handled better, I see no problem with how Superman set his newly arrived cousin aside.
I hear you about Supergirl.... but the this is she was always so HAPPY about it. She is clearly desperate for Superman's approval, and he is very slow to give it. It's a product of the time, but to this modern reader it seems really sad. 
