Discussion in 'The Comics' started by misslane38, Feb 3, 2017.
This thread is a place to discuss Lois Lane across all media and the multiverse.
How is it that Lois has to like a nerd, but Clark gets to like her? Does Clark have to love a nerdy girl to prove that he's worth admiring? Lois has liked Clark, by the way. The set up you're describing hasn't existed since the 1970's.
How old are you? What's your exposure to other versions? Did you watch Smallville? Did you watch Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman? Did you read Post-Crisis comics that have now transitioned to Rebirth comics, so comics from the nearly thirty years from 1985-2017? I ask because in each of those versions Lois falls in love with Clark. She declares her love of Clark to Clark and even accepts his proposal of marriage before she knows he's Superman.
She doesn't right away, because other men -- human men -- have made her jaded. She is suspicious of guys who stand on the sidelines of injustice, are less than honest or are unreliable, or who get ahead of her at work by stealing her stories or by virtue of his being a man. That's why the pure goodness of Superman is so appealing to her. He's a paradigm shift in the form of prince charming. Moreover, usually Superman flirts with her or they work as a team to defeat injustice while Clark goes mysteriously absent and doesn't open up to her because his secret makes him hold back.
I'm sure that since your opinion is based on your experiences, then it would be difficult to change your mind just by talking about it. However, I recommend that you give Lois another chance, and read or watch more of her recent narratives. If you have seen all of the things I referenced and still came away with the same opinion, then I don't know what to say other than I think you missed something, and that's a shame. I'm glad you like Amy's Lois, though.
Yeah, I know. What I don't understand is why you defensively accused me of trying to force you to have a different opinion simply because I shared what romance the vast majority of Superman writers prefer.
It's rude for a woman to call a man out for handing her over to brutish sexual predator?! She couldn't very well walk away from Clark in that moment because she wasn't free to do anything she wanted. That's the point! Lois was forced to dance with a man who wasn't her date.
You're still not getting it. You said "that's all she did" in response to an image of Clark holding up a headline that read "Lois Lane Saves Superman," so if you say "that's all she did" during the Silver Age, then you are saying that Lois Lane saved Superman all the time during the Silver Age. Lois Lane did some amazing things during the Silver Age, but she was not always saving Superman. Your description of the Silver Age as a time when Lois Lane was marginalized is inaccurate.
It does change something. It should change the way you evaluate the character. If the character was limited by the sexism of her creators and the society in which they lived, then it changes how one calibrates one's assessment of the character. Lois Lane cannot be anti-feminist character for playing the role of love interest or damsel if those were the only roles allowed to her. It's like criticizing a Jane Austen character like Elizabeth Bennet for being at the center of a love story when that was what was expected of a young woman during Regency era Britain. Powerful men like King Henry VIII of England is perhaps best known for his tumultuous love life and obsession with finding the perfect mate, and it's because marriage and children were an important vehicles of power during his reign. You cannot ignore context. If you ignore context, then you are perpetuating the same sexism that limited Lois Lane in the first place. Limiting what Lois Lane can be and who she can love now because of how she was written then keeps her shackled to a sexist era and mindset that has come and gone.
It's not idiocy if she was right. Lois did figure out that Clark Kent was Superman, and Superman's efforts to put her off the idea never worked and had to become more and more elaborate. If Superman had been successful at disabusing Lois of her theory that Clark Kent and Superman were the same man, then Lois would have given up the idea. She never did.
She was absolutely a challenge. I'll just quote from this great blog post on the topic:
Don't lie. You've already spent plenty of time trying to convince me. If you didn't care about convincing me, then you wouldn't have replied to my previous post. I own and have read the recent Tim Hanley book entitled Investigating Lois Lane: The Turbulent History of the Daily Planet's Ace Reporter, and your conclusions do not correlate well with what I read. Having reread a bunch of Silver Age comics recently, I also didn't detect Lois Lane having a smaller role in them than she does in today's comic books.
I am not supporting your point. Your point seems to be that because Lois Lane was a victim of sexist writing, she is therefore a character that should be forever criticized and dismissed. That the character she was back in the sexist Silver Age should define and control the possibilities of the character today. Your point also seemed to be that Lois was alone a victim of this sexism when, in fact, Wonder Woman also struggled as a character during the same era. She was so robbed of her power and what made the character feminist that Gloria Steinem put Wonder Woman on the cover of her feminist magazine in protest.
Yeah, I never suggested that Lois Lane was as influential as real women. What I said is that both Lois and Diana emerged out of the women's movement as more empowered characters. I did not say that their empowerment in fiction generated significant and marked changes in the real world.
All of the arcs to which you are referring are the ones that did not marginalize Lois or her relationship with Clark/Superman. Only Greg Pak's stories marginalized Lois, but that's because DC literally would not let him include her in Action Comics. Too bad most of Pak's good writing was wasted on lame crossovers. The reason why New 52 included so many convoluted crossover storylines was because his distance from his supporting cast meant that Superman had to spend more time with Batman and Wonder Woman. When you start adding more and more superheroes into a story, the more you have to craft a storyline big enough to challenge them. That's how the big dumb events kept happening, and each of those events were made more ridiculous and convoluted by coming up with stupid things for Lois to do. She was controlled by Brainiac during "Doomed" and outed Superman's secret identity in "Truth," for example.
Yes, but the biggest shift from bad writing to good writing was accompanied by a shift from a Superman/Wonder Woman romance to a Superman/Lois marriage. So if the writers and creators made a decision to "Rebirth" Superman to generate better stories and sales, and their primary method of facilitating that change was to change Superman's romantic status quo, then it's pretty telling what lessons were learned from the New 52 experiment.
The fact that you continue to insist that a woman requiring physical help means that she is an insult to feminists is what is insulting to feminists. No feminist would ever argue that a woman must be strong in order for her to be empowered and equal to a man. Because there are other forms of strength and other ways to make a difference.
It was the title. That was the title her sexist backward creators gave her. For you to define her the same way they defined her makes you as sexist as they were back then. You are not allowing the character to escape from that backward period despite the fact that it comprised only a quarter of her entire existence. Lois Lane has never been just a love interest. Her primary role is love interest, but that is not the only thing that defines her. Throughout the Golden Age, Bronze Age, Post-Crisis, and New 52/Rebirth eras, Lois Lane has been both love interest and journalist. Animated adaptations like the Max Fleischer shorts and Timm's animated series all focus Lois primarily as a journalist. Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman is a show all about journalism. Lois and Clark spend each episode working together to make a difference. Lois on Smallville had several arcs that had nothing to do with being Clark's love interest. She wasn't even his love interest for four out of the seven years she was on the show! Instead, Lois worked in politics and as a journalist. She even got distracted planning her wedding because she was investigating the Legion of Doom!
There cannot be one without the other. The concept of Lois Lane exists because of what is contained in a large amount of her storylines. What becomes iconic is what is portrayed most often, so her portrayal in a large amount of storylines is exactly what would define her iconic concept.
I see you nicely sidestepped acknowledging your transparent sexism and hypocrisy. You claimed I misrepresented your reasoning for supporting the SM/WW pairing. You suggested I was wrong to assume that you were defending your romantic preference for Superman by putting Lois down to prop Diana up. You the proceeded to say that you simply like Superman and Wonder Woman more because Diana is more deserving. That is a sexist rationale. If you number one defense for a SM/WW romance involves putting down another female character, then that is sexist. You don't need to support anything, but it is difficult to accept your support of SM/WW when you cannot explain why you like them in any way that doesn't involve criticizing another female character. And, if one of your go-to arguments in favor of Diana over Lois is the former's status as a feminist icon, then you are a hypocrite. Because Diana's status as a feminist icon is exactly what leads her to embrace Lois Lane as her equally empowered sister.
Wasn't defensive, again you need to stop reading too much into things and take a breather.
yeah Lois as rude plain and simple and the guy was a just a jerk not a 'sexual predator' who I imagine Lois could've handled on her lonesome but she still needed the man to stand up for her.....pathetic!
No I was right, she did nothing and added nothing.
She's was (and often is) a useless character and that evaluation will stand.
She was (and often is) an idiot if her entire life revolves around revealing who superman is and yet still can't prove such an obvious fact.
No, Lex, Brainiac, Mongul, Faora (in her first appearance on action comics), Galactic Golum, Metallo, Bizarro, Parasite and enlarging the bottled city were challenges to him, lois was a comedy distraction that the writers came up with to make things alittle more fun.
No lie, I respond to your post because your posts are the funniest things I've read on these forums in a long while!! You take everything and react to everything so seriously that just makes me chuckle. You are - like your favorite character - a welcome distraction.
You most certainly supported my points and I thank you for it.
Oh no, you very clearly made it sound like lois and WW changed the world somehow, which is a statement I expect from such a hyper-reactive fangirl.
And to me and most fans Pak's run was one of the superman runs in the new 52, partially because he focused on a far more interesting female character named lana lang rather than lois lame.
No it wasn't, the largest shift was turning superman into a moody, emo outsider just like Snyder did and the result was failure.
No, idolizing a character who isn't much more than the damsel girlfriend like what you're doing is an insult to feminists.
But hey if you're gonna be predictable and call me sexist every time I say something you don't like then by all means continue.
Yeah cos that's all she was and is, nothing more.
Oh again with the sexist card, you're disappointing me, I thought you were capable of a semblance of an intelligent discussion but apparently yer not, oh well.
As for your idol, well the writers tried to give her something to do but in the end she just ends up being the eye candy that got into trouble and required the man to show up and save her and rinse and repeat, useless!
Calm down, just breath and all will be ok. You're just angry because I pointed out what a useless character your fictional idol is and personally I would like my superman to be with someone better like Diana or even Lana or maybe Lori or Lyla lorrel, man the choices are endless.
You dislike a woman because she is attracted to men who aren't cowardly, deceitful, manipulative, fake, and even steal from her? Because that's who Clark Kent was in the Pre-Crisis/Bronze Age era. Clark was a fake persona. He was never around when Lois needed him. He'd constantly break his promises. He'd lie and gaslight her, especially when she figured out the truth about him. Many versions often scooped her on stories in the most unethical of ways to either get ahead of her at the Daily Planet or to simply make her mad. Why must Lois love a man like that rather than a man like Superman?
She swoons over Superman, but she doesn't hate Clark. She tries to encourage him and often hints that there's more to him than meets the eye. In Superman II, Lois is so able to see the hero within Superman that she suspects and tries to prove that Clark is Superman. Why must Lois love the comical idiot while Superman can love the beautiful, witty, and successful Lois Lane? Seems like a double standard.
I see you are continuing to brush things off instead of own what you did. I am not reading too much into things. You said that you agreed with me that Scott Snyder was talented and you admitted that you shared his opinions most of the time like I do. However, you followed that up by saying that "no one is perfect" in response to Snyder's support of Lois and Superman. Saying that ("no one is perfect") means that you view Snyder's "love for the Lois and Clark Dynamic" as a personal flaw on his part, and since I said I agree with Snyder and not you, you are also saying that it's a personal flaw of mine and any Lois/Clark shipper to support them as a couple.
So, to me, it is defensive when you describe Scott Snyder, and myself because I agreed with him, as not being "perfect" just because we don't share your shipping preferences. Describing liking Lois/Clark as a personal flaw on a shipper's part as "just your opinion" doesn't make it any less defensive or insulting on your part. If you want your opinions to be respected as opinions, then you can't go around characterizing other people's opinions as a mark of imperfection or personal flaw just because they don't align with yours. You can be civil and do unto others as you would have them do unto you by agreeing to disagree, but you can't label their disagreeing with you as a personal flaw. Framing it that way is a way for you to shut down the debate, which is a form of running from it, and as such it is defensive.
Now, if you want to take this opportunity to amend what you said as a ill-chosen turn of phrase, then go right ahead. However, if you're going to persist, then you are making it clear that you are incapable of having a civil disagreement where you treat others' opinions as just as worthy of respect as your own.
It is not rude to get angry with a man for standing by while you are harrassed. If Lois could've handled it on her own, then she would have. Just because a woman needs help doesn't mean she's pathetic. What is pathetic isn't needing help, but not trying at all. All of which is beside the point, because whether Lois could have dealt with it on her own or not, she shouldn't have to deal with it alone. Clark, the man who asked her out on a date, is standing there letting other men treat her terribly. Even if they didn't get physical, Clark should be able to care enough about her and about what is right to intervene somehow. See, this is where you are so misguided. You describe Lois as pathetic, and feel so smug in doing so, just because she might need a man to help her. However, from Lois' perspective, Clark is not only pathetic for being too meek to stand up to the guy, but he is also lacking in compassion for her and passion for justice. If you don't like Lois for her being "pathetic," which she isn't because at least she tries, then surely you can understand why Lois wouldn't like Clark because he doesn't even make an effort out of apparent cowardice and apathy.
I see. I use actual comic book panels and explain my reasoning, and instead of offering a counterargument or defense, you just proclaim your rightness. Is saying Lois "did nothing and added nothing" your "alternative fact" that you just expect people to be convinced of the truth just because you say it is despite evidence to the contrary? I mean, wow, that's bold. Lois cannot have been marginalized in the 60s when that's precisely when her role expanded. She not only appeared in regular Superman comics (Action and Superman), but she also got her own comic (a bestseller). You're the one making the claim that she didn't contribute anything, so show me how you are so sure. Tell me specific story details and post panels from comics. Cite quotes from books or essays. Consider the context in which the stories of this era took place. For example, you might dismissive of what Lois added to the stories of the sixties because you aren't of that era yourself. The wacky and romantic stories that were popular in comics during that era got to achieve their goals of being wacky and romantic by using Lois. In short, just do something other than declare yourself right without doing any of the work.
I'm assuming this "evaluation" is coming from the same lazy and uninformed place that the rest of your opinions seem to come from. Until you can actually prove your claims using compelling and specific evidence that considers the details and context of the character's 80 year history, then your evaluation stands only in your mind.
So, using your logic, Superman was (and often is) an idiot if his entire life revolved around concealing who Superman really is and yet still couldn't convince Lois to drop it. Also, I hope you know that using a phrase like "entire life" is a bit limiting in this context. It's not as if this was the only plot that occurred during that era, and it's not as if the Silver Age life of Lois Lane is the sum total of the character's entire existence and canon across her 80 year history in comics, TV, animation, and film. Again, your facts and logic, or in this case lack of facts and logic, fail you.
Oh, so you admit that Lois did serve a purpose and added something. You're saying she added fun! It was the kind of fun that made her comic outsell Batman's for awhile. You're also saying Lois posed a challenge to Superman. It doesn't matter if it wasn't on the same level as Lex or Brainiac. The point is that with all of his power and intelligence, he still couldn't finish the job with Lois. Now, you could argue that the reason for that was the episodic nature of the stories: just like I Love Lucy, they reset the conflict after each story so that it could continue. However, the same could be said of Superman's villains. Ultimately, Lois was a tough puzzle for Superman to solve, and that's impressive, as were her comic's sales.
How wonderfully condescending. A perfect way to put me in my place as a distraction away from the fact that your arguments have the same level of substance as an inflated balloon.
More declaring yourself right even though you've proven nothing with no evidence or reasoning. You must really be out of your depth.
Since I said nothing of the sort, I have to wonder if you're the one who is overreacting. This is what I said, "Wonder Woman was featured on the cover of feminist magazine, Ms, during the height of the feminist movement. That magazine was created by feminist icon Gloria Steinem who is a journalist and made her mark on the world as a journalist. The late great feminist icon Mary Tyler Moore became a feminist icon for her role as a journalist on the Mary Tyler Moore show." I later added, "Feminist icons like Gloria Steinem and Mary Tyler Moore were both journalists who used journalism in real life and in fiction to empower women and reshape society."
My point was that being a journalist was shown to be a position of power. Steinem used her role as a journalist in real life to be an activist and agent for change. Mary Tyler Moore, through her character, inspired women, like Oprah Winfrey, to see themselves as career women and to stand up to sexism in the workplace. Lois not only was a journalist like Steinem was, but she was also a fictional character like Mary Tyler Moore's was who could inspire readers to appreciate her dedication to her career and her gumption. Don't believe me? Check out these Lois Lane actresses talking about Lois Lane over the course of her history.
Oh, name calling (Lois Lame)! How mature and how convincing! I see you're still using your modus operandi: putting one female character down to prop up another. It's also ironic, considering Pak wanted to use Lois because he finds her so interesting. He was down that he wasn't permitted to, but found a way to use her quite a bit in his Batman/Superman run.
But why was Superman such a moody outsider if he was in a happy relationship with Wonder Woman? Why does only a moody and emo Superman find Wonder Woman appealing? It seems that part of making Superman happy and making him click is Lois whether he's married to her or not. The most successful Superman projects in every medium feature Lois/Clark after all. Clearly it's the formula that works the most and the best.
If you're going to continue to deny Lois Lane's history in all media as more than just a damsel and an icon and inspiration in her own right, and continue to pit women against each other by putting one down to prop up another as a love interest, then you are being sexist.
So, I have to ignore your sexism in order to prove I am intelligent? I'm not the one whose rinse and repeat method of argument is to declare himself right without providing a shred of evidence or reasoning. You make broad generalizations with zero illustrative examples or specific details and focus on one narrow time period of Lois' existence without any regard for the historical and social context in which her stories take place. You apply double standards and pit women against each other, and you engage with me disrespectfully by calling my disagreeing with you a personal flaw and my comments trivial entertainment. Amazing.
I don't know. Since you're the one running from any actual evidence-based debate and relying on condescension, and since you seem so obsessed with your vendetta against Lois and me that you put us both down at every turn without any room for nuance without once really making an effort to sing Wonder Woman's praises, it would seem that you're pretty fired up about this too. But you try to cover up that fact by saying you're only discussing this for your own amusement. Well, I'm not interested in a discussion with someone who isn't even trying and won't admit that he even cares. So agree to disagree I guess.
ayy never knew there's a Lois Lane thread. I LOVE Lois Lane!! especially Amy's...