A so-called columnist puts down DC's ladies of the Silver Age
And now, having written my response to what Capt. Comics said about Civil War, I'm going to try to scrutinize an old entry on the message board of the site he owns, a message that the fluff-columnist for Scripps-Howard News Service wrote 3 years ago, because I am more than a bit annoyed at how he dismissed, in all his pretentious "glory", the ladies of DC comics from the Silver Age, and clearly doesn't appreciate the fact that, for women of their time, they were ahead of some of those featured at Marvel. And arguably, the nastiest put-down of the gals he mentions in the message he wrote here is what he said here about Jean Loring, back on March 22, 2004, in reply to a topic involving DC's women of the Silver Age:
Back in my grandparents' days (the 1920s-50s), it was common for a husband to ask the wife upon marriage to give up her job and just let him do the breadwinning. Well married or not, a women has a right to go to work if she wants to. My grandfather, when he married my grandmother, wanted her to give up her job as a nurse. But when my mother was going to college in the 1960s, she was one of those who took an entirely different path, thinking for herself. Even upon marriage, she still wanted to work (as a tutor), and did so; that's the line of thought that emerged around then, and for many women, happily so.
When Jean told Ray in the first story that she wanted to establish her career before getting married, she didn't mean that she didn't want to get married. She just meant that she wanted to have her own say in how she'll put together her part of their life as a couple. Also, she had a right to expect something postive from Ray at his end (to prove himself in his own career as a scientist).
Captain Comics also makes it sound as though Jean was intentionally being cruel to Ray by "keeping him on a string". Well duh, he's gotta understand that, as bothersome as it may be that she's delaying her decision, she does have a right to determine just how and when she wants to get married, and from the material of the time in which this was brought up, I didn't ever get the impression that she was in any ways being mean to Ray. No, what she was trying was to put it over in gentle terms, and get him to understand that, as much as Ray would like to get married, he can't rush things. Clearly, Capt. Comics must've been wallowing in male victimology when he wrote that message of his, acting as if when we men want to get married, that the lady must obey no matter what. Ahem. The woman has a right to determine at her end how things'll be worked out too, and we can't just force 'em to get married solely on ours, the men's, terms. Exactly what I'll have to bear in mind when I get married, with any luck to a girl I'd joined at a party I went to two months ago.
Now, what's this that Capt. Comics did here, but to take the subject of Jean's infidelity out of context:
He then says in parentheses:
He then goes on to put down Carol Ferris:
Yawn. Sounds more to me like Captain Comics is not impressed with the fact that Carol was one of the earliest women in comics to be depicted in a prominent position as head of a conglomerate, (in airplane manufacturing), and while it's not like I've read every story of GL from the Silver Age, I can't say that she treated Hal Jordan like a doormat either (looking at the picture next to this, it sure looks like their relationship was a pretty good one, even in terms of business). No mention or appreciation of the fact that Carol was ahead of her time when she first appeared either, I see. What's impressive about Carol's being an exec in a company like hers is the fact that at the time, outside the fashion world, women as top executives in companies like airline manufacturers were still pretty rare, even in family-owned businesses. Clearly, Capt. Comics is a man who can't or won't give credit at the very least to that.
(Note: She was the daughter of the boss when first featured, but still had a prominent position as one of the company leaders and later ascended the role of chairwoman full time.)
And while we're at it, what's this he says on Mera, queen of Atlantis alongside Aquaman:
Most interesting is that he wrote this at about the time Identity Crisis was coming out, and I have to wonder if it was all intentional, since most of the press was likely notified of what DC's output would be. Whatever, the most irritating thing about what he says is that it puts his fandom for the Silver Age, or any age, under a question mark, and totally misses one of the most important points about the characters - that they're fictional, and if he's got any gripe about their characterization, well it's not their fault that they're not up to his standards, whatever they might be, it's the writers fault. Does that mean then that he doesn't appreciate all the marvelous things that Gardner Fox and John Broome did in their time? I don't know, but if he really has any problem with how the DC ladies were written, why doesn't he just criticize the writers, the ones really responsible for the renditions? Stan Lee has been criticized at times for not writing some of his first female characters as strongly as the ones at DC, and for not giving them careers as big as those that the DC ladies had (unless maybe we include Jane Foster, who's a nurse). I'm not always happy seeing either him or the writers at DC being carped on, but I realize that for anyone who's got a complaint, I have to respect their right to do so, certainly if it makes sense. So, where do people like Capt. Comics get off by just ripping on the characters, when it's not their fault if they're not well written in the opinion of the journalists?
There may have been a time when I could overlook the biases and sugary approach to writing displayed by people like Captain Comics. But that time is now past, and seeing him rip so cynically on some of the best ladies of the Silver Age, making it sound as though he's not the comics fan I might've thought he was years ago, that really makes me sick. Because talk like that is pretty much what's led to all the abuse of these great old characters by their ownerships.
He really disgusts me as a human being.
Jean Loring kept turning down Ray Palmer's proposals until she had made her name as a lawyer. As a genre convention it makes sense, but from a real-world perspective, it had a number of uncomfortable elements -- such as the implication that as soon as Jean married she had to stop being a lawyer, and Jean's cruelty in keeping Ray on a string.Say what? What our flimsy journalist says here totally obscures one of the most important factors in how Gardner Fox first introduced Jean back in 1961: that she was a women who stood up for her rights to whether she wanted to keep on with the career she was working in, that being a lawyer.
Back in my grandparents' days (the 1920s-50s), it was common for a husband to ask the wife upon marriage to give up her job and just let him do the breadwinning. Well married or not, a women has a right to go to work if she wants to. My grandfather, when he married my grandmother, wanted her to give up her job as a nurse. But when my mother was going to college in the 1960s, she was one of those who took an entirely different path, thinking for herself. Even upon marriage, she still wanted to work (as a tutor), and did so; that's the line of thought that emerged around then, and for many women, happily so.
When Jean told Ray in the first story that she wanted to establish her career before getting married, she didn't mean that she didn't want to get married. She just meant that she wanted to have her own say in how she'll put together her part of their life as a couple. Also, she had a right to expect something postive from Ray at his end (to prove himself in his own career as a scientist).Captain Comics also makes it sound as though Jean was intentionally being cruel to Ray by "keeping him on a string". Well duh, he's gotta understand that, as bothersome as it may be that she's delaying her decision, she does have a right to determine just how and when she wants to get married, and from the material of the time in which this was brought up, I didn't ever get the impression that she was in any ways being mean to Ray. No, what she was trying was to put it over in gentle terms, and get him to understand that, as much as Ray would like to get married, he can't rush things. Clearly, Capt. Comics must've been wallowing in male victimology when he wrote that message of his, acting as if when we men want to get married, that the lady must obey no matter what. Ahem. The woman has a right to determine at her end how things'll be worked out too, and we can't just force 'em to get married solely on ours, the men's, terms. Exactly what I'll have to bear in mind when I get married, with any luck to a girl I'd joined at a party I went to two months ago.
Now, what's this that Capt. Comics did here, but to take the subject of Jean's infidelity out of context:
So when a later writer had Jean cheat on Ray, it actually didn't strike me as a clumsy writer's fiat -- in context of the character, it made an uncomfortable amount of sense. She had always taken Ray for granted, and her lawyer life (she slept with another lawyer) had always been more important.I beg your pardon, buffoon? Knowing the exact synopsis of Sword of the Atom, which he didn't even mention here, I can say that he is telling a very disgusting untruth. Quite the opposite of what he says, it was Ray who took Jean for granted, when, as was established, she was angry at him later on because she felt he was neglecting her, spending too much of his time dabbling in science and in super-doing, to the point of where, in seeking revenge on him, she committed infidelity with Paul Hoben, another lawyer who worked at her law firm. It may not have been justified, but, to say the least, there was a reason why she'd cheated on Ray back then, and it wasn't because she spited him or was unfaithful. Talk about taking the whole thing out of context, rendering it superficial and making it sound as though Jean were just some lying, cheating jerk!
He then says in parentheses:
(From my perspective, I thought Ray was better off without her.)And from my perspective, I think I'm better off not reading his columns, some of the worst fluff-coated garbage I've ever experienced in my life, and certainly as I came to realize in the past few years. Scripps-Howard News Service deserves much better than this blatant mainstream media clown, whose fandom for comics I practically question.
He then goes on to put down Carol Ferris:
What to say about Carol Ferris? She treated dedicated suitor Hal Jordan like a doormat, but swooned over Green Lantern's celebrity. What a shallow, selfish little twit! And this isn't even bringing up a blind spot she shared with Lois, in that she dated and KISSED both the men in her life, but didn't know they were the same guy! It may be a genre convention that a domino mask or a pair of glasses is an effective disguise, but it's a silly one -- particularly when you take into account the kissing (and possibly more) part.
Yawn. Sounds more to me like Captain Comics is not impressed with the fact that Carol was one of the earliest women in comics to be depicted in a prominent position as head of a conglomerate, (in airplane manufacturing), and while it's not like I've read every story of GL from the Silver Age, I can't say that she treated Hal Jordan like a doormat either (looking at the picture next to this, it sure looks like their relationship was a pretty good one, even in terms of business). No mention or appreciation of the fact that Carol was ahead of her time when she first appeared either, I see. What's impressive about Carol's being an exec in a company like hers is the fact that at the time, outside the fashion world, women as top executives in companies like airline manufacturers were still pretty rare, even in family-owned businesses. Clearly, Capt. Comics is a man who can't or won't give credit at the very least to that.(Note: She was the daughter of the boss when first featured, but still had a prominent position as one of the company leaders and later ascended the role of chairwoman full time.)
And while we're at it, what's this he says on Mera, queen of Atlantis alongside Aquaman:
And Aquaman and Mera had a steady, adult-ish, believable relationship. When later writers threw a monkey wrench into that one, I was disappointed. (Unlike the Jean Loring thing.) And incidentally, isn't it interesting that both Mera and Jean were insane for a time?And, isn't it interesting that he doesn't even mention the exact reasons why they went insane, in Jean's case being because a subatomic alien race called the Jimberen used a radiation device to brainwash her into madness? (For more on how Mera went insane, here's an Aquaman profiling.) And I might also add that my parents' marriage has had it's moments of anguish between them (much to my depression), so married or not, it is realistic enough if Ray and Jean have ever had their fallouts, which they did. I'm guessing that what he means by a believable relationship is that the Atlantean royal couple didn't ever lock horns over anything; real life, with the breakup between the prince and princess of Wales, tells us that it's quite possible for even a royal couple to have their own inner clashes.
Most interesting is that he wrote this at about the time Identity Crisis was coming out, and I have to wonder if it was all intentional, since most of the press was likely notified of what DC's output would be. Whatever, the most irritating thing about what he says is that it puts his fandom for the Silver Age, or any age, under a question mark, and totally misses one of the most important points about the characters - that they're fictional, and if he's got any gripe about their characterization, well it's not their fault that they're not up to his standards, whatever they might be, it's the writers fault. Does that mean then that he doesn't appreciate all the marvelous things that Gardner Fox and John Broome did in their time? I don't know, but if he really has any problem with how the DC ladies were written, why doesn't he just criticize the writers, the ones really responsible for the renditions? Stan Lee has been criticized at times for not writing some of his first female characters as strongly as the ones at DC, and for not giving them careers as big as those that the DC ladies had (unless maybe we include Jane Foster, who's a nurse). I'm not always happy seeing either him or the writers at DC being carped on, but I realize that for anyone who's got a complaint, I have to respect their right to do so, certainly if it makes sense. So, where do people like Capt. Comics get off by just ripping on the characters, when it's not their fault if they're not well written in the opinion of the journalists?
There may have been a time when I could overlook the biases and sugary approach to writing displayed by people like Captain Comics. But that time is now past, and seeing him rip so cynically on some of the best ladies of the Silver Age, making it sound as though he's not the comics fan I might've thought he was years ago, that really makes me sick. Because talk like that is pretty much what's led to all the abuse of these great old characters by their ownerships.
He really disgusts me as a human being.
Labels: Aquaman, Atom, dc comics, Green Lantern, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, women of dc
