The Four Color Media Monitor

The Indiana Gazette wrote about the history of Superman and the new movie that's opening, and along the way, they say something very offensive about his friendship with Jimmy Olsen:

The real surprise, though, is probably Jimmy Olsen. There’s no Olsen in Warner Bros.’ production notes, but IMDb.com lists a “Jenny Olsen,” played by Rebecca Buller. Great Caesar’s ghost! Is Superman’s pal now a palette?

Not necessarily. This could just be a curveball, introducing Jimmy’s sister or cousin or something first, before the male version arrives. But if Jenny sticks around in place of Jimmy, it won’t come as much of a surprise to long-term fans, who watched Jimmy cross-dress enough in the 1950s and 1960s (to get a “scoop,” naturally) that he was in the running with Bugs Bunny for most famous drag queen. And besides, a grown man taking a strong interest in a teenage boy might have been a wholesome mentoring schtick back in the day, but in the modern world it’s a little icky. Superman having a female groupie makes more sense, and naturally his innate sense of honor will keep her at a distance. That’s a win-win.

Excuse me? "Strong interest" sounds like a codeword for sexuality, and if they're implying what I think they are, that's insulting. They're also suggesting father/bigger-brother/uncle/teacher figures cannot work because it can only be construed as one thing, which is offensive in the extreme. Besides, the strong interest for Clark - a well-established heterosexual - back in the day was none other than Lois (and Lana Lang and maybe even the mermaid Lori Lemaris), and Clark and Jimmy were partners in business at the Daily Planet, not just 2 guys who met each other on the street.

What's almost hilarious is that these are the same kind of people who've turned their backs on Alan Scott after James Robinson forcibly turned him gay in DC's reboot, so I don't see how they're qualified to make these kind of arguments.

And if Clark could have an innate sense of honor with a girl, how could he not have the same with a boy too? Or, if that's how they feel, wouldn't a grown man mentoring a female protege also be considered a bit icky in modern times?

This isn't a win-win so much as it's a lose-lose, since according to the PC-nonsense crowd, an adult man can no longer be a mentor to a younger guy because it could only be interpreted as an unhealthy sexual relationship, and here when Clark and Jimmy met each other at work and the former took the latter under his wing as part of their place of employment to help him improve his skills as a cub scout reporter. And Clark had a sense of innate honor to back him up, which he could also use to offer Jimmy tips on how to win with the girls as he could with Lois. Whether the movie itself is successful in spite of the changes in genders and race (Perry White is said to be played by a black performer this time), their whole assertion that Clark's mentorship of Jimmy is "icky" is revolting, and made all the more absurd since these are the same kind of people who never objected to DC turning Alan Scott gay or forcing homosexuality down the audience's throats. If Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster could see what's being said about their creations, I think they'd be spinning in their graves.

Labels: dc comics, msm propaganda, politics, Superman