To those crying that Superman’s bisexuality ruining their childhood, Amber Ruffin says, “Bitch, please”
Amber Ruffin stands for truth, justice, and making fun of hysterically bigoted fanboys
TV News Amber Ruffin
As a pop culture site, the A.V. Club is dutifully prepared for fan backlash. Especially when a beloved pop cultural character, film, or series introduces something new that’s seen as threatening—to certain people. Most notably, those fanboys and right-wing professional media outrage artists who trot out the exact same arguments, insults, and slurs whenever, say an iconic movie franchise suggests that ladies might bust ghosts, too. Or a comics company decides that it’s time for Captain America to be Black, Spider-Man to be Black and Latino, or—most terrifying (to some)—an established character to come out as anything but straight.
Amber Ruffin is also plugged into the pop cultural current, and, on Friday’s Amber Ruffin Show, the host took on the latest comic book announcement to cause a certain population to essentially have little mini hate-strokes. That, of course, is DC’s revelation that Superman is bisexual, a development that noted nerd Ruffin examined from all sides, ruminated upon, and then formulated the thoughtful assessment to all this all-too-predictable knee-jerk hoopla, “Bitch, please.” (It’s a new segment, sure to crop up with great frequency.)
Unlike, say those Fox News types who’ve seized upon DC’s announcement in outrage that the world continues to not conform to their narrow-minded worldview, Ruffin came armed with bulletproof facts. For one thing, most such blowhards have never actually read a Superman comic in their lives (or, if they did, they completely missed the point), and don’t realize that the Superman we’re talking about is actually Jon Kent, the super-powered son of Clark Kent and longtime love, Lois Lane. Beyond that, Ruffin upended the logic of those actual fanboys (who’ve also missed the point of Supes over the years), who claim that this nuanced piece of fictional character development is “ruining their childhood.” As Ruffin put it (after scoffing a dismissive, “Bitch, please”), “If a comic book character being bisexual ruined your childhood, your childhood was trash to begin with.” Ruffin also pointed out the hypocrisy of those decrying Superman’s kid being bisexual but pounding out years’ worth of erotic fan fiction about Superman (who is an actual space alien) hooking up with a human women.
Lastly, to the oh-so-tired “gay agenda” conspiracy bigots out there, Ruffin noted, “With all of the power of my ancestors behind me—Bitch, please.” Representation matters, and in comics maybe more than anywhere, since, as Ruffin put it eloquently:
There is a child out there who is scared, and not feeling seen. And they don’t see themselves represented on TV, and they can be made to feel lesser because of who they are. One day, that child is going to pick up a comic book and see an iconic character that’s associated with strength, honesty, and America, and they’re gonna see that that person is just like them.
See, now that’s somebody who gets Superman.
98 Comments
I can never quite understand the “ruined my childhood” thing.What, Tobacco Made Me Evil Superman was OK? Any of the honestly just plain shitty and hokey villains/plots the character has been shoehorned into are all OK? You also truly are offended by Red Son or any of the alternate Superman stories? You can’t be bothered to wait for the next writer, said writer most likely to take their own separate path with the character with or without addressing sexuality?
Oh, that’s right, it’s outrage for outrage’s sake to “fight for the white majority” or some bullshit. Great.
Yeah, anyone who uses the “that’s gonna ruin my childhood!” bullshit will only get one answer from me.Your childhood is over now. Let the new generation have their childhood, and you can start being a fucking grown up for a change.
Yep. If a new version of something I liked as a youngster comes out and I don’t care for it, it doesn’t erase the version I did like. The original Tomorrow People – with its ropey effects that made Doctor Who look like an MCU film – was a show I absolutely adored as a child, and the 1992 version, while hot garbage on a plate, did nothing to harm that. (I should note, I actually quite enjoyed the most recent reboot)The only exception is George Lucas, who – in a very specific way – is very keen on destroying things Star Wars fans enjoyed as children. Not by releasing the prequels, of course, but by having done everything in his considerable power to prevent us from being able to obtain anything other than his “Special” Editions, all the while crapping on the theatrical versions that so captured our imaginations as “rough cuts.”And while I’m saltier than the Bonneville Salt Flats about it, even I wouldn’t sing a song about it comparing it to sexual assault. That’s gross.
“The only exception is George Lucas” Fuck off
Working As Intended.
Yup. AVGN saying “these aren’t my Ghostbusters”. Well no they’re not.
It’s hilarious how people who complain that the world is “too sensitive nowadays” are freaking out over a comic book character.
I’m not oversensitive, you’re oversensitive!
It’s always projection with those guys.
Yeah, Superman III *actively* ruined my childhood. I didn’t need to see lothario Supes and then that woman turned into a robot monster on my 10th brithday…Superman’s son being bi? Big whoop.
Always hated the “ruined my childhood” thing. Never makes much sense.
One of the cringiest moments from any documentary was the two neckbeards singing “George Lucas Raped My Childhood” at the beginning of The People vs. George Lucas.
I blame South Park for that. Don’t get me wrong, I still, to this day like the show, but there was a period in time where they were ignorant of the cultural impact they were having on the world around them. And this is one of those things. They had that episode where Stan was having nightmares about Steven Spielberg and George Lucas literally raping characters from their movies. The moral of the episode wasn’t “everyone needs to calm the fuck down” but instead it was “Steven and George need to be stopped before they rape our entire childhood”.
Their gripe was with them making objectively awful movies with beloved characters, not developing the characters in a progressive way, so it’s not really an apt comparison
To be fair, the Lucas raping childhoods thing started in 1999 (the AICN comment threads from what I remember). South Park was using it to spoof people’s reactions to Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. And I never took the moral as that. I don’t doubt that Parker and Stone weren’t fans of Indy 4 but I also think by using the scene from The Accused to show Lucas and Spielberg literally raping childhoods they were making fun of internet hyperbole.
1997 actually — when he released Star Wars: The Special Edition.You remember? The one with all the badly-dated CGI that actually slowed the movie down…?And yet, somehow? I’ve recovered from it.
That would be before my internet days but I can well imagine it starting with that. Star Wars fans not being known for their eloquently non-hyperbolic responses to disappointment.
Quiet Dignity and Grace, that’s STAR WARS fandom!
Right, like you’re 40 years old. Why are you still living your childhood anyway?
I loved when people claimed the TV series “Under The Dome” ruined the book for them. And Stephen King, being Stephen King did an interview or video that basically also said “Bitch, Please” and told people that if they thought a movie or TV adaptation ruined his work for them, to go back and read the book or novella however often they wanted, because the film or TV didn’t change the words on the page. I think he learned that lesson the hard way because of the way he and Kubrick clashed about “The Shining” and then King became one of the first authors to embrace the possibilities of ebooks/shorts/Streaming. One of the things I have always loved about King is he doesn’t have the “Worship me, I am a serious auteur!” vibe, he embraces that he is a storyteller, and he jumped on different ways to tell his stories as technology evolved.
I also appreciate that he has evolved so much over decades, and tends to gently make fun of himself and other dudes his age for past pitfalls and low spots.
its all in Maximum Overdrive. Stephen King knows whats hes written and will be the first to shit on it. i like him way more than any of his books
Being still rather optimistic at the time, I was stunned at the Phantom Menace backlash. I was the guy on message boards going “Y’all remember the Ewoks, right?”
It always carries an absolutely massive dose of entitlement with it, as if preserving your individual nostalgia for some corporate IP should be everyone else’s top priority forever.
Is Amber Ruffin gay? I didn’t think so. Thanks for repping folks who don’t enjoy your hetero privilege.
Amber Ruffin, going where every single other talk-show host will also go.Even if our childhoods weren’t dependent on who Superman dated, are we allowed to say that this feels like pandering done purely to generate empty plaudits, and about 20 years too late to be a gesture that means anything?
How is having a new character come out as a typical sexuality pandering? I’ve been reading comics for forty years and I’ve been in online comics fandom for twenty. Most of the comics fans I know are gay or bi. Why shouldn’t the characters we read about reflect some aspects the lives of the people spending money for the material? It doesn’t take away anything that’s already been written. It adds a dimension for people who want to read about a wider range of characters. There are still hundreds, perhaps thousands, of straight comics characters the straight comics readers can enjoy and feel pandered to with.
I agree in the sense that, ultimately, I suppose it’s about what they do with the, as you said, “added dimension.” And it’s not as if it’s a negative in and of itself, obviously. It just feels like the result of a bunch of executives getting a room and deciding what a capital-p Progressive move, radical but not too radical, taht they could make to get some good press, regardless of whether it feels connected to anything previously established about the character.The big caveat here, admittedly, is that I only know so much about *Jon* Kent, so I don’t know how organic this development will feel. Maybe it will.
“Maybe it will” haha. Why don’t you spend some time talking about things you actually know something about?
Nobody likes you.
If it weren’t the result of a bunch of executives trying to be progressive, in what way would that look different, do you think?
“I just want them to stay true to the character!”[beat] “Admittedly, I know nothing about this character.”
John Constantine, who was established to be bisexual thirty years ago in a niche title targeted towards mature audiences, was only allowed to really be bisexual within the last decade. Up to that point his only relationship with a man depicted in the comics was actually a part of a plot to get back at a villain who was a walking depraved homosexual trope.
So yes, when you take their history into account, DC giving the greenlight to make a popular newer character who is the child of their most iconic character and the heir apparent to his title (but let’s be honest they’re never gonna to retire Clark Kent for good) is sort of radical.
Really? Most of the comics fans you know are gay or bi?? Not just a bunch of them?
Don’t you know? Anything that acknowledges existence of anything other than straight white males is pandering.
I think it is fair to say that DC is not likely doing this to be inclusive per se. They do this sort of thing a lot. A lot of stuff gets said, sales spike, sales calm down, and then in a year or two this particular run gets canceled, and in this case, if Jon Kent is in a new series, his bi-sexuality is sort of forgotten about to maximize his broad, generic appeal. From that respect it is pandering, in that it is just a cynical ploy for more press time. Marvel does the same thing. Maybe this time it will be longer term. I doubt it however.
You want to know how I know you don’t read comics?
so youd answer their question “ are we allowed to say that this feels like pandering done purely to generate empty plaudits, and about 20 years too late to be a gesture that means anything” with a No?
are we allowed to say that this feels like panderingHe said as if the comic industry hasn’t been full of empty pandering to straight white boys for 80 years. about 20 years too late to be a gesture that means anything?If that were true there’d be no outrage, just shrugs. Instead there’s pundits and commenters frothing at the mouth to let everyone know how “outdated” they think this “pandering” is, while simultaneously complaining that it’s being “shoved down our kids throats”.Until the reaction to “this character is queer” is just shrugs and “whatevs”, it sure as shit isn’t “20 years too late to mean anything.”
No, you’re not even allowed to say that. Movies, and video games, and comics acknowledging that the world no longer singularly revolves around the straight white male isn’t pandering. And there is no such thing as “too late” when it comes to representation only “about fucking time”.
Appreciate that. My page of the script fell out. I will memorize and proceed.
Just as long as you keep that dogwhistle in your pocket.
I can’t speak on your motivations, as I don’t know you. But when I hear that a new character being anything outside of “cis-het neurotypical white guy” feels like “pandering”, it sounds an awful like “Why do they have to talk about it?” levels of “I’d prefer to ignore that people like you exist.”
To me, it feels like people are finally putting their money where their mouth is. Instead of just saying “I’d like to see more LGBT+ characters in things”, they’re actually doing it.
“Pandering” is fundamentally useless as a distinction when you’re talking about a company the size of WarnerMedia. Oh, you mean they’re making something they think people might want? Like every other decision they’ve made for decades?
going where every single other talk-show host will also go.
Yes, it’s a current topical piece of news, that’s what talk-shows talk about.
And it certainly means something to bisexual readers that get to see Superman having similar experiences to them. If you don’t like it then you don’t have to watch or read either.
My only point was that it’s not a novel opinion, and it’s not brave. Whether you agree or not, I think it’s unquestionable that there’s a progressive narrative that gets trumpeted on these shows, often in nearly identical words. Again, even if you happen to agree, it makes for a lot of boring, unfunny television. I don’t think it’s the worst thing to want more variety.
Diversity of representation is more variety.
I don’t know. In a world where there are some countries that still imprison or even execute people for their sexuality, and in a country where people in a state in which a gay man was horribly murdered can wear t-shirts advocating violence towards gay people and sell out, or a shooting at a nightclub can be seen as a good thing, or a religious person can cost them their jobs, refuse them services or render them homeless, I’d say it’s pretty brave.Maybe I’m just a woke snowflake, but as someone who has LGBT+ loved ones, it means something to me.
“I don’t think it’s the worst thing to want more variety.”
A perfect capper. And yes I know what you meant, so no need to thought-experiment your way through it.
Assuming that you’re actually upset about the “pandering” (and not just searching for ways to publicly justify your discomfort with LGBT representation)…so what? Companies are always chasing the zeitgeist and maybe DC really is just angling for a pat on the head from the “woke left,” but…look, is it fundamentally a good thing or a bad thing to have more representation in comics?
Assuming that you’re actually upset about the “pandering” (and not just searching for ways to publicly justify your discomfort with LGBT representation)“Sorry, could a blind newborn anglerfish in the deepest, darkest, farthest waters have seen that immediately at first glance?”Edit: Silly me, he’s also rly concerned about something something narrative. It just raises concerns is all. Concerning ones.
I’ll bet he also supposed #GamerGate because it was about Ethics in Games Journalism.Puh-LEEZE!
You know what’s not novel or brave? Whining about gay characters in comics. Or anywhere else, for that matter.
“My only point was that it’s not a novel opinion, and it’s not brave.”Let’s pretend that you’re right. Does it really matter if something’s novel or brave if it’s still the right thing to do?
Yes, we get it, as surely as we know you didn’t know this character existed 3 days ago, if you even read as far to catch his name.“Wah. Stop making O U R characters gay and ethnic and women. Make your own.”“Wah. Stop making new gay and ethnic and women characters. That’s pandering, and also tokenism, ack-tually, so is it reeeeally as progressive as etc. etc. etc.”And yet here you folks always are, releasing the same brain-farts made equally as windy a thousand times before.
You’re allowed to say what you want, but I’m also allowed to say that people only complain about “pandering” when minorities/women/LGBT+ folks are getting a hit of representation.
It can be two things. There’s plenty of creatives who actually care about representation, and there’s plenty of execs who will greenlight it for the extra sales and publicity.Human beings are complicated.
Any other Dean Cain bullshit you wish to repeat?
One of the many non-millionaires at DC probably pushed really hard to get one of the “major” characters to be anything but straight. They were proud that they got this through the wall of old, white guys in the boardroom. Finally, “their” people would get just a little representation on the page.Are you allowed to say, “Fuck you” to that person? To tell them how meaningless their accomplishment is?Sure. Knock yourself out
kill yourself
No, Todd Anderson — you’re not.Unless you end it with, “But of course, y’all know I’m a homophobic bigot!” Because anybody sneering at “virtue signalling” is likely trying to pretend we still live in the 1950s, where (White) Men were Men…and Sheep were Scared.
It’s not Clark Kent, it’s his and Lois’s son Jon, so it’s not like you can say your childhood is “ruined” because Jon Kent didn’t exist until very recently. So put on your big-boy pants and STFU if you can’t say, “Great! About time!”
Changing the identities of established characters invalidates those identities for the real people belonging to those communities. Taking established straight characters and making them bi, or swapping the gender and race of characters, it’s bullshit. It basically makes marginalized identities like those old school toys where you could swap clothes on a paper cut out doll. It turns well known and established people, albeit fictional, into Rachel Dolzeals. If you don’t find that offensive then you are a piece of shit.
Your whining complaints prove how timely it remains.
I agree with Amber (even if I can’t really work up any interest in this character), but she was much better off without an audience. The laughs and applause sound canned and take away from the moment.
Give them hell Ruffin! Ha ha. Ruffin’s the real Superman fan!
After The Phantom Menace there were morons claiming it raped their childhood, so this is progress, I guess.
Just no one tell the new morons that Superman’s actually an illegal alien that married a local and started a family. You’ll blow their fragile little minds.
That was over the top, yeah. The Phantom Menace made me realize that Star Wars had been silly/campy space opera all along. I’d just been focusing on the more ‘serious’ parts, and ignoring the rest.That reset my expectations for the rest of the franchise. I’ve been enjoying it — moderately — as a series of dumb rollercoaster rides.
Hey, I don’t like the prequels. But “rape my childhood”?! Ah, no.
Yeah, I mean, I know a thing or two about obsessing over stupid pop culture stuff, but saying a movie ‘raped your childhood’ because it didn’t live up to your expectations is taking it too far, even for me.
All it did was convince me that Lucas is a one-trick pony who got lucky with the original STAR WARS movie — and later, I found out just how much Brian De Palma, Stephen Spielberg, John Dykstra and his then-wife Marcia did to save his bloated, overlong tribute to his childhood.
Go one better and point out that Lois and Superman together is technically bestiality.
Like, the entire Superman allegory is about being an outsider but still trying to “pass” in someone else’s world.
It’s just like when Sam Wilson took over as Captain America. He’s a Captain America, yes. But he’s not the Captain America. There are multitudes. Just like Superman. This is a Superman, not the Superman. Hell, Nazi Superman, Stalinist Superman, and psycho-murderer Superman have been around for a while. It’s nice that DC finally got around to Bi-Superman.
The NYTimes coverage of this whole thing brought up the gay panic inherent in the Comics Code Authority. I’m pretty sure that kind of suppression didn’t help anyone’s childhood. Anyway, are any actual comics readers particularly mad about this?
Not this one – when they started Jon’s secret identity-college student thing, and have him immediately be connected to that one student, it was like, “hmm…maybe they’ll go in that direction”
I’ve mostly been reading Marvel stuff, but I’m assuming DC isn’t so different in the way it handles characters in the last ten years or so as just being accepting to the point where commenting on a character’s sexuality isn’t really that big of a deal (in universe). For all the talk about a certain segment of fans, the comics themselves have been light-years ahead of TV and movies, especially anything more YA-oriented, when it comes to representation. And we are rapidly approaching the point where something like Young Avengers IS the comics of people’s childhoods.
It’s weird how genuinely happy I am that Young Avengers Is the ‘comics of their youth’ for certain people at this pointAnd then saddened at how disappointed they’ll be when they’re like, “Oh man – now where can I read regular monthly issues involving all these characters?”
I’m cursed to really like characters who fizzle in their solo ventures like that (“Thor” being the one exception, but even then I’m worried that somehow by liking it I’m going to kill it). In the case of Young Avengers, I think the name doomed them, not the actual characters or representation.
I was behind Marvel when Spider-Man lost its Comics Code seal (if you don’t remember, they depicted Harry Osborne as a heroin addict).
And I was a child then.
Kids really aren’t afraid of adult themes.
I remember! I was actively reading THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN back then, and it wasn’t until people started commenting on how “brave” Marvel was to go against the CBA that I even noticed it was missing.
It’s not as if the story presented a remotely positive view of drug addiction, either.
No, no one in cares. We all love Tom Taylor. We’re more mad that they’re gonna ship Clark off screen for a few years before inevitably bringing him back.
“I don’t care about anyone’s sexuality!” *clicks on the 20th video angry about thE gAy AgeNdA*
Sounds like some fine manufactured outrage we’ve got here.
if I was still in my Catholic high school, I’d have to hide these issues. they’d get banned quick.more characters need to be created that have a progressive outlook.
First, who the fuck is Amber Ruffin?Second, in 2022 when Thor comes out as Trans heads are going to explode.
> First, who the fuck is Amber Ruffin?Some hackier-than-average late night host Perkins likes to rebroadcast for Facebook rage clicks
You new here?
She’s a comedian and show host. OH! You were doing that dumbass “I don’t know who this person is so I can disregard their opinion” shtick that needs to die out. Never mind.
If you want the ultimate “ruin your childhood” comic may I suggest The Pro.
I don’t care if Jon Kent is bisexual. I don’t care if Clark Kent is bisexual. I don’t see how it could ruin my childhood. I never really conceived of Superman as a sexual being when I was a kid. I mean sure, he kissed Lois Lane every once in a while, but mostly he was about beating up bad guys and space monsters. So making him bisexual isn’t going to shatter some preconceived notion I had of his heterosexual nature.
Just a shame she had to add “and America” at the end. Could have left that out considering it’s not just the US that has issues with gays.
Wow just came here for the first time in ages. AV Club is still a thing, I guess? Do we still hit up Digg?
Too many people are still living their childhoods so anything that ends that emotionally-stunted nonsense is fine with me.
I’m honestly not trying to be snarky (Dennis Perkins does that enough for both of us) when I ask, who are these gay kids who don’t see themselves represented on TV? Gay representation is almost mandatory nowadays. With the exception of Squid Game, I can’t think of the last show I watched that didn’t have a gay character. Snowpiercer? Check. Kevin Can Fuck Himself? Check. Picard? Check. The Queen’s Gambit? Check. Little Fires Everywhere? Check. The Haunting of Bly Manor? Check. Game of Thrones? Check. Mr Robot? Check. I could go on, and on, and on forever. The idea that gays aren’t represented on TV is at least 15 years out of date.
https://www.fiverr.com/web_ashiq2019/design-wordpress-website-with-divi-avada-child-or-any-theme
Half those numpties didn’t even realise it was Jon Kent and though they were changing up Kal-El’s sexuality. If only people could be bothered actually reading what they are screaming and shouting about. Or just weren’t fucking idiots.
So Superman is bisexual, who cares? As I remember him, his sexuality was the least interesting thing about him. The guy played a somewhat cruel game of cat and mouse with him, Lois, and Clark Kent, usually as a sideshow. Anyway it wasn’t why I followed his adventures.I’ve never heard the “ruined my childhood” thing. Who is saying this? Anyway, nobody is forcing you to read it. Just more snowflakes taking “offense” to something they can ignore.
Just seems like another reach to try to make this title relevant. It’s a little “ripped from today’s headlines,” but it’s probably hard to keep Superman relevant in any event.
What would be brave of DC or Marvel now would be to create a straight, conservative, practicing protestant Christian superhero. That would really be going against the grain.