I’m extremely tired of other female characters being unfairly mad at Lois and Lois having to bend over backwards to gain their forgiveness on Superman and Lois. It happened with Chrissy, it happened with Lucy to an extent (at least she was brainwashed) and now it happened with Todd Helbing’s favourite Lana. This reeks of misogyny towards a character who has historically been a go-getter, a career woman, not just the damsel in distress. I have seen how plenty of people in Superman fandoms don’t like Lois because she doesn’t fit their idea of a soft conventional woman, and this show clearly seems to try to punish her for it by bringing her down like this. Her name is in the title card, damn it, and they still can’t give her any respect. This on top of already erasing most of her arc this season and mostly putting her in scenes for exposition or for yelling at the boys.

Superman’s best trait is that he loves his wife.

Sorry, I realized that I phrased it wrong: Lois Lane’s husband’s best trait is that he loves his wife.

Honestly sick of people acting like romance is somehow separate from a story and an inherently unnecessary, tacked-on element even when it’s clearly central to the plot of a story which would fall apart without it. Also sick of people acting like shipping is inherently superficial and uninteresting when it’s literally just a mode of engagement with a story and often a lens through which people examine themselves, their ideas about relationships of all kinds, and their identities. I guess it’s hard to explain to people who think that romance itself has no narrative or symbolic value that a large component of shipping for me is that I feel it makes a story more interesting to read it through that shipping lens. To be honest I think people’s issue with romance in and of itself is that it is more challenging than a lot of storytelling elements because it prompts this type of self-reflection on what you like and why, who you are, what you feel is romantic. It’s obviously easier to vibe with a “wholesome sibling relationship” or “just guys being bros” than to root around in your own soul trying to figure out why you like this romance and not that one, in what way you like a particular romance, why you read xyz as poignant or romantic. That’s why deliberate romance is almost entire absent from Marvel movies, which are by and large some of the most superficial dross the human race has ever produced.

I reblogged this already but I’m gonna pile on.

Shipping isn’t just a lens for introspection. It is a lens through which people see the actual story, which I think is where the depth AND the backlash both come from. Some people wind up with incredible tunnel vision, some people wind up writing stucky fics so heartfelt that their lines proliferate across the internet while everyone sours on the source material.

Anyway. Because shipping is a lens for engagement, people talk about it a lot. And then they argue with each other because their lenses for engagement don’t match and they may not really be able or willing to shift their perspectives because they’re really emotionally invested. And then that drowns out all other discussion unless you want to start tiptoeing into the parts of the internet that like to fight over wiki wording. And so people don’t always get practice engaging with other kinds of lenses. And so people who want to talk about literally anything else get irritated.

There’s a bunch of other stuff mixed up in it too about how romance is a more feminine and therefore less intellectual and serious and engaging concern and about how a lot of romance and a lot of shipping is in fact shallow and stupid but. A lot of things are shallow and stupid. Better to complain about the shallowness and stupidity itself than trying to suppress this whole component of storytelling.

Yes, exactly this. No lens for examining a story is inherently shallow or uninteresting nor is it inherently intellectually superior. But the way people act like romance is just this completely separate, bolted-on and clearly inferior aspect or lens gets my hackles up.

So, I was initially on board with this - I agree that romance can often be thematically or structurally significant, and that shipping isn’t necessarily separable from other forms of critical engagement - but there are some troubling assumptions going on in this post. Namely, the idea that romance is somehow deeper or thematically relevant than other fictional relationships or prompts more rigorous introspection. OP, you claim that “no lens… is inherently intellectually superior” in your addition, but that is belied by your earlier claim that romance is “more challenging” or more personally felt. 

This idea here that non-romantic relationships in media or fandom are always superficial or cannot prompt similar introspection is just untrue. The fact that romance is more often “read into” media in a way that other forms of relating aren’t (because they’re often already present) doesn’t mean that the personal engagement or self-reflection prompted by those alternates forms can’t be just as rigorous or challenging. And frankly, trying to pathologize an opposing point of view that is really just about a difference in preferences is pretty insulting, and not likely to either change the minds people who dislike romantic shipping, or get to to the heart of why that preference actually exists. 

Also, this line:

The idea that a lack of romance is the reason for superficiality of media is just a completely wrongheaded conclusion. Especially since many fan complaints about the directionality of the MCU have been about its lack of development of or attentiveness to its friendships. The implication here that romance alone generates, or at least is a marker of, depth or emotional resonance ignores the other circumstances of story craft, and the importance of other forms of relationships. A well-crafted romance in an ensemble cast is not going to do the work of holding up an entire story if the entire network of relationships is weakly developed. And there are many stories that do have emotional resonance and depth that do not feature romance, or do not prominently feature it. I honestly think the assumptions here undermine the overall point of the post - if romance is yet another lens for examining media, and is not always separable from story structure or thematics, then it shouldn’t be treated as an inherently separate element that can make or break a story on its own, or that is unique in prompting personal engagement or introspection. (Nor are personal engagement or introspection necessary elements in approaching a story to begin with). 

Also, while romance isn’t inherently shallow or tacked on, the reason why many people get frustrated with its prevalence is because in practice, in many cases, it is. I think this conversation is a bit muddled because comparing media in which romance is the primary purpose of the story, and in which romance is secondary to the main plot or premise, is going to lead to different conclusions about its role or its effect on audience engagement. However, there are many forms of media - many blockbuster films, many Young Adult novels, etc. - in which romances are literally tacked on because they’re seen as a prerequisite, regardless of how relevant to the story they are or how invested the creators actually are in them. (I’ve read that many Young Adult publishers aren’t willing to publish novels without romances in them, so it’s reasonable to assume that many people are writing them because of outside forces deeming them necessary, rather than because they’re indispensable to the story.) You brought up Marvel as not having “deliberate romance”, but their films do in fact have plenty of romantic subplots - and you will find many people who will agree that the Bruce/Natasha relationship added pretty much nothing to Avengers: Age of Ultron. 

I think perhaps the idea here is that a lack of well-developed romance will prompt fans to read that kind of romance into the text in the form of shipping, and that this is a valid exercise. Which is certainly true! But fans are doing that because they simply enjoy those kinds of relationships - it doesn’t follow that adding in that kind of detailed romance necessarily improves upon the story, or that shipping is only defendable because it performs some kind of necessary supplementation. There’s lots of well-written and emotionally deep media that doesn’t prominently feature romance that still has fandoms that do shipping, because they prefer that kind of engagement. And there are many ways poorly conceived stories could be improved on that doesn’t involve adding or fleshing out romantic plots. 

Like, this isn’t just about the fact that media is sometimes poorly conceived or constructed, and that intention is not always sacrosanct in evaluating whether something is executed well (although I think fandom at the moment is not very good at acknowledging that). It’s about that fact that romance is one particular story element that is very frequently done badly, because it’s seen as a default element that stories need to have, even in cases in which it’s not necessary. And the reason for that is the general societal pedestalization of romance, something this post very much plays into. I think acknowledging that that elevation of romance exists can very much go side-by-side with acknowledging the concurrent idea that romance is unnecessary, shallow, or frivolous. 

I did not say that platonic relationships can never be deep or prompt introspection and I’m kind of insulted you projected that onto my post. I get that my “just guys being bros” phrasing was flippant but it feels fairly clear from the post as a whole that I’m specifically talking about the phenomenon of people looking at romance that is relevant to a plot or at people choosing to interpret an intimate relationship as romantic and, because they find it challenging, saying it should be stripped of that dimension. A “just guys being bros” relationship isn’t a deep or complex platonic relationship, it’s a spectre fandom conjures of something it would be more comfortable with than any kind of deep, intimate relationship usually because it’s not actually interested in the relationship in question at all. People say it about ships they don’t like but usually they’re not actually producing or interested in fan works that explore the depth of a potential platonic bond between those relationships — they just want to neutralise the relationship altogether so they reach for the “should have been platonic” framing (which is what actually positions platonic love as inferior or less complex than romantic love). That’s what I was talking about so there’s a reason I didn’t say, e.g., “obviously it’s easier to vibe with a fraught but ultimately deep sibling bond”.

I’m going to give an example.

Lois Lane debuted in 1938 with Superman and was specifically designed by Siegel and Shuster as a fundamental and core part of the narrative. In fact, she is the ONLY other person who has existed as long as Clark Kent himself. Clark Kent was romantically interested in Lois Lane (and ONLY Lois Lane) before the Kents had names, before Lex Luthor, before Krypton was specifically named, before The Daily Planet —before the literal power of FLIGHT. That’s how fundamental, formative and important the relationship specifically between Lois Lane and Superman is to the entire Superman mythos. It is the beating heart. It’s part of the WHY. Siegel and Shuster were literal kids trying to impress a girl they liked and the woman they did it through was Lois Lane.

But isn’t Superman about truth and justice and fighting oppression and saving the world and immigration/assimilation? Of course it is! But it is also, fundamentally, at its core from the very start, a LOVE story. It’s a romance. Clark Kent was literally named after Clark Gable —he was designed as a romantic lead.

But, to this day, in 2021, it is still common to see men in particular (but frankly plenty of women too) insist with their entire chests that “Romance” is just a superficial side plot in the Superman story. That it should always take a back seat. That they should “just be co workers and not lovers.” That it’s “less important” than whatever villain Superman fights that week. It is COMMON for media properties that emphasize the romance like “Lois and Clark” and Smallville to be talked down to or spoken of as if they aren’t “real” Superman. It’s common for people to imply that the love story that uphold Superman: The Movie in 1978 was “frivolous.” It’s common for a show literally called “Superman and Lois” (like that’s the literal damn title) to underplay the romance between the two MARRIED leads at certain times especially in promotion of the show for fear of it coming off like a show for girls. Just as it’s common for people within the fandom to assert that a show literally called SUPERMAN and LOIS shouldn’t be about their marriage because that’s not as important as “other stuff.”

It is MISOGYNIST. Period. It is misogynist to believe that romance is somehow less important a story up tell but, also, that romance can’t be wrapped up in and promote the themes of the narrative clearly. The Superman/Lois romance ::enhances:: the themes of truth, justice, fighting for what’s right and immigration/assimilation. It isn’t some separate topic off to the sidelines . And this is what the OP is talking about. She is clearly not defending or advocating for random forced romances that have no real meaning to be shoved into random movies or superhero shows. She’s pointing out, correctly, that even franchises were there is a romance literally built into the core of the story are constantly told that the love story specifically is “not as important” as whatever person is being punched that week. She is specifically calling out the misogyny present when we act like romantic relationships make a franchise “girly” and she’s specifically calling out how rare it is for these kinds of franchises to even be willing to engage on this kind of level with a real romantic connection. The fact that the Superman franchise has done it consistently for 83 years is NOT common and is an absolute revelation because it’s that uncommon. And even THERE, literally every day, there is some asshole trying to “explain” why “actually Lois is just a side character and that’s it” or, worse yet, advocating for her death. Which is obviously misogynist horseshit. But that’s the bias we are dealing with here.

That’s the point I think the OP is making about romance. And I don’t want to jump all over her post but I think she’s completely correct. My example is specific but the concept is general. The audience is primed to be misogynist about it and, often, the narrative enforces that misogyny by just not engaging at all in any real way.

one of us! one of us! one of us!

Whew. I don’t even post on tumblr anymore but this post is so factually incorrect and loaded with bullshit that I’m actually breaking my tumblr hiatus to correct it because this is a complete rewrite of what Erica Durance endured as Lois Lane on Smallville and I did not spend years of my life defending that woman and the character she played from RELENTLESS, ageist, misogynist abuse along with hundreds of other women in the Smallville fandom in real time for someone who was, admittedly, a literal KID when Smallville was as on the air to try and rewrite history now regarding what actually transpired. Holy shit. You clearly do not have even the slightest educated clue of how Lois was actually received by fandom and the public when that show was on the air and I will be damned if you are going to try to rewrite it now as some kind of “new thought” you just had and pass it off as some statement on feminism.

Erica Durance’s Lois Lane was not a “boss babe.” That’s not what a boss babe even is!! Like you aren’t even remotely describing what that term means and the kind of woman it embodies! You don’t even know what you are talking about. And she most certainly wasn’t beloved or accepted because she was extremely outspoken and loud and unapologetic! On the contrary, she was repeatedly called “bitch” “mean” “too harsh” “too masculine” and “too old” for him. Erica was personally stalked by legions of Allison Mack’s fans who, on the regular, said she was “nothing but tits and ass”, who repeatedly called her “old” and who said she was “too stupid to be the iconic Lois Lane.” FFS for years on end they actively campaigned for her death asserting that, one day, Chloe would reveal herself to be “the real Lois.” They stalked her personal assistant and tried to get her fired. They made fun of every outfit she wore. They commented daily on her breasts, her face and repeatedly tried to get her run off the show.

Craig Byrne, the guy who STILL runs Kryptonsite also actively participated in the abuse though he would love for people to forget that he did. He labeled photos of Erica Durance and Tom as “Clark and his grandma” which was ageist and misogynist. He actively allowed posters at Ksite to call her “Nois” and “Hois” with no moderation. He allowed people to call Lois “slut” and banned the women who reported the abuse. This went on for the entire 7 years she was on the show! This was still a regular occurrence in season 10!

Which brings us again to this ageist nonsense. You are correct that chemistry is subjective. That’s true. But you know what’s NOT subjective? The fact that Erica Durance was the only actress on Smallville who was ACTUALLY Tom Welling’s peer and not several years younger than him and she received relentless abuse for “looking old.” You know what’s not subjective at all? That fandom literally always finds a way to “prefer” the chemistry of ships with younger women and pretend age had nothing to do with it. And the fact that you felt the need to say that the only woman who was actually Tom’s age was the one “missing” something next to him is a load of shady BS. There was no reason to say that. That’s all I’m gonna say on the chemistry thing because Tom and Erica’s chemistry is legendary among Superman fans and they don’t need my defense. I personally thought there was nothing between Clark and Lana after like season 3 but, frankly, that’s not even the point. Because I’m not here to insult Clark and Lana nor Lana herself. You never should have brought Tom and Erica up in your response to start with. There was no need. And you tried to pass it off as “subjective” while still getting a dig in. Completely unnecessary and rude. But like I said, Tom and Erica are legends as Lois and Clark and don’t need my defense. Their chemistry is legendary and nothing will change it.

Your defense of Lana is fine. I like Lana and I really really like Kristen Kreuk. But, to be frank, most of the criticism about Lana is warranted distinctly because Al and Miles were obsessed with her to an unhealthy degree and it had a negative impact on the way she was written. None of that was ever Kristen’s fault and she deserved BETTER than to be basically an object to male writers who treated her like nothing more than a pet. I wanted better for Kristen and I rooted for Lana plenty and still do. Although it’s RICH to me that Lois is apparently the “not like other girls” example when, in fact, it was LANA who the show treated as if she was so much better than every other woman and walked on water and could do no wrong and was saintly and perfect and she had trouble maintaining female friendships and every man loved her. Not Lois. Lois had a sister she loved and took care of. Lois had a female cousin she loved. Lois was very much not that trope of the lone woman that no other woman could live up to and was “not like other girls.” Lana was. That was Lana to a TEE. She had a new skill every episode, a new amazing accomplishment every damn season and rarely ever was asked to account for her sins. Unlike Lois who was asked to do it over and over again. So in addition to not actually understanding what a “boss babe” is you don’t seem to actually understand that trope either. But whatever. It’s just another way your analysis is full of shit.

But what is absolutely unacceptable and not ok is you rewriting history for Erica Durance and then trying to pass it off as some kind of feminist revelation about the show. Because it’s not true. Lois Lane has, as a character, been treated like trash from the minute she debuted in 1938 and Smallville’s version was no different. The character and actress were constantly harassed, treated horrifically, slut shamed, body shamed and constantly at the mercy of one of the most misogynist ass fandoms I’ve ever been a part of.

The acceptance you see of Smallville’s Lois Lane NOW in 2021 in places like tumblr and Twitter is literally only because, after all these years, it’s become clear to a lot of people that Erica was an extremely good Lois Lane—one of the best ever—-and that Tom and Erica were fire together. But that was a hard earned victory for this woman that, frankly, was partly influenced by some people, realizing and confronting, how completely misogynist it was that she was slut shamed so badly and treated so badly. Just as you are seeing people realize that Lana was often unfairly demonized, you are also seeing people celebrate Erica. And the misogynists have found a new target. They have Amy Adams and/or Elizabeth Tulloch to call “too old” and to harass now so, now, they leave Erica alone. And the cycle of abuse for whatever actress is currently playing Lois Lane continues. That’s how this rolls.

So, I mean, by all means share why you relate to Lana and defend her. But misusing terms like “boss babe” (are you kidding me with this shit? Boss babe does not even mean what you are describing) and pretending that Lois Lane was just completely accepted and beloved for all of these traits you describe when the exact opposite is true is not acceptable. This is not some kind of feminist manifesto you’ve come up with. Some of us were grown ass women when this all happened in real time and we were actually there and you do not get to rewrite our history. You should take down your post because it’s extremely misleading and disrespectful to what Erica went through from that fandom. Sometimes, if you were an actual kid when stuff was originally on the air, it’s across OK to just say that you don’t actually KNOW how a female character was treated and received in real time because you were too young to truly understand it as it unfolded and that’s what you should have done here rather than this disrespectful nonsense. Just say you like Lana and leave the rest of this shit out of it. Thanks.

@spectroscopes another person who wants to rewrite the Smallville fandom where apparently no one was mean to Lois!

SUPERMAN (1978) dir. Richard Donner

Tell me this isn't true.

I knew as soon as this episode aired that the misogyny from the fandom was going to be wildly out of control because so many of you are literally incapable of ever seeing anything from Lois’s POV, let alone from a mother’s POV. But I hoped that, maybe, since the episode was both written by and directed by a woman and great pains were taken to help explain in very clear terms that Lois was suffering from PTSD from child loss that some of you were going to find some empathy, remove your blinders where you only care about the boys emotions and attempt some care and concern for Lois as both a mother and as a person.

Clearly I gave you all too much credit because you didn’t grasp shit.

You either understand that this episode was about repressed grief after a late term child loss (an extremely serious topic rarely ever touched on TV) which can and does lead to both serious depression and, in some cases, has made women literally suicidal or you don’t. It is outrageously offensive to focus on the things that Lois said to Jonathan in her state of trauma —-which she later sought therapy for and wept over because she felt so horrible—and then ignore the follow-up where she comes to terms with why she lashed out at him the way she did (she was triggered by the memory of their lost baby and triggered by Jonathan’s life and death scare). It’s also outrageously offensive to frame this scene without acknowledging that not only did she beat herself up for the entire episode for losing her temper but then the episode ended with her opening up to Jonathan for the first time about the miscarriage, explaining her pain and telling him how much she loved him and that she would be there to help him. That’s what ::actually:: happened in this episode.

It doesn’t ::surprise:: me that tumblr fandom which is so intensely focused on demonizing parents and not viewing women or mothers as people would frame it this way but it’s disappointing nonetheless. If your takeaway from this episode about grief and repressed trauma over child loss was that Lois doesn’t love Jonathan as much as Jordan, you lack narrative comprehension skills and you need to work on your empathy.

I’d love more flashbacks of Clark’s parents, his childhood and the ideals they taught him that made him who he is today.

There was one episode that did that with Martha, but otherwise Clark’s past is often just told (when he’s speaking to his kids about his childhood), rather than shown.

The only thing that makes me feel like we have some Clark centric things happening, apart from his family, is The Stranger (who is still linked to Lois in the long run).

I don’t feel like Lois is short of screentime or a story arc. Often she’s the handy parent that even gives Clark tips on how to parent! She also has her career booming and a work partner for the town paper. Then we have The Stranger who is romantically linked to her in a another world, her childhood problems and beef with her army dad, as well as her taking on Morgan Edge.

If you look keenly, Lois is carrying the show. I’m not against that.

The problem is that the show feels not as focused on Clark as an individual. Sometimes the family thing really swallows up his individual shine.

I’ve basically stopped posting on tumblr completely so I’m breaking my no post rule here by responding to this but that’s how much I disagree with this read on what is happening on this show. I do not think this is correct at all.

First off, let me say that I signed up for a show about Clark and Lois first and foremost so it’s been an adjustment for me to accept that the focus of the show is given in so many instances to the kids. I like Jonathan and Jordan way more than I thought I would so, most of the time, I’ve accepted that now and I understand that my personal preferences don’t mean the focus on the family unit or kids is wrong. But, generally speaking, I would prefer less emphasis on the kids on more on Clark and Lois as a couple. But let’s put that aside for a second bc I want to address the show as it is and not what I wish it was.

Clark Kent and, by proxy, Tyler Hoechlin is NOT the undeserved party on this show. He’s not. He emotionally drives every single big moment. He makes every grand speech. He is the parent who’s feelings and POV are given the most weight. His relationships with both of the boys are given the most attention. His insecurities as a father are prevalent and often drive the emotional conflict of the episodes. He even drives the conflict with Lois’s own father! The cringey focus on Lana as his “first love”—-on a show where he’s 40 years old and has been MARRIED to Lois for 15 years by this point —-is extremely Clark focused in a way that’s not at all balanced. And, as Superman, he has received at least one huge save an episode (the nuclear facility ,busting through the wall to save Lois, fighting Derek, saving the train etc) where we see him scene steal in his capacity as Superman.

We know ::personal:: details about Clark Kent. We know the kind of music he used to like, we know he wanted to play baseball, we know about his high school relationships, we know who he dated as a teen, we know he loved growing up in the town, we know the kind of food he likes, we know a LOT about him as a PERSON. We’ve also SEEN flashbacks of his relationship with his mother. You say a lot of this stuff is TOLD to the audience and it’s true but that’s not a bad thing as it’s still painting a picture of who Clark was and who he is outside of his family. Those little details thrown in are character. There is a reason Tyler Hoechlin wound up on EW’s “performances worthy of an Emmy award” list yesterday and it’s not because he’s inherently more talented than Elizabeth Tulloch—it’s because he’s constantly been given the big emotional blows on the show. He’s the one who gets to have those emotional beats with the boys that gut you in your soul. His performance is reflecting the material he’s been given and the material has weight. I love him and I love knowing these things about him but I do wish Lois was sharing in this and she’s not right now.

The show has been SNEAKY with their misogyny towards the way Lois is marginalized as the co-lead of the show. It’s sneaky because, on paper, I can see why you might look at this show and not see any problem with how Lois is being used. The problem is though Lois has been given virtually zero development outside of her job as a journalist. We know she’s a badass and we know she’s going after Morgan Edge. We know she’s the best of the best and we know, from that ::one:: episode that seemed to give a shit about her POV (Haywire) that her relationship with Sam was filled with neglect but she doesn’t interact with her own father nearly as much as Clark does which is an extremely big letdown for me as a long time fan of Lois Lane and as someone who is interested in her backstory and history. Did she always want to be a reporter? What happened to her mother? Does she have a sister? How does she really feel about moving to this small town? Does she feel helpless as the mother to two boys who have this experience with their father that she can’t relate to? Does she feel scared? Is she actually comfortable with living in Smallville? What kind of food does she like? Was she a rebellious teen? What was it like being what was basically a single parent all those years? We don’t know because the show doesn’t care to flesh her out. Even the scenes with Marcus aren’t about HER—they are about him and casting her as the love interest for captain Luthor in the AU doesn’t give her any real development per se. It makes her an object for two men to war over.

Lois drives plot but we don’t ever know how she FEELS. Even in the big scenes with the boys she’s a cheerleader for Clark off to the side while he takes the heavy lifting as a parent. She doesn’t get the same POV or depth even with her own children. She is underwritten on the show. And, keep in mind....This isn’t an opinion. Nadria Tucker openly disclosed that arguments over the perceived misogyny from the showrunner were a problem in this writers room. Nadria openly shared that Todd had to be reminded all the time that a woman’s name was in the title of the show. And it does worry me that more of the fandom doesn’t seem to realize what’s happening here because back in the Smallville days.....the female fans would have been all over this BS.

Look, maybe all my complaints will be addressed in the coming episodes. I sure as hell hope they are. I like the show in many respects—I want it to succeed. I think the cast is killing it and, as I said, I love the kids more than I thought I would. I accept that my ideal for the show is not what it is and I want to judge it fairly from that POV. But I just can’t get on board with the idea that Clark is the underserved person on this show. Not when his POV and feelings and emotions and struggle dominate literally every interaction with the kids and when Lois’s FEELINGS are so rarely given the same POV. The Morgan Edge plot is just that -plot —it’s not CHARACTER and it’s fooling people Into thinking Lois is being treated much better than she actually is but it’s not fooling me. I have been around the block more than once with this stuff. They are very focused on making Lois “strong” and badass but they aren’t as interested in her interior life. Except interior life is what makes someone a ::character:: in full. Until Lois gets the same ::personal:: detail and POV that Clark has, she won’t be a true equal as a co-lead. It’s not about screen-time it’s about HOW that screentime is used.

Just my opinion. And I came out of tumblr retirement to make it. LOL (I’m glad to find someone else enjoying the show overall even we don’t see eye to eye!)

The last gif 😂😂😂

This man is so tired

Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut (2006)

It really pisses me off when other Clois fans contribute to this idea that 1) all stories have to be origin stories 2) that all relationships have to show the “chase” to be interesting 3) that an 80 year old love story is literally never allowed to grow or evolve or try a different approach without facing BS like this. People like you are literally why the Super marriage (or any marriage in comics) is always in danger of being wiped out. It’s this exact mindset.

Tyler and Elizabeth’s Lois and Clark ::do:: have a “journey” together. Marriage and parenting ::is:: a journey. The idea that there is no journey to go on with them or no arc worth investing in because they entered the story already together is a horrible, shitty and, btw, sexist approach to relationships. It stems from the sexist holdover idea that women were objects to acquire and when you “get” the woman the story is over. It’s also ageist because it ensures that love stories are almost always rooted solely in youth and it contributes to the crappy idea that marriage and parenting is “boring”—-a viewpoint that is silly at best and insulting at worst to anyone who has lived through these life experiences.

People complain literally all the time that they are tired of origin stories (how many times can we watch the Waynes be killed or Krypton blow up) and yet you people won’t actually let the story move the fuck on! Lois and Clark have been married in comics for over 20 years and this is the 1st adaptation literally ever that’s going to be caught up with where the story actually is in comics. Lois and Clark just barely got there over 20 years ago after the first wedding being completely destroyed by the network getting cold feet and no other adaptation has been allowed to since. We got cheated out of a real wedding on Smallville (which I’m still mad about) and cheated out of the real engagement in Justice League because someone at WB decided that “I’ll take that as a yes/the ring” wasn’t allowed to be in the movie even though it was literally the key point of the final trailer.

So, now, FINALLY....FINALLY after like 25 years WB is finally willing to allow the Superman media to stop retelling the same origin over and over again and FINALLY move the fuck on and tell new stories and now you want to bitch about it??? Make up your damn minds, people! You cannot complain about how you are tired of origin stories out of one side of your mouth and then bitch when Lois and Clark finally get to be shown as the married couple they are. It doesn’t make you smart, it makes you a hypocrite.

“We are just supposed to accept them as the iconic couple with zero build up?” There has been over 80 years of build-up! All we’ve had is build up! Build up after build up. Stories that go years and years and end right at the wedding! Or a baby on their doorstep! We’ve never been allowed to move on! It’s a ::privilege:: to have a relationship that is so well known that so much about them is in the public consciousness meaning that we don’t have to tell the origin for the 5,000th time. Do you know how many shippers would kill to be a fan of something so deeply imbedded in pop culture like this? You have gold on a platter and you are bitching that you didn’t get another origin story?

Finally, comparing them to Routh/Bosworth is shitty. First, because people were and are overly cruel about Superman Returns. The actors did nothing wrong and only what was asked of them. Two, Kate Bosworth was 23 years old when she played Lois Lane. Through no fault of her own, she was far too young to play Lois and far too young to play a mother. She was also younger than Routh which which screwed with the age power dynamic wherein Kidder was older than Reeve. Tulloch is 38 years old and a mother. She’s 6 years older than Tyler. This is a completely different dynamic.

This is genuinely why I have pulled back from fandom more and more. Because how lucky Clois fans are to be a fan of something so iconic that we ::get:: to experience new ideas and actually see marriage and children but then some of you decide that if it’s not the version you have deemed your personal fave or it’s not exactly what you want that you act like this. Every damn time. Acting like there can only be one way to tell a story or acting like assholes to whoever the newcomers are to the game. Lather. Rinse. repeat. The iconic nature of Lois and Clark means that we get so much more than other ships will ::ever:: get and some of you are so damn ungrateful. Other shippers have to write fanfic for years for the stuff that we get to actually see on screen and you act like this. You want to go back to amnesia kisses and cancelled weddings and stories designed to never ever let them have a moment of peace and be together? I have no idea if this show will any good yet (and there is plenty of reason to worry about writing on the CW) but this is a completely valid way to ::begin:: a journey. If you don’t want to watch it, that’s fine but don’t you dare act like there isn’t a journey to go on here.

happy new year!