Daily Mail Puts Two and Two Together, Gets Gay Spider-Man

[standokan]

You know, I don't think I'd mind a gay spiderman.

 

[Svenparty]

Couldn't Peter Parker just retire or at most break his legs and use webs to get around? I'm not concerned that he's black but I hope he's still a nerd otherwise Comic Book nerds won't dress up like him...actually it's probably racism if they dress like him.

Come to think of it: The Fabulous Spiderman has been shooting sticky goo at men all his life so I have no objection to him being gay.

 

[Da_Vane]

It's the Daily Mail - there's no chance of any doubt here, I'm afraid. This paper is notoriously xenophobic, catering for "middle England" and all the petty little "isms" that it's scaremongering narrow-minded reporters can possibly come up with. It's simply trying to get people to rail against the idea that Spiderman could be anything other than a white heterosexual American, and this is another conspiracy by the liberals to try and corrupt the minds of our kiddies. I'm surprised they didn't say 'Gay Spiderman Causes Cancer and AIDS', because that's their normal headline...

 

[TimeLord]

It's the Daily Mail. I'm surprised they didn't state the new Spidey was a gay Muslim immigrant who was living off benefits.

Who's also a paedophile.

Oh, if only Diana was here to save us!!!

You're thinking of the Daily Express. Believe me, I get the DE delivered once a day. Anything Diana related and it's on the front page, hell the Royal Wedding warranted a Diana picture on the front page!

 

[Da_Vane]

If you disagree with the above statements, please tell me why. Preferably without acting like an idiot and accusing me of racism (sorry if youre not like that, but I know a lot of people on this site and in general who would resort to that immediately.

And once more I must apologize if this post is a little all over the place. Im in a big tactical dilemma in Shogun 2 and currently devising a plan to emerge richer and more powerful. Not to mention english isnt my first language.

Let me help you out here, because I believe I understand what you are trying to say. It's not the fact that he's black that concerns you - it's the fact that chances are that Spiderman will become a black icon and a stereotype.

There is a reason for this. The simple fact is that it has to do with identity and showing off a character's identity, and being black is about more than just the colour of a character's skin. It's easy to see a character is black because of such a visible, physical trait, but you are still shown what people think are the stereotypical black character traits and cultural mannerisms to make it definite that you know the character is black. You will see them doing black things and identifying as black.

Take a character trait such as male homosexuality, which is not visible, and this gets even worse. It lacks the visibility of a natural physical marker, although many people consider campy and/or effeminate to be representative of male homosexuality. Therefore this identity is expressed purely by the characters deeds and actions, which means lots of homosexual romantic encounters of various degrees, whether it's simple expressions of attraction towards other men to full on explicit sex scenes, just to assert that the character is indeed an homosexual male. There are no other identifying characteristics than simply having a label saying "I am gay" or something equally obvious, which in effect these markers are.

However, what becomes the issue is when such characters are defined in such a way that they are one dimensional and they only have one or two traits and related goals. Then it gets a bit limited and pointless. Most people have lots of identities, and thus lots of markers, so being black and/or gay, for example is just a part of their character, and when they are expressing their character they have a vast range of markers and identifying traits to choose from. They aren't limited to just doing black things or just doing gay things because they are only defined as being black or gay.

A well written version of the new Spiderman won't play on the fact that he is black any more than Peter Parker played on the fact that he was white. Yeah, it came up a few times, certainly, but it wasn't like he was screaming "I am white!" on every damn page because that's the character he had.

He may not have been the best written character - characters using the normative definition in society, which is still the heterosexual white male from your home nation tend not to have much character. This is because the normative traits, such as heterosexuality, are often not regarded as being traits, even though they are exactly the same as homosexuality, for example. The same goes for white, which is just as much a race as black, even though it isn't regarded as such by many. This means such normative definitions are often ignored under protections under discrimination laws - men rarely sue for sexual harassment, white people get ignored when they try to claim people are being racist against them, and heterosexuals are often discriminated against by homosexuals in homosexual venues despite laws and the fact that such people complain about the very same discrimination against them in other venues. Such is the nature of the normative definition - it's basically ignored, like it's a null identity, while every other identity has to be shouted out for fear of offending someone.

Why a black Spiderman? Why not? But since Spidey wears a full face mask and it's about the superhero, so you aren't supposed to see WHO is under there, it doesn't really matter, so having him remove his mask all the time to reveal that he is black is sort of defeating the object in the first place.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

Um... what? I don't have any problems with a half black/half Hispanic Spiderman, though, just so long as stereotypes don't come into play...

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I still have no idea how the Daily Mail is allowed to run.

Because, the PCC, who is the body created to 'regulate' the papers is pretty much run by Paul Dacre, owner of the Daily Mail.

It was then ruled that 'opinion journalists' can say anything, and it's ok, because the 'readers will know it's just opinion, and not factual reporting.

So it's ok for say, Littlejohn to say 'It's a fact that all Romanian disabled lesbian gypsies get a free house and a million a year in benefits' because that's his opinion, he's not stating a fact, only his opinion that it's a fact. So no confusion there

Honestly, I'd be surprised if anyone else thought a minor plot point in a comic warranted newspaper coverage, but the Daily Mail sees it as a threat to white, middle class England, letting the blacks in, so it's 'news'.

 

[Petromir]

If a hero or heroine's story permits them to be replaced then by all means replace them, and it matters little what their race is as long as they could reasonably be expected to have had a cohrant beliviable back story that fits the charecter. You should also avoid introducing minorites for the sake of adding them, and only have stress it if it fits, and makes a good story to do so. Particuarly in a visual medium, it may well not be needed to vocalise a charecters minority status, unless it natural fits to do so.

In general it would be better to produce more new chercters and heros than modify old ones in any way, that couldnt be explained in universe, and if your killing the hero to change him, then tread carefully.

How well written a charecter is is important, and if your doing something for diversities sake, then it rarely bodes well for your chances of producing a well written charecter. As when it happens there is the tendancy to either over stress someones "diverse" charecteristics or to produce a bland charecter with no identity.

 

[Sovvolf]

G'AH!!!! This is an outrage It feels like if you're white, heterosexual, single, able-bodied, law-abiding, English and live in England you have no rights at all. This is just liberal propaganda trying to corrupt our children and turn Briton over to the blacks, gays and women...

My back in my day (the 90's) we had no immigration, gays were seen as icky and women stayed in the kitchen. These days gays kiss openly and brain wash our children into becoming gay, blacks are every where, its hard to see a white person and women have RIGHTS!!!...

This comic is the proof that Briton is on the downfall, get ready my white (read: Real) British friends because they'll take over soon... Just you wait.

Ho and you smart pants liberals, don't try to come with all those facts... you can prove anything with facts...





(Yes this is a parody... I'd say its a thinly veiled parody but well... Believe it or not... There are people that think like that.)

As for the comic it self and my opinions on it... I haven't read a Spider Man comic in years so I honestly couldn't care less about killing off Pete or changing his appearance. As for Daily Mail... is anyone really surprised?.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

My thoughts exactly. If we're talking about an average big American city here, there are bound to be just as many, if not more black people around than white people. So if a radioactive spider were to bite somebody randomly in said city, chances are higher that it would be a black person.

Oooooh, somebody using probability. Yes, I concur. I did have an eyebrow quirk at his mixed race since it seemed like they were going for a two-fer with inclusivity but people are people and they like to screw, so probability covers that too.

 

[anthony87]

I don't mind diversity, but when a character exists solely to be diverse he becomes a caricature, and his presence is as racist as leaving him out. Compare to John Stewart, one of the Green Lanterns, whom truly showed how insignificant race is by not playing it up at every possible opportunity. Or Virgil Hawkins (Static), who was black to begin with, and surrounded with black culture, but that never took over the story because *gasp* he was defined by his personality as an individual and not simply his race.

Honestly, I *am* worried that this is a move directed towards political correctness, or a publicity stunt (or both). I have little faith in Marvel not to screw it up and be as preachy as possible.

P.S. Thanks

Agreed.

Race shouldn't be used a weapon of progression. In-fact, it shouldn't even really be important at all unless it plays a large part in the story.

This feels.... shoehorned. As if they killed of PP to usher in this spiderman so they can say, 'Look, we're not racist.... honest! We've got a Black/Hispanic spiderman to prove it.'

Characters that utilise their race well are original characters. Characters that aren't built around the colour of their skin. If their ethnicity and peoples treatment of them because of it effects the story in an organic way. Well that's just gravy and adds to character complexity. Blade and Spawn spring to mind. But making them [insert race here] to fill a quota never ends well. And just pisses off all concerned.

It's way to early to judge this character. But killing off a well established character and introducing his successor as a mixed race of all things. Well it just slaps of forced machinations by people who're just ticking boxes. Not the type of people you want in control of a story really.

This basically sums up what I said in another thread and got a hell of a chewing out because of it. Of course my way of putting it was much simpler.

As far as I'm concerned, establishing a character who is black/hispanic/whatever = no problem. However, establishing a character because they're black/hispanic/whatever = problem.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

The Daily Mail are being a bunch of sensationalist idiots.

This is news...how, exactly?

 

[Sparrow]

Wait, what? This article confuses me. Why the hell is the 'Pist busting on the Daily Mail for getting something right for once? They specifically say in the article that he could be gay in the future. That artist said there's a possibility that any hero could be gay in the future in the same context that it's a new and exciting thing that the new Spider-Man is black, all the Daily Mail is doing is saying "Hey, look, it's a possibility!"

If they'd have said "The New Spider-Man Is Gay!" in their title I would totally agree that they screwed the pooch on this, but they didn't. They specifically said that he "could" be gay, not "he is definitely going to be gay in the future". This seems like awful journalism on the part of the Escapist, not the Daily Mail (for once).

 

[SammiYin]

Maybe I'm stupid but...I don't see the big deal behind either articles [Daily mail and this one]
So maybe Black spiderman will be gay...So?
So the daily mail think he will be gay...So?
Sure they're pushing the whole token thing a bit too far, but still...So?

 

[Logan Westbrook]

Wait, what? This article confuses me. Why the hell is the 'Pist busting on the Daily Mail for getting something right for once? They specifically say in the article that he could be gay in the future. That artist said there's a possibility that any hero could be gay in the future in the same context that it's a new and exciting thing that the new Spider-Man is black, all the Daily Mail is doing is saying "Hey, look, it's a possibility!"

If they'd have said "The New Spider-Man Is Gay!" in their title I would totally agree that they screwed the pooch on this, but they didn't. They specifically said that he "could" be gay, not "he is definitely going to be gay in the future". This seems like awful journalism on the part of the Escapist, not the Daily Mail (for once).

No, what Pichelli said was that in the future, black or gay superheroes might not be such a big deal. It's a pretty big leap of logic to interpret that as saying "Spider-Man might be gay in the future."

 

[Wintermoot]

seems a bit well forced.
I,m not racist or homophobic but this is one of the most forced things I have ever seen.

 

[TStormer]

Daily Mail.

Lol.

 

[rayen020]

The ultimate universe is weird. I like it because i got into comics around 2000 when i started playing warhammer 40K and comics were on sale in the same shop. i liked the ultimate universe because it was a universe in which i didn't have to study 30+ years of continuity to understand what was happening. is it better? no. Is it worse? also no. It's just different... and weird. Nightcrawler was a sociopath. Colossus is gay and on drugs. archangel is gay. nick fury is black (spoiler warning/and now dead/in an alternate universe). Wasp is a mutant and hank pym has nothing but a weird fasicination with ants and a wife beating problem.

ANd call me a fanboy (mostly cause i am) but Gambit is dead and that ain't cool.

This is just a grab for headlines on a tabloid newspaper. the fact that they already have gay characters in that universe (with rather large roles) seems to say to me they need to make the black spidey gay as well. ultimate is the universe for 21st century until they can bring enough diversity to the regular continuity to either wrap up ultimate or do whatever they do with it.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

If this is a cynical attempt to get hits - and I'd really prefer to give the Mail the benefit of the doubt here

Hahahahaha! Hahaha! Ahahahaha!

Anyway, why'd Ultimate Pete snuff it? I thought Ultimatum had taught them that randomly killing characters wasn't a smart move?