Superheroes of today are 'bad role models'

[Lorien]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/aug/16/superheroes-role-models-child-psychologist

They thwart dastardly supervillains and have saved the world countless times over but macho superheroes now face a determined new foe in the guise of a mild-mannered child psychologist.

Professor Sharon Lamb, from the University of Massachusetts in Boston, accuses the new generation of superheroes, exemplified by Robert Downey Junior's playboy millionnaire Iron Man, of being bad role models for young boys.

Unlike conventional superheroes such as Superman, who stood for justice, fairness and decency, the modern macho superheroes portray a negative masculinity, characterised by mindless aggression and rampant sexism. Lamb, who surveyed 674 boys aged four to 18, claimed these hardnosed heroes may be damaging the social skills of teenagers and even affecting their performance at school.

"There is a big difference in the movie superhero of today and the comic book superhero of yesterday," she said.

(more at the link, above)

[RandomThoughts]

1. Yep, that was the scorching.

Trying to keep the good information out. The sky was scorched, and all people allowed it to happen by letting things like money setting up filters on information.


Many news outlets, and TV have had the idea of filtering out any good values in anything.

There argument was there was bad also, but the bad in it was the blockers trying to get those that only see bad to help stop good, or that's how I see it.

Batman is backwards also.

It is rare to find something good, without a conflict of bad also in it. Most things can be seen either way.



That was done with tv with promoting ideas of only money and ownership, and even ideas of submission not strength. Note one of the reasons I support the strength of women is to be against the ideas of submission to mere men. Although again not about gender. And why some things try to get people to hate anything that has good in it.



People that only see bad, think the spiritual in any form is the enemy, since they only see the bad, and do not like what the spiritual shows about their own bad. Same reason they get rid of there own conscious, and try to teach people to not care about other people.

So there actually is a group that thinks spiritual things is some form of invasion, not some form of help to spread better ideas.


If someone told you loving is good, and you make your personal fortunes on hating and not caring, then what would you try to stop? Hence why those things happen.

[RandomThoughts]

2. Some examples of things being seen two ways.

Smoking, or even smoking weed. The idea of bad things removed from people or things. Some think it is about marijuana, or cigarettes.

Supporting rights for all people, some see it as a comment on the issues about people, like gay rights.


Having courage, some get scared of people with courage. Isn't that funny?


Gold, some think that is about money, others about better thoughts.


It is the two sides in the mirror mirror episode of Star Trek world, how do you see things?

[Gracchus Babeuf]

3. of course

Of course they are. Capitalism is immoral, duh, etc.

[RandomThoughts]

5. I would say Capitalism is Amoral.

It has no moral component, the motive is profit, and profit does not think on what is right or wrong.

Although many people in that system have morals.

So the system tries to get rid of those morals, by removal of conscious, and also removal of better ideas.



Hence why 'in the world' people are behind enemy lines.

The idea of removing choices in forms of communism is wrong also.

So let capitalist make money, then take it from them to show them they never had it in the first place, since the system of no morals gave it to them, they did not earn it, nor were given it by better values. As is what the whole, 'you can't take it with you' is part of.


So capitalism can help keep some things working since it is simpler, then what they make gets taken from them to rebalanced the errors in that system. And people that are not warped by money first, hopefully elected by much of an informed society, can decide where that goes.

[Lorien]

4. Since the Reagan era the whole "Greed is good" and "profit is the ultimate goal in life

thus everything should be valued as a commodity." mindset has taken hold. Friends of mine who are children's book authors are scolded by publishers today for writing protagonists who are "too moral." The concept of morality itself has been hijacked by the far Right, who insist that it's defined by Christians vs. all others and sexual orientation. Kindness, generosity, compassion and "good works" aren't a factor when all you have to do is proclaim "Jesus died for my sins!" and that's your get out of Hell free card. Heck, I was raised by atheists and my sister and I were instilled with a much stronger sense of right and wrong than most fundie children are today!

[RandomThoughts]

7. I don't think forgiveness is about being able to do wrong.

It is not a blank check, wouldn't that disrespect the teachings he taught and then the 'establishment' in part, killed him for?

Although finding forgiveness can help people once they learn from what they do, and find some modest behavior somewhere in the middle.

[Chulanowa]

6. Two things

One, boys are boys. They're attracted to aggression, for the most part. Why? Because boys are aggressive. They identify with such things. This is why there is such a thing as, as one of my female friends calls them, "boy movies;" Conan, or Boondock Saints, or Snatch, or what have you. Odds are, a male child will be interested in things like toy guns, action figures, tyrannosauruses, pirates, and medieval weapons (and the swords will shoot lasers, no doubt.) They have a fair chance of having less patience and a shorter attention span than girls their own age; most of the diagnoses of ADD are, in fact male children.

Myself? Shortly after reading Jack London's "Call of the Wild" in 2nd grade, I wrote a short story in a similar vein about wolves hunting. It was gory as hell. Was it because I was a "disturbed" child? Was it due to the "bad influences" of my saturday cartoons? Were my parents terrible people? No, I was just a kid who had a Y chromosome, and thought that wolves hunting a moose was a cool subject, and saw no need to pretend that they would do anything other than kill and eat the moose. Apparently my teacher thought they should have a salad, which brings us to the real problem.

Many teachers, and no shortage of parents and "experts" want little boys to behave like anything other than little boys. Perhaps it's because girls are easier to manage (though, looking at my own young nieces, I find this mildly dubious) or because some of the themes that boys are attracted to rub counter to what the person in authority has become comfortable with; My 2nd grade teacher was uncomfortable with the notion that a little boy knew what happened to the animal that predators caught, and no doubt a fair number of other adults would have been disturbed by my friends who painstakingly drew guns; big detailed futuristic comic-book style guns. Rather than beign commended on how well they'd done hte shading or how good the angles were, they likely would have been told it was "inappropriate subject matter" or something.

When you have a society that basically tells little boys to not be little boys, and then progressing through teen years and adulthood tells them to be embarassed of themselves for their sexuality (whichever way they swing; I'm straight and have had to endure no shortage of freaks insisting I'm a "latent rapist" because I'm male, I'm sure gay fellows have it worse) for their inclinations towards physical activity or interest in "weird stuff" to outright insisting that they're all stupid because they're male (Watch TV, it's the constant message, even on male-centered programs) THEN you will have problems.

Okay, that's the rant.

Second thing... What "comic book superhero of yesterday" is Professor Lamb talking about here? Superman? My god, did she ever READ an old Superman comic? The dude's a complete fucking asshole, a chauvanist, and frankly deeply violent. The golden age of comics universally portrays women as helpless and stupid, conniving and untrustworthy. How many times did Lois leave Superman for jimmy Olsen (how many times did Jimmy Olsen develop super powers?) Okay, how about Batman? Here's a deeply emotionally disturbed character who, even before being rolled in grit for the 90's, solved nearly every problem by beating the crap out of it; and let's not forget the pederasty angle from Robin, who always seemd to serve as innuendo-bait. Maybe Spider-Man could count as a "good role model" except for, you know, being about as neurotic and self-destructive as you would imagine a teenager who has radioactive blood would be; besides, compared to Supes and Batman, he's really rather new!

[Orrex]

8. One more thing:

The article refers to Iron Man as part of "the latest generation" of superheroes. I may be wrong, but didn't Iron Man hit the scene in March of 1963, complete with a deeply flawed Tony Stark inside the armor? How is Downey's portrayal--which is, incidentally, quite consistent with the character's history--symptomatic of a problem of recent superheroes?

[supernova]

9. I'm with you

It feels like the author of this "article" is a johnny come lately to the concept of superheroes.

[Orrex]

12. Yes indeed

It seems as though Professor Lamb took a snapshot of today's superheroes and compared them with a rose-colored recollection of the "Golden Age" of comics, and she seems to have assumed outright that any negative character traits were recent developments.

[Chulanowa]

10. A very good question

Next question; what effect does Wonder Woman's poorly-concealed lesbian bondage theme have on young readers?

[Orrex]

11. I can't speak for today's young readers, but...

Lynda Carter will always hold a special place in my heart.