Spoilers Supergirl - Season 5

[TREK_GOD_1]

Honestly, the show hasn't been anywhere near as "SJW" about Kate sexuality as the trailers were. It's definitely nowhere near as heavily focused on social issues the way Supergirl has been.
There have been storylines dealing with her love life, but other than one part of the backstory, hasn't really made a big deal out of the fact that she's gay. Most of it has been treated pretty much the same as the other Arrowverse shows have treated there heterosexual relationships.

Which was one of the best parts of Batwoman in that her relationships were not her rallying cry for life other than the early issues with why Sophie made her choice at the academy, and the one episode where she--as BW--outed herself, but next to nothing else was made of that. It was not "A Very Special Episode" all season long.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Define "actual left."

Even more than I already have? Okay, how about "wealth is created by work, therefore wealth should be distributed among the workers"? Or the old Trotsky "Workers' Control of the Means of Production"? The acknowledgement of class warfare, and the willingness to fight it on the side of the workers?

@Ovation : No kidding. The fact that even liberals think of themselves as "the left" shows how the overton window in the American mainstream is absolutely broken. It's gotten worse in Europe over the past few decades, but the US is something else entirely.
Really, we do have a lot to criticise our governments on, and it really would help if people here could not constantly point to America and say "At least we're doing better than them". Please, do better, for all our sakes.

 

[The Realist]

It's actually true that Batwoman has not been all that overtly "political" -- though for some, the mere portrayal of gay characters and their relationships constitutes "shoving it down our throats."

 

[David cgc]

Define "actual left."

Literal communists, and just literal just-short-of-communists.

Thanks ("Thanks") to my Twitter feed being fairly Democratic Socialists of America-adjacent, I have the profound misfortune to actually understand this ideological (and terminological) split. David Roberts recently talked about the fact that it's extremely confusing that you've got "the left" (as in, people who aren't politically conservative) and "the Left" (people with rose emojis in their Twitter usernames who have an abiding contempt for Democrats for ideological differences that are so removed from the current status quo that it'd be the equivalent of trying to overthrow NASA because they want the wrong wallpaper for the Moon Base).

I'd recommend getting off this train now, because once you get to a place where you have to know or care what "tankies" are, you'll never get back to the blissful simplicity of "there are two parties, pick the one you agree with more, and if you don't like that one sufficiently, get involved and build influence to advocate for the positions you wish them to take."

 

[Christopher]

Even more than I already have? Okay, how about "wealth is created by work, therefore wealth should be distributed among the workers"? Or the old Trotsky "Workers' Control of the Means of Production"? The acknowledgement of class warfare, and the willingness to fight it on the side of the workers?

Literal communists, and just literal just-short-of-communists.

Then I dispute the use of "actual." What you're both referring to is the extreme left. To assert that the farthest extreme is the only thing that qualifies as being left of center shows a failure to understand geometry, let alone politics. The left side is 50% of the whole, not just the farthest edge. There's a whole spectrum from center-left to hard left.

Maybe in Europe, "left" has come to be exclusively synonymous with socialism or communism, but that's not how I grew up understanding the term in America. Here, at least, left is synonymous with liberal and right with conservative.

 

[David cgc]

^If you want to go tell the Left (even the Left in America) that they shouldn't be monopolizing the term "left" as their self-identity, have fun with that. You've already gotten a little preview of how that conversation usually goes.

 

[Christopher]

^If you want to go tell the Left (even the Left in America) that they shouldn't be monopolizing the term "left" as their self-identity, have fun with that. You've already gotten a little preview of how that conversation usually goes.

It's more basic than "shouldn't" -- it's that I don't accept the premise that the term is limited to that usage in the first place. I have never until today heard it claimed that the term was somehow monopolized by the extreme left or that it was somehow "wrong" for liberals to call themselves that, and I don't believe it's true just because a couple of strangers on a BBS claimed it was.

 

[Ovation]

Here, at least, left is synonymous with liberal

@Kai "the spy" : QED

A) A confusion born of ignorance.
B) ‘Murrica ain’t the actual centre of the universe.

In the interest of not going too far afield in terms of politics in a forum not suited for it, I’ll leave it at that.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Kate was a paragon.

Post Crisis Kate, was Earth One Personality + (Earth Prime Body - Earth prime personality).

The Universe needs paragons?

The recording of Earth One Kate's personality is still on file.

The universe NEEDS Paragons!

So even though Oliver is Dead, there are features built into the universe to make sure that if a Paragon dies, that their absence will be noticed and amended, and replaced, by stuffing the Paragon back into a new body, that is likely not an Earth Prime doppleganger of their original body, becuase they dead.

Backing up?

If no one is backing up the Paragons, then when one of them dies and is "replaced" with the saved copy of their personality, and it's the original 15 billion year old savepoint, and they have no memories of what the last copy of their personality did on Earth Prime, that's going to create conflict.

This happened on Travelers.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

@Kai "the spy" : QED

A) A confusion born of ignorance.
B) ‘Murrica ain’t the actual centre of the universe.

In the interest of not going too far afield in terms of politics in a forum not suited for it, I’ll leave it at that.

Agreed.

 

[Kirk Prime]

When you constantly use "SJW" as a pejorative -- thereby actively and explicitly aligning yourself against efforts to promote and achieve social justice -- I'm not sure how you can claim to be some kind of maligned and misunderstood victim. People are simply believing what you tell them about yourself.

The term SJW is a pejorative. I see it as a bunch of brainwashed people engaging in self loathing and reverse racism/sexism. The hypocrisy is unnoticed by them as they live in a bubble.

Honestly, the show hasn't been anywhere near as "SJW" about Kate sexuality as the trailers were. It's definitely nowhere near as heavily focused on social issues the way Supergirl has been.
There have been storylines dealing with her love life, but other than one part of the backstory, hasn't really made a big deal out of the fact that she's gay. Most of it has been treated pretty much the same as the other Arrowverse shows have treated there heterosexual relationships.
Are you OK with how Legends and Arrow handled Sarah Lance being gay?

I can't comment too much on Batwoman because I haven't watched it outside of Crisis. You make an interesting post and you ask a very fair question regarding Sarah.

The answer that is kind of. Sarah started out straight. I was never a fan of sudden changes in orientation. THAT wreaks of SJW political correctness. The same thing happened on Glee with a couple of characters.

But let's pretend that didn't happen and Sarah was gay from the start. The answer to that is I think is that it's a little over the top. It's nowhere near as bad as the Alex treatment on Supergirl, because with HER, that's her whole identity. On Supergirl, Alex could have been so many things and just someone who was gay. But they decided to be very heavy handed and make it her whole character. Sarah hasn't been given that treatment. I think they are a bit heavy handed with Sarah, but there is more to the character and I view quite positively overall. I like Sarah. I don't like Alex. The point is that not everything fits in one category. If I did that, then I would be judging characters solely on orientation rather than by how they are portrayed overall.

It's actually true that Batwoman has not been all that overtly "political" -- though for some, the mere portrayal of gay characters and their relationships constitutes "shoving it down our throats."

And for others, any objection to it is seen as homophobic, racist, and whatever other "ist" that exists so that the SJWs can be fake outraged and mount their soapbox defense.

There is a difference between a character that just happens to be gay and shoving things down your throat. Sulu's treatment in Star Trek Beyond is an example of the former. The character in God Friended Me was another example. But tokenism is not activism, and CW shows force things to check boxes even when it's inorganic.

Ultimately it's about entertainment. Different people enjoy different things. If you like it, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Watch. Enjoy. But people shouldn't judge or get all high and mighty over people who don't find it entertaining.

 

[YLu]

Ultimately, what it comes down to is that America defines the word "liberal" differently than the rest of the world. See, for example, Australia's Liberal Party, which is center-right and basically their equivalent of the GOP.

 

[The Realist]

The term SJW is a pejorative. I see it as a bunch of brainwashed people engaging in self loathing and reverse racism/sexism. The hypocrisy is unnoticed by them as they live in a bubble.



I can't comment too much on Batwoman because I haven't watched it outside of Crisis. You make an interesting post and you ask a very fair question regarding Sarah.

The answer that is kind of. Sarah started out straight. I was never a fan of sudden changes in orientation. THAT wreaks of SJW political correctness. The same thing happened on Glee with a couple of characters.

But let's pretend that didn't happen and Sarah was gay from the start. The answer to that is I think is that it's a little over the top. It's nowhere near as bad as the Alex treatment on Supergirl, because with HER, that's her whole identity. On Supergirl, Alex could have been so many things and just someone who was gay. But they decided to be very heavy handed and make it her whole character. Sarah hasn't been given that treatment. I think they are a bit heavy handed with Sarah, but there is more to the character and I view quite positively overall. I like Sarah. I don't like Alex. The point is that not everything fits in one category. If I did that, then I would be judging characters solely on orientation rather than by how they are portrayed overall.




And for others, any objection to it is seen as homophobic, racist, and whatever other "ist" that exists so that the SJWs can be fake outraged and mount their soapbox defense.

There is a difference between a character that just happens to be gay and shoving things down your throat. Sulu's treatment in Star Trek Beyond is an example of the former. The character in God Friended Me was another example. But tokenism is not activism, and CW shows force things to check boxes even when it's inorganic.

Ultimately it's about entertainment. Different people enjoy different things. If you like it, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Watch. Enjoy. But people shouldn't judge or get all high and mighty over people who don't find it entertaining.

One question (and I think it's a legitimate one, given what you've said): Is foregrounding a heterosexual relationship also a case of shoving a perceived agenda down your throat? And if not, why not?*

* Okay, that's actually two questions.

 

[Christopher]

Ultimately, what it comes down to is that America defines the word "liberal" differently than the rest of the world. See, for example, Australia's Liberal Party, which is center-right and basically their equivalent of the GOP.

Even if that's true, why does that matter? If the subject under discussion is American politics, then surely it's the American definitions that are relevant and correct for that discussion. Nobody can say we're "wrong" to use the terminology in the way that's right for us. On the contrary, it would be wrong to use someone else's definitions when talking about American affairs. By analogy, if an American text is talking about a quantity in the billions, it would be wrong to assume it meant the European definition of a billion as 10^12 rather than the American usage as 10^9.

 

[Kirk Prime]

One question (and I think it's a legitimate one, given what you've said): Is foregrounding a heterosexual relationship also a case of shoving a perceived agenda down your throat? And if not, why not?*

Can you give a specific example? It's a good question, and I can try to answer with a generalization, but I don't know if it would work.

If you're trying to say that it's the same thing, I don't think it is.

I don't think there is any agenda or tokenism with heterosexual relationships on TV. You don't see episodes of people declaring their straightness. There are no political connotations to them. You don't see groups dedicated to heterosexual relationships rating shows on their straight representation.

So I don't think it's the same even though I think I understand what you are trying to ask. I think in 2020, enough battles have been fought and won that you don't need tokenism.

Let me counter with some other thoughts. I'm sorry for getting a little off topic, but it's not a terrible conversation and I'm trying hard not to make it confrontational but rather intellectual. I hope others can too.

CW seems to care more about checking the box to make sure they can say they are inclusive. But that's not inclusiveness. It's tokenism. On Supergirl for example, Alex's orientation has become her whole character. They did a whole arc it, and often, they had completely separate storylines just based on her problems and relationships to the point where at least for me, it detracted from the show as a whole. I don't have an issue with a show like that, but I don't think that's what a superhero show is about--especially in a long, drawn out arc on a character that didn't exist in any form before this show existed. I want to watch Supergirl do super things, not listen to Alex whine about her relationship.

But I guess thinking about it, I would have had the same issue if Alex were straight--at least on that front.

Alex's love life has absolutely zero relevance.

But sometimes these shows, and CW is guilty across the board, just tend to branch into tokenism and in your face agendas so that when people do object, they get to get on their soapbox and be outraged.

My issue with these shows is not just the depictions of gays as tokenism so they can pat themselves on the back. There are gay characters on Flash--but none of that bothers me at all.

I find sometimes it bothers me, sometimes it doesn't. Maybe it IS the tokenism--the fact that the depictions of some of these gay relationships wreak of political agendas. You just don't see that with heterosexual relationships on these shows.

Not every single gay relationship depicted on TV and movies are the in your face tokenism I am talking about. But a lot are.

 

[The Realist]

Can you give a specific example? It's a good question, and I can try to answer with a generalization, but I don't know if it would work.

If you're trying to say that it's the same thing, I don't think it is.

I don't think there is any agenda or tokenism with heterosexual relationships on TV. You don't see episodes of people declaring their straightness. There are no political connotations to them. You don't see groups dedicated to heterosexual relationships rating shows on their straight representation.

So I don't think it's the same even though I think I understand what you are trying to ask. I think in 2020, enough battles have been fought and won that you don't need tokenism.

Let me counter with some other thoughts. I'm sorry for getting a little off topic, but it's not a terrible conversation and I'm trying hard not to make it confrontational but rather intellectual. I hope others can too.

CW seems to care more about checking the box to make sure they can say they are inclusive. But that's not inclusiveness. It's tokenism. On Supergirl for example, Alex's orientation has become her whole character. They did a whole arc it, and often, they had completely separate storylines just based on her problems and relationships to the point where at least for me, it detracted from the show as a whole. I don't have an issue with a show like that, but I don't think that's what a superhero show is about--especially in a long, drawn out arc on a character that didn't exist in any form before this show existed. I want to watch Supergirl do super things, not listen to Alex whine about her relationship.

But I guess thinking about it, I would have had the same issue if Alex were straight--at least on that front.

Alex's love life has absolutely zero relevance.

But sometimes these shows, and CW is guilty across the board, just tend to branch into tokenism and in your face agendas so that when people do object, they get to get on their soapbox aned be outraged.

My issue with these shows is not just the depictions of gays as tokenism so they can pat themselves on the back. There are gay characters on Flash--but none of that bothers me at all.

I find sometimes it bothers me, sometimes it doesn't. Maybe it IS the tokenism--the fact that the depictions of some of these gay relationships wreak of political agendas. You just don't see that with heterosexual relationships on these shows.

Not every single gay relationship depicted on TV and movies are the in your face tokenism I am talking about. But a lot are.

I appreciate the tone, and will try to respond in kind. I can't reply at the same length at the moment, but I will attempt to hit the high points.

Yes, I do think it's the same thing, or should be. Point being, you shouldn't see any more of an agenda in the portrayal of a gay relationship than a straight one. Both are simply part of the human spectrum.

The fact that it remains an issue -- a BIG issue for some (not a swipe at you, but there are still plenty of folks who are nakedly and aggressively homophobic) -- means the battle hasn't been "fought and won."

I think it's reductionist to say that Alex's orientation has become her whole character. She has continued to fill multiple other roles on the show -- Kara's sister and confidant, DEO commander, and now costumed vigilante -- since realizing her orientation. Her sexuality hasn't really been a narrative focus since that initial arc -- which I would suggest was more a well-rendered story of self-discovery than it was "checking a box."

You (and others) often frame efforts to be inclusive as some kind of dishonest performance, motivated by what's disparagingly called "virtue signaling." But surely it might just be an honest attempt to be (as the CW says) "open to all"? And surely that's not a bad thing?

 

[YLu]

Even if that's true, why does that matter? If the subject under discussion is American politics, then surely it's the American definitions that are relevant and correct for that discussion. Nobody can say we're "wrong" to use the terminology in the way that's right for us.

Why do people complain about the shift in meaning of words like "decimate" and "irregardless"? Why do they get into debates about what constitutes art or science fiction? There's an ideological dimension to this stuff.

For many on what you'd call the far left, aspects of liberal policy are genuinely morally objectionable. Is it wonder they don't want to get painted with the same brush?

By analogy, if an American text is talking about a quantity in the billions, it would be wrong to assume it meant the European definition of a billion as 10^12 rather than the American usage as 10^9.

Well, you'd still expect an American publication to be using the 10^9 definition even in an article about the economy of a 10^12-using nation. Is an online forum like this an American venue or an international one?

 

[Kirk Prime]

Yes, I do think it's the same thing, or should be. Point being, you shouldn't see any more of an agenda in the portrayal of a gay relationship than a straight one. Both are simply part of the human spectrum.

I think it really has to do with the writing and the reasoning. Tokenism exists when they put something in there for the sole purpose of checking a box, and I do believe that often happens with gay characters, but never happens with straight characters. Yes, they are part of the human spectrum, but the HOW is every bit as important as the mere existence.

For example, if a CW show does not have a gay character, you will likely see people complaining despite the massive representation of the gay community on CW. Yes, gay people are absolutely part of the human spectrum, and I don't think they should be absent from TV, but there are plenty of lives that don't have gay people in them, and it would not be unusual to have a show without a gay character. When it's forced in, that is where it becomes an issue.

The fact that it remains an issue -- a BIG issue for some (not a swipe at you, but there are still plenty of folks who are nakedly and aggressively homophobic) -- means the battle hasn't been "fought and won."

Presentation does matter though. TV, the CW especially is guilty of tokenism. Supergirl is ridiculously guilty.

Some shows just do it better than others. SWAT is an interesting show in this regard. There is a gay character that had several different plotlines in this regard, but they had one where she was part of a throuple that really was off putting. Yet, unlike Alex, she is not defined by her orientation. I didn't like that storyline, but they ended it eventually and she is as important a character on the show as anyone. Her orientation does not define her. Very different than how things are done on Supergirl.

Sometimes a show can be good with some characters and not others. Glee is a good example of that.

You had Blaine and Kurt, who were gay, and that was just who they were. No big deal, and that's a show where it would be odd to NOT have a gay character given the premise of the show. But on the same show, they took several straight characters and turned them gay, and it was so forced that it didn't work.

I think it's reductionist to say that Alex's orientation has become her whole character. She has continued to fill multiple other roles on the show -- Kara's sister and confidant, DEO commander, and now costumed vigilante -- since realizing her orientation. Her sexuality hasn't really been a narrative focus since that initial arc -- which I would suggest was more a well-rendered story of self-discovery than it was "checking a box."

It's been a little more subtle but she really is too defined by her orientation. I don't feel like she IS used as you describe as much as she should have been.

You (and others) often frame efforts to be inclusive as some kind of dishonest performance, motivated by what's disparagingly called "virtue signaling." But surely it might just be an honest attempt to be (as the CW says) "open to all"? And surely that's not a bad thing?

I think under certain situations it absolutely is "virtue signaling," and not what it seems. And I also notice that the portrayal of straight white males is very negative with few exceptions.

Open to all is fine--but you can do that without making sure you check every box. Do different shows with different characters rather than force different characters on each show. And I'll add that it's hard to be inclusive when they demonize conservative views as often as they do. And I sort of get it because they don't likely have any conservative writers to say, "hey, you are wrong on this."

 

[Noname Given]

back then and only grew up with it in later decades, it does not seem that woke at all.

As someone who DID grow up with it (I was 6 in 1969 and watching on NBC) - this argument above is UTTTER BULLSHIT. TOS (like current modern Trek ala ST: D and ST: P) was always seen as progressive and socially conscious/farward thinking all the way from then - UP TO TODAY.

You may not like/or watch it for that aspect - but it's been part of what has made Star Trek the phenomena it's become since 1966. To say "well, that aspect should be discarded or called out because in your opinion, it's not needed/no longer relevant <--- Which AGAIN given the current condition of society at large and the rise of bigoted/fascist groups and world leaders who support them openly - it's a needed and valued part of the Star Trek DNA.

 

[The Realist]

I think it really has to do with the writing and the reasoning. Tokenism exists when they put something in there for the sole purpose of checking a box, and I do believe that often happens with gay characters, but never happens with straight characters. Yes, they are part of the human spectrum, but the HOW is every bit as important as the mere existence.

For example, if a CW show does not have a gay character, you will likely see people complaining despite the massive representation of the gay community on CW. Yes, gay people are absolutely part of the human spectrum, and I don't think they should be absent from TV, but there are plenty of lives that don't have gay people in them, and it would not be unusual to have a show without a gay character. When it's forced in, that is where it becomes an issue.



Presentation does matter though. TV, the CW especially is guilty of tokenism. Supergirl is ridiculously guilty.

Some shows just do it better than others. SWAT is an interesting show in this regard. There is a gay character that had several different plotlines in this regard, but they had one where she was part of a throuple that really was off putting. Yet, unlike Alex, she is not defined by her orientation. I didn't like that storyline, but they ended it eventually and she is as important a character on the show as anyone. Her orientation does not define her. Very different than how things are done on Supergirl.

Sometimes a show can be good with some characters and not others. Glee is a good example of that.

You had Blaine and Kurt, who were gay, and that was just who they were. No big deal, and that's a show where it would be odd to NOT have a gay character given the premise of the show. But on the same show, they took several straight characters and turned them gay, and it was so forced that it didn't work.



It's been a little more subtle but she really is too defined by her orientation. I don't feel like she IS used as you describe as much as she should have been.



I think under certain situations it absolutely is "virtue signaling," and not what it seems. And I also notice that the portrayal of straight white males is very negative with few exceptions.

Open to all is fine--but you can do that without making sure you check every box. Do different shows with different characters rather than force different characters on each show. And I'll add that it's hard to be inclusive when they demonize conservative views as often as they do. And I sort of get it because they don't likely have any conservative writers to say, "hey, you are wrong on this."

It's a non sequitur even to talk about "token" straight characters, because they're perceived as the default setting. Their presence is "normal," while the presence of gay characters, even if acceptable in some circumstances, has to be specifically justified. That seems to be the thrust of much of your argument, and I think it bears reconsidering. Gay characters don't need a reason to be there, any more than straight characters do.