Username: 
Password:    
Remember Me

Search by :  Username E-mail Region Interest AOL IM ICQ Number Yahoo! ID MSN Username Jabber

kagome654 (kagome654) wrote in scans_daily,

I don't think that's the only way of viewing it. I think the argument is based on the idea that superheros fill a similar role as police officers, preserving a status quo that contains a certain amount of institutionalized racism and classism. A poor individual can (and occasionally does) become a police officer, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a field that is typically reactionary. My dad was a police officer for 25+ years, and he was always quick to acknowledge that the career tended to attract conservative minded individuals. It doesn't necessarily say anything about the inherent morals of the marginalized and/or poor at all, but rather reflects the reality that police (and perhaps superheroes?) typically hack off the diseased limbs rather than attack the roots of social problems (and to be fair, that is what they're there for, it's the their job), and that those social problems are generally more likely to negatively impact the poor.

Now obviously superheroes are not police officers, they have the capacity to go after bigger fish without having to deal with the bureaucracy that slows down and hinders even the most idealistic police investigation. Superheroes are meant to be viewed as individuals, with their own anti-social or counterculture connotations, they are not instruments of a larger institution. The reason the status quo persists in superhero titles is different than in life, but it persists nonetheless, and I can see why people compare the two.

I don't think it's fair to boil it down 'Batman is a rich guy beating up poor people,' especially as I agree it was mostly written that way for characterization and story convenience, but I also don't think anyone implied that poor people have no morals...?

I dunno if this makes any sense, my cold meds are making me fuzzy.