"He's a Fairy, I Do Suppose": A Queer Analytical Perspective on Superman (Part 1/3)
Future Links: Part 2, Part 3
Note: This is commentary on the evolved perception of Clark Kent as it relates to the U.S. American standards of masculinity, effeminacy, and queerness. This is a textual analysis, which also presumes that readers are familiar enough with Superman that not everything need be directly cited. Further, though I am familiar with queer (and feminist) academic theory and history, I do not claim this work as an academic pursuit and do not (as of yet) make direct references to any particular theorist, philosopher, historian, and so on. Feel free to add any insight or thoughts; we're all friends here.
Introduction
The importance of the Clark Kent identity to the Superman mythos has been long debated in Superman media, fan circles, and academia. Depending on the exact content and framing of the analysis, Clark can be a metaphor for a particular type of immigrant experience, a covert display of misanthropy from the powerful, or the everyman. He can be one aspect of a disordered whole, a precise half, or the entire neater whole, with Superman’s relevance being complementary to the interpretation of Clark. Though the appeal of the rearmost interpretation has faded somewhat, Clark Kent is often regarded as the “real identity,” with Superman being either the most potent manifestation of Clark’s good nature or “just something he does.” However, one of Clark Kent’s many manifestations, and arguably the most important, was the Fairy — the effeminate antithesis to Superman which served as the premiere cover for the aforementioned alter ego, as well as the iteration upon which all others are constructed through their adoption, alteration, or rejection of his aesthetics and implications. The concept of the disordered whole and thus of Superman as “real” hinged on the Fairy identity. As such, the image of Clark constructed in the modern era reveals potent mechanisms underlying the fundamental relation of Superman to queerness and nontraditional masculinity: namely, that in spite of the stark contrast between Clark Kent and Superman, the man behind both personas (Kal-El) occupies a blurred third position, where cisheteronormativity is both transparently incoherent and vital to his continued success maintaining a secret identity.
Some Context: Superman and Clark Kent as Opposite Personas
Superman is often described as incontrovertibly masculine, an ideal representation of traditional images of men and the expectations heaped upon them by patriarchal norms. His towering physique and awesome capabilities underpin the resolute and authoritative personality he projects to enact change. To the extent that the aforementioned norms are intertwined with familial nuclearization, Superman’s status as the “greatest (and strongest) hero” works in tandem with stereotypical male roles of “protector,” “provider,” “leader,” and so on, buttressed by the general perception of him as the true embodiment of physical power. For these reasons, of the two primary personas with which this essay is concerned, Superman is typically the preeminent masculine figure even if he’s not the predominant identity; his presence, compassion, and heroics are consistently framed as paternalistically benevolent or righteously domineering, such that he’s often considered as the superior moral and behavioral guide in most situations even by other heroes his age.
In the larger Superman mythos, Clark Kent is typically constructed to be the opposite — effeminate, or at least enough unlike Superman that few people suspect a connection without ample evidence, despite any physical or attitudinal similarities. More specifically, Clark is “mild-mannered,” which has been construed to entail pervasive shyness, timidity, submission, and cowardice, in addition to a relative feebleness and delicate sensibility not expected of a man his size and age. He dresses poorly and hunches over to shrink himself, sometimes speaking with a stutter or nervous air. What attention he does attract for his sharp writing ability and communication skill as a reporter is often trumped by his reputation for being unabashedly scared, frail, and accident-prone. Clark’s friends and neighbors are more likely to regard him as gentle and sweet, but they find themselves exasperated at times depending on the current context. Clark also literally and figuratively lacks paternalism in most cases: in the Earth-1 and New 52 universes specifically, Clark is notably a bachelor, while Earth-2 and New Earth are not bachelors but have no children. He is also not considered a role model or a guide, at least to the same extent or type as Superman, such that a traditionally paternal image is usually attributed.
It should be noted most of these distinctions are not entirely cogent or consistent in universes such as New Earth, where the motion to make Clark Kent the “real identity” — here distinct from persona, in that the character’s embodiment of and positive relation to ascribed traits and descriptions is sincere — led to the excision of many previously prominent “effeminate” traits within the Clark Kent persona. Nevertheless, the belief that the distinctions between personas should and do exist, at least nominally, remains the most important aspect of Superman's secret identity quagmire.
The Pantywaist and the Strongman: Earth-2, the Golden Age, 1938–1952
[Superman (1939) #67, "The City Under the Sea"]
Men regarded as effeminate or otherwise deficient in masculinity are implicitly presumed to not be (traditionally) heterosexual, as the initial construction of the heterosexual identity is reliant on a stable masculinity. That is, gender expectations for men under patriarchy include assertiveness and dominance — especially over women, who are expected to be submissive and passive. On an individual level, the effects of these displays are most prominent in men’s personal and sexual relationships, creating an environment in which the establishment of a heterosexual relationship acts as an easy indication of masculine prowess. In turn, this creates the cyclical reinforcement between perceived masculinity and heterosexual performance, as traditional heterosexual dynamics tacitly mandate the submission necessary for a man to sufficiently prove his masculinity.
The Superman of Earth-2, also known as the Golden Age Superman and Kal-L, was the first to establish the Clark Kent persona and thus the first to employ the masculine/effeminate dichotomy that would come to define the character in the wider mythos. Though Earth-2’s Clark Kent is considerably more outspoken than many later depictions, bearing the weight of 1940s expectations, he is mild-mannered and diffident depending on the context. He avoids overt grand displays of chivalry to avoid detection, to the point of seemingly abandoning others from time to time, engendering a reputation for pronounced cowardice [e.g., Superman (1939) #1]. He also generally refuses to engage in degrading or disrespectful behavior, making him seem conformist at best and submissive at worst. Decades of embodying these traits, and a tendency to regress to form when he does defend himself or others, create the general perception that he is effeminate (or painfully dull, which often overlaps with the former, as it is seen as an expression of unmasculine passivity). It should be clarified here that effeminacy and femininity are not synonymous; Clark is treated as a particularly weak man for having traits perceived as feminine, namely submissiveness, but is not necessarily feminine himself.
[Superman (1939) #5, "The Slot Machine Racket" and #15, "The Evolution King", respectively]
It follows that Clark’s interactions with Lois Lane, his coworker and love interest, illuminate perceptions of and responses to his effeminacy. In fact, Lois’ attraction to Clark is likely the most reliable barometer of the perception of Clark’s masculinity in-narrative; not only is she the character with whom he most interacts, but the predominant narratives of women’s desires in the 1940s were largely filtered through heteronormative and patriarchal lenses, such that a greater attraction to Clark than, say, Superman would be considered aberrant. Concordantly, Lois’ negative descriptions of and dismissal of Clark in this era — both extant from the beginning and compounded in severity by her own assertive nature, which is juxtaposed against Clark’s — aptly reflect the interplay between traditional gender roles and heterosexuality and related social mores: “pantywaist” referring to both a coward and an effeminate man [Superman (1939) #7, “The Three Kingpins of Crime,” & #8, “The Carnival Crooks”] and “a miserable specimen of humanity” [Superman (1939) #17, “Muscles for Sale”] being amongst them. When asked why she avoids him, Lois tells Clark not to ask her for another sob story, only to reaffirm his status as a “spineless, unbearable coward” after an altercation with an aggressive man attempting to force her to dance [Superman (1939) #1]. Expectedly, Lois continues to lack an actualized romance with Clark through this era because she views him as unmasculine, which lessens her attraction to him (with the irony being that Clark is Superman and is thus the worthiest of her attraction in a traditional sense). Thus, the aforementioned avenue of using heterosexual norms to assert his masculinity is barred to Clark, making it so he must rely on alternate methods of asserting his masculinity or otherwise cope with the consequences of his failure.
Given that the Clark Kent persona in the Golden Age largely exists in service of Superman’s endeavors, most especially the protection of his secret identity, Clark cannot truly escape his conundrum without increasing the risk of exposure. Establishing an honest romance with Lois or another woman would entail both becoming appealing in a traditionally masculine sense and informing her of his alter ego, neither of which Superman is inclined to do lest he and his associates be subjected to blatant violations of safety and privacy. This status quo results in Clark’s feigned shortcomings situating him in an ever-nebulous space of “effeminate heterosexuality,” wherein he ostensibly experiences opposite-sex attraction but is so pitiful at upholding a traditionally masculine role that he cannot establish, maintain, or defend a heterosexual relationship. Such a failure arguably constitutes a form of queerness in that it defies traditional expectations of men under patriarchy, which makes Clark "strange" — and thus, a target of persistent harassment and doubt.
[Superman (1939) #17, "Man or Superman?", #17, "Muscles for Sale", and #22, "A Modern Robin Hood!", respectively]
As aforementioned, Superman is the masculine alter ego and leading persona. The Clark Kent persona serves to shield him from the various unsavory consequences and annoyances of heroism. However, because Clark Kent primarily interacts with humanity, there’s a profound sense in which Superman’s masculinity is divorced from human expectations and standards. Significantly, Superman embodies traditionally masculine norms with ease, due in large part to his great powers and physique, such that he need not entertain many other engagements with gender expectations; yet he struggles with a sense of alienation precisely because he cannot sincerely participate in the relationship rituals that those around him find valuable. A neat example is when Superman, though technically guised as Clark, fears that he’ll crush a woman’s ribs if he forgets himself in a fit of passion [Superman (1939) #7, “The Black Gang”] but there’s also the more pervasive, aforementioned sense in which he cannot pursue a romance for fear the woman would be harmed or disappointed when he cannot perform normally. The alienation worsens the panic Superman develops when confronted with the potential reveal of his secret identity. Generally, the reveal — even just to love interests such as Lois or good friends — is too ruinous to entertain, much less tolerate, such that he lies or engages in blatantly manipulative behaviors to maintain the secret [e.g., Superman (1939) #19,” Superman: Matinee Idol”]. Superman stuffs his suits into secret panels, closets, or drawers, of which he is so protective that he’d rather hope (guiltily) the discoverer die than blackmail him, even in dreams [e.g., Superman (1939) #6, “Mission to San Caluma” & 19, “Superman’s Amazing Adventure”; Adventures of Superman, “The Mystery of the Stolen Costume,” chapters 1–2]. His terror at being discovered is so great that it clouds and confuses many of his personal interactions and concerns, which is compounded by any belief that someone is actively investigating him.
[Superman (1939) #7, “The Black Gang”]
Thus, despite ostensibly being the superior and stronger persona, Superman functions as more vulnerable in emotional and social situations where his physicality is not useful. Concurrently, he is first and foremost concerned with his own protection, given that his social circle in the Golden Age is almost strictly delimited to coworkers and hypothetical wives, all for whom Superman is meant to be a secret. This interacts curiously with what is known of Clark Kent’s reality. It is for Superman that any consequences exist — as Clark Kent’s effeminacy and bachelordom in this era is contingent on Superman’s needs — which raises the question of what Superman is or represents such that perpetual social distance is preferable to anyone being in-the-know regarding his identity. After all, Earth-2 Superman’s alien status was not revealed to him until 1948 [Superman (1939) #53], and Clark's lack of favor with Lois and dearth of masculine flair persisted until the end of the era [as pictured in the beginning of this section, in Superman (1939) #67, "The City Under the Sea"]. Fortunately, the Silver and Bronze Ages seem to offer more concrete illumination than the Golden Age.
As you may know, there was recently a DC Comics boycott as a part of the DCSoWhite movement since DC has not had a mainline ongoing solo with a Black lead for over 1200 days. You can read more about this here, here, here, and here. The boycott has been cancelled (link), but that doesn't mean we can't still show support for Black comic creators!
One of the things the movement called for fans to do was to "[Support] Black creators through independent and creator-owned projects." So this post is meant to provide tips on how to do this.
Check out other works of Black creators you're already familiar with
The Black comic creators you're already a fan of who have made comics for DC or Marvel have likely also made comics for other publishers too. You can usually find out about other comics they've worked on through their Wikipedia page, social media pages, and their own website if they have one. And it's a good idea to follow their social media to learn about any of their projects in the future!
Look through indie publisher websites
A great way to find out about indie comics is to check out indie publishers' websites. There will almost always be a page on their websites with all their comics so you can easily look through them and the creators will be listed so you can look into the creators too. This is one way to find out about Black comic creators who you might not already be familiar with.
The publishers that are listed as examples in the webpages linked above are Image Comics, BOOM! Studios, Vault Comics, Ignition Press, and Stranger Comics.
Check out existing lists
There are already lists online that specifically recommend Black creators to check out and comics by Black creators. You can also find recommendations and lists on social media. This is another great way to find out about Black comic creators you're not yet familiar with.
Speaking of lists, I would like to point you to this post by @bimboopo which includes a list of many Black webtoon creators which you can go check out!
Hopefully this guide will help people find out about more comics by Black creators. Support these creators by reading, buying, and talking about their comics. And even if the boycott is over, still make sure to sign the petition.
do you know if we can still participate in dcblackout? is it like just officially over but unofficially ppl are still doing it? or does that not count :(((
personally i don't have any respect or sympathy for anyone who continues to give DC money after this. the organiser may have cancelled the boycott due to backlash from nonblack fans who were angry at not being centered for once, but this does not mean we should just shrug our shoulders & continue forking out money for mediocre releases from a company that refuses to make a commitment to Black creators and fans.
if you care about supporting Black creatives, seek out comics & graphic novels made by Black creators with publishers like Dark Horse, Image, Boom Studios, etc (please note that the creatives at Dark Horse are currently unionising & you can support their efforts here!) i know that some people still want to support DC releases made by Black creatives such as Jamal Campbell; i understand their reasoning, though i will not personally be supporting any DC projects. i would just urge people to keep their personal values in mind & consider the Black people in their community before they pull and/or buy any DC releases or renew their DCU Infinite subscriptions. and if people do continue to support DC, i don't want to see them acting like victims if Black people don't like or trust them.
Which of these Black DC characters would you most like to see get an ongoing comic run? (Fem Edition)
Tiffany Fox (Batgirl)
Karen Beecher (Bumblebee)
Anita Fite (Empress)
Marilyn Moonlight
Queen Nubia of Themyscira (Nubia)
Onyx Adams (Onyx)
Raquel Ervin (Rocket)
Natasha Irons (Starlight)
Anissa & Jennifer Pierce (Thunder & Lightning)
Mari McCabe (Vixen)
Other (leave in tags)
See Results
Remaining time: 4 days 8 hours
As of today, it's been 1203 days (approximately 3 years and 3 1/2 months) since DC published an ongoing comic book centering a Black character in its mainline continuity. I'm using this poll to bring awareness to some Black characters who I think could use some love. Masc edition.
black comic readers will say "buying black lead comics or black characters comics from dc doesn't stop them from getting axed and it's been literally 1200 days since dc has had a black ongoing so we're calling for a boycott to put pressure on dc by not buying comics and instead directly supporting black creatives" and here come the dumbest white people on the earth going "but dc is releasing pride month comics, do you hate queer people? but dc has female creators releasing comics, do you hate women? this boycott is so disorganised. i can't believe you hate queer people"
i have a personality flaw that always positions me on the side of characters who are hiding everything and refuse to accept help. like do NOT confide in people. confiding in people is the enemy. REAL winners lie and lie and continue lying until they ruin every single thing theyve got going for them & didnt fix a single goddamn thing. keep digging grandpa youre almost there
not every mutual fits neatly into an archetypal medievalism but there are some mutuals that im like yeah addressing you as “my liege” would come strangely naturally
Black Comic Alliance Announces Stage 2: DCBlackout, Escalating Calls for Structural Change at DC Comics
The Black Comic Alliance, the collective of content creators behind the viral #DCSoWhite campaign, has officially announced Stage 2 of its advocacy movement: DCBlackout, a coordinated protest calling on readers, supporters, and content creators to withhold financial support and pause content creation tied to DC Comics publishing initiatives until meaningful structural changes are made around…
[ID: Text that reads: "In almost 50 years, DC has only had 10 Black ongoing series in its mainline continuity, with only 1 surpassing 50 issues, and not a single [title led by a] Black woman. They constantly blame sales, but they're playing a game with the deck stacked against us. This needs to stop," said James Portis III, also known as JPenumbra. /End ID.]
What I find fascinating about Silver Age Superman is how internally contrary his reality truly is, which I actually don't believe is merely the result of having multiple writers. To the extent that his desire to be "plain" is sincere, it's the result of his aspiration to both a perceived Kryptonian normality — most often represented in-narrative by the just-out-of-reach Kandorians — and his desire to reconcile of the persistent ostracism he feels navigating his relationship to humanity, in this case by becoming fully assimilated. Renouncing his powers removes the most obvious symbol of his being different.
At the same time, I would argue that if any version of Superman would be more lost without their powers, it would be Silver Age Superman. That's not in a sense of him becoming severely incapable but in an emotional sense. He derived a lot of his purpose and pride from having powers and using them for others; and the same burdening fame he earned from doing so (somewhat, sometimes) curbed the loneliness he felt in other areas of his life. Moreover, because his powers had manifested when he was young, he only ever had scant periods without them; Superman actually complained in a couple later comics after this that losing some of his power as he did at the end of Kryptonite: Nevermore made what would have been simple tasks far more difficult. And he demonstrates disdain for minor human things on the rare occasions that affect him. But is he a liar? Not necessarily...
I think there's a lot to be said for this panel in what it does and doesn't convey about Kal's relationship to himself (and his identities) and others, even up to that particular point (1971); but the other part of it is that he kinda hates Clark Kent too... more on that later.
