This is the reason for the suit change: Melissa and the brass asked for it - ew.com article.

@ Kiwi,

Yes indeed! (Also Imho)

Great Rao just when I thought this thread was dead.

*cough cough* Broken Record *cough cough*

****

Skipping right along. Bless your heart! You graced us with a surprise visit. Thanks for stopping by! I'd suggest a lozenge for that tickle in your throat. It'll put you right.

Hummm I believe the throat irritation started in another thread anyone want to borrow a Ricola. Others have new opinions or information so why shouldn't I be interested in those. If people have something new they want to share then the thread is worthwhile, if all that's happening is people restating their opinions then it's lost it's value.

Great Rao just when I thought this thread was dead.

*cough cough* Broken Record *cough cough*

****

Skipping right along. Bless your heart! You graced us with a surprise visit. Thanks for stopping by! I'd suggest a lozenge for that tickle in your throat. It'll put you right.

Just showed my sister the new promotional shot of Supergirl in the new suit.

Response: Oh wow, that is awesome looking, love it.

Yep, I agree, sis.

Great Rao just when I thought this thread was dead.

*cough cough* Broken Record *cough cough*

Kiwi wrote:

"I just hope that if they mention (which I'm sure they will) the costume change on the show that some respect is paid to the S1 to S4 costume, that would be achieved for me if they wrote Kara saying some nice words about it. I just hope that if they mention (which I'm sure they will) the costume change on the show that some respect is paid to the S1 to S4 costume, that would be achieved for me if they wrote Kara saying some nice words about it. "

******

Unfortunately, don't expect this to happen, especially with the current showrunners they have. The SDCC panel gave a good indication as to where their misguided line of thinking is. They threw shade at the skirt and it was more of a backhanded brush-off to the patriarchy. They have no real, tangible concept of the power of culture, icon status, effective imagery and female power projection.

You included two picture attachments; one is of Wonder Woman and one of the new Supergirl suit. Without getting into the female empowerment brouhaha, which one strikes you like a massive thunderbolt and makes you sit up and take immediate notice? For me, from a culture, image and icon vantage point, the Wonder Woman one wins by a Force 10 tsunami wave. By the way, notice what she is NOT wearing. And, no, there is no sexist connotation implied, assumed or intended in any way, shape or form.

I'm not saying that pants are bad and skirts are good, I'm simply pointing out that the WW version projects power, assurance and femininity more effectively than the, dare I say it, the androgynous, generic and contrived money-grabbing / narrow fanboy interpretation version they're going with on Supergirl in S5. As a woman, Patty Jenkins, the director for the WW project, knew this acutely and she used this to her full advantage and credit. It also helped that Gal Gadot was able to project this on screen accordingly.

The new Supergirl suit is a carbon / photocopy of Tyler Hoechlin's Superman suit. This project was originally intended to distance her from the Superman male-only mythos and tell her story in her own unique way. On some levels the show has succeeded, but the reversion to a Superman-type suit has de-feminised the character, disempowered her and genericised her immediately recognisable look. There is little difference between her generic look (cape notwithstanding), and Captain Marvel's.

All I'm really saying is one of the key pillars of the Supergirl project (the suit with the skirt) has been dislodged and removed and replaced with something that cannot possibly withstand the socio-cultural, iconographic scrutiny. Never mind the already inherent structural problems of the show (story and character development, etc.), the removal of the red motif (the skirt) at the midpoint, in favour of an all-blue suit, regardless of lighting or anticipated power and confidence projection, will do the opposite of what is intended.

If they really needed to go with a pants version, it should have been as a series finale reveal or used from the get-go in the proposed 2021-2022 film. It will work, with drastic modifications to the overall design and colour structure (arrangement), if it is used from the outset in the film. They will be going with a different iteration. New film = new character interpretation and new suit.

The more pictures I see, the more the new suit is growing on me. Apart from the practical reasons (comfort, freedom of movement, dignity, and character progression), I'm coming to appreciate it aesthetically. At first I thought it was too blue, but the cape and the new boots provide plenty of red, and the belt really pops. Plus it just looks strong and powerful. I think it will be a big hit.

That's a nice list, Kiwi!

I'd probably rank the Slater version a little lower, as I prefer the more muted tones of the Benoist S1-4 version, which would be my #1.

Points for including Electra Woman & Dyna Girl. That brings back memories. My 7 year old self noticed that the actor who played their tech support guy, Frank (Norman Alden), sounded an awful lot like Aquaman from Super Friends (voiced by same).

Would it be too early to include Batwoman on the list? I have doubts about a lot of things, but they nailed the costume.

The Yvonne Craig Batgirl costume, like the Batman show itself, represented the era, that's for sure.

It seems to like we keep butting heads, Sully! Oh well! The perils of being here. Anyways, I am quoting you because I really am directing this at you as well as everyone else.

I cannot really speak for Kelly or Brierrose but when a lot of people say men have to lose something, they mean what they had that originally belonged to women (or other races etc.) if equitably distributed. And, that is neither wrong nor a slap in the face.

Hey Ssav, I believe there's an equal amount of both butting and meeting of the minds and it's all good.

I think that the issue that arises when we speak in terms of someone losing something is that the quest for the item is viewed as a competition. That in order for someone else to win or gain ground, someone else in that pursuit has to give up or lose. But, I don't see equality as a competition. It isn't an item in which there is a limited supply and if we give more to one, then someone else has to go without or less of it.

Are there some who fear losing their status in society based on some characteristic? Yes, I would say that there are and we see examples of that in their reaction to others gaining equality. But, we also see individuals who think that the solution to inequality is to dismiss others right to it because those folks held it for a longer time. Again, as though equality is something that can only be possessed by a few for a certain length of time. Neither position is one that will ever actually result in a equitable society.

I am not saying that we should focus on the top rung. The top rung is already in a position that enjoys the privileges that society has to offer. And, out of necessity, the bottom rung would require more resources to get them to an equal rung. However, by only focusing on the bottom rung, we are forgetting that there are a large number of individuals who live their life in the middle rungs. If we ignore their needs, then eventually they will watch as others rise to that desirable level of equality while they themselves drop, becoming the bottom rung on the equality ladder. Unless one is a saint, very few people are willing to sacrifice their own right to basic human needs and over time, these individuals will begin to resent those who are getting it while they are ignored. Which is a reaction that I think is also currently occurring in our society.

So, instead of putting people into groups or categories to divvy out some kind of equality dish, why not focus on people as individuals? Basing a path toward equality on what each person needs to get there. In this approach, we don't get into the trap of dismissing or marginalizing anyone because they happen to belong in one particular group.

Thank you, SSAV, yes that is exactly what I meant, I thought I explained it better in my edit....but sometimes I can miss the mark....lol. And as far as my comments, I'm not mad or upset with anyone here, it's really not about that....I am just one that likes everything out on the table, so really it was just to say "this is my truth" I don't mean it to say anyone else's truth for them is wrong. So if it came off as I'm right, your wrong....and I'm going to say it till you agree with me, then I apologize. I may not agree with people on this or that, but everyone is entitled to their opinion and that is a no-brainer for me. I will however, strongly disagree when I see the need to.....and I will call it as I see it. And once again I apologize for not explaining it better, but I was trying to get my point across in as few words as possible. SSAV your explanation is straight out of one of my gender equality lectures.....loved your explanation, and I LOOOOOVE Ted Talks, I can spend hours watching them on YouTube. Ok done....

Carry on.....?

@SSAV and @Sully,

Re: Recent posts.

Excellent points and excellent analogies! Very well thought out. Please continue with these lines of thinking. This is what we should be looking at and focusing on.

My position is that we, as a society, should have the belief that we want to strive toward putting all individuals, from all walks of life - be that gender, race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic, etc. - to the same high level of equality. There is an argument that some individuals are already at that level, and if so, fair enough. But, most (including both men and women) are not in all areas of life. And to state that men should be expected to lose something because they had something that they shouldn't have had in the first place, is a slap in the face to those who actually haven't had it and struggle in life every day, just as women do. All we're doing when we make statements such as that is alienating folks who work hard to try and and achieve a minimum level in standard of living. Additionally, it creates a further division in our society, one that we don't need to widen, but rather, bring together.

This approach doesn't take anything away from women gaining equality because IF we have the belief that we are working at putting all individuals on that same equal level, women's rise to it will naturally occur. Yes, we have more women represented in the House than we ever have had before. The reason for this is not because these women went into their districts and talked about taking back something that women had lost. Instead, it's because these women had the fortitude to get involved, were encouraged by others to believe that they could do it and then went in and talked to their constituents about how their district could gain by having them represent them. It's all about having conversations with other citizens that don't swing from one extreme to another.

It seems to like we keep butting heads, Sully! Oh well! The perils of being here. Anyways, I am quoting you because I really am directing this at you as well as everyone else.

I cannot really speak for Kelly or Brierrose but when a lot of people say men have to lose something, they mean what they had that originally belonged to women (or other races etc.) if equitably distributed. And, that is neither wrong nor a slap in the face.

There may be poor men (as there are poor women). Even so, they have had the luxury of seeing more representatives in the government across the globe, have they not? They have had the luxury of having way more media representation in a varied and diverse framework than women; and if they are straight and cis, way more than queer, trans and intersex. And that is just two things.

Let me give you a more basic example.

A few months back, a well known female actor from Kerala (my parental state; where I come from and spent at least a decade of my life) gave a TED video where she talked about how she finally feels free to have that second piece (or first, I don't remember the count) of fish fry in the home and it feels like feminism and freedom to her. She got a whole lot of negative feedback from men in Kerala.

What she was referring to was the practice in a lot of Indian (and possibly other Asian homes) of reserving the best food for men and boys in the household (no matter the economic status). So, this actor, while she was growing up was always asked to not take any from the fish fry (or meat or any delicacy) until the men and boys (her father and brothers or cousins) had their fill. And, if nothing was left after it, well... too bad.

And this is not something that used to happen decades ago. My cousin, recently told me how she struggled in her marital home because they had this practice (still there, so have) of the men eating first; and then men never checking to see if the women had enough left for them to eat. And, it is not bad planning on the behalf of women by the way. A lot of things like finances come into account. And of course, at times, men overeating or eating more of the special thing because they like it.

When people are talking about men losing something, they are talking about men in the same financial condition as them. They are talking about men specifically in their lives (though not always). In a specified socio-economic strata, straight upper caste (in case of US, white) men absolutely have more than what they in an equal society would have. At times, even men of the upper caste from lower economic conditions would have more because I don't think it is a general practice to deny things to cis straight men that are routinely denied to women (or other genders or other minorities).

At all levels, women and girls suffer from malnutrition in India than men (by a whole lot). So, you have programs that are oriented towards xx (which are underfunded because hey, men are there saying how terrible it is that women are treated specially and have special programs for them; and how men don't get equal treatment. And how general funds are specially used for women and how that is wrong. Do you see where I am going with this? And it harms those same underprivileged men as well because apparently they are these days born from XX's bodies and thus cis-female malnutrition affects them too.)

I can give you other examples, but elsewhere.

The point being: It is still painful to lose your status as the top person in the pyramid.
It generates fear. And it leads to reaction. But asking people who have suffered through centuries to keep not pointing out the fact that they have something missing and there are these inequalities that need to be corrected, because people who are there at the top of not economically but then demographically, would feel hurt...

That is like saying to the boy who got angry that his sister is asking for a second fish piece when he had only three that only his pain matters. And to the girl who asked for it that she shouldn't point at her brother or father as having more. Because think of all the poor people on the street who have none.

But at any sort of economic level, you have all genders and categories represented. And as such, at that level, it'd be women, WOC, POC, and other discriminated or underprivileged categories who suffer more than the men who have as you say nothing.

And by thinking only of the poor men and their feelings, you are also discounting the rest of them. At least, that is how it appears to me.

A rising tide lifts everyone. However, it will only do so when you focus on the bottom most rung; instead if you focus on the top most run, then only those top most rung will keep getting lifted and the bottom rung will slide further and further into ruin. Get left behind. If you (the generic you) think after they had their fill, the top most rung will share the left over, that is not how a lot of human nature works. That is why it is better to start with the bottom.

In Chemistry, from what I remember, the speed of a chain reaction is determined by the slowest. Likewise, the people on the lowest rungs are going to need more help and resources to bring them up to equality. That would feel like taking away for many men (of all walks of life). Saying that is not a slap in the face for anyone.

Not speaking is not an answer to any problem. See where that has led Kara and Lena. (I mean, Lena could speak to Kara and solve issues; instead, looks like she is going for resentment and wallowing in injury and would cause a whole season worth of problems; like always.)

Though of course they would need some support and such to deal with their lose of status. Whether the different world governments and communities have resources for that or not is up to them. However, sacrificing the rest for 'men who have nothing' is not the answer.

That part is in quotes to use it as a whole noun not because I mean it sarcastically.

Note: I am not speaking in US-specific terms because this is more of a global conversation and you have international visitors here. Some of those points, such as female malnutrition may not be the same in the US (or anywhere in the west). But, I'd say that the crux of the argument prevails.

When I say poor men; it is not snark. I mean economically disadvantaged men (just too many letters there to type every time I mean them). The only snark here is the Lena bit and the bit about who gives birth.

My position is that we, as a society, should have the belief that we want to strive toward putting all individuals, from all walks of life - be that gender, race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic, etc. - to the same high level of equality.

Cannot agree strongly enough.

The smallest minority is one. When justice is ensured for each individual, I believe that what people call social justice follows.

No...

There is going to be times where it looks like that for gender equality it is at the expense of the other, simply because the other for centuries has had the upper hand. In this country it has only been 100 years of Women having the right to vote, and we are "just now" getting solid representation in our government. So please, do not talk to me about........oooooh, I call foul because you say you want equality, and it is at my expense as a man. Um, nooooo......just having to push back because it has been a full on battle to even get to where we are now, and still FAAAAAAAAAAAAR from being equal in many areas of society. So, I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy where that is concerned. We are not going to gain equality without men losing something, sorry......it is just how it is. That loss is not something that degrades men, that is not what is happening. That loss is simply women gaining the power to speak for themselves, to make decisions for themselves, to be given the right to change things because they see and feel the need to do so. The equality comes with allowing change, it isn't about taking something away...it is about giving something back that wasn't yours to begin with.

I'm not sure if you're directing this at me or not, but I'm a woman and have felt the brunt of inequality and been in the thick of fighting for it longer than most of those on this show have even been born. So, I'm fully aware of what that looks like and well versed in the history of women's rights in the United States.

My position is that we, as a society, should have the belief that we want to strive toward putting all individuals, from all walks of life - be that gender, race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic, etc. - to the same high level of equality. There is an argument that some individuals are already at that level, and if so, fair enough. But, most (including both men and women) are not in all areas of life. And to state that men should be expected to lose something because they had something that they shouldn't have had in the first place, is a slap in the face to those who actually haven't had it and struggle in life every day, just as women do. All we're doing when we make statements such as that is alienating folks who work hard to try and and achieve a minimum level in standard of living. Additionally, it creates a further division in our society, one that we don't need to widen, but rather, bring together.

This approach doesn't take anything away from women gaining equality because IF we have the belief that we are working at putting all individuals on that same equal level, women's rise to it will naturally occur. Yes, we have more women represented in the House than we ever have had before. The reason for this is not because these women went into their districts and talked about taking back something that women had lost. Instead, it's because these women had the fortitude to get involved, were encouraged by others to believe that they could do it and then went in and talked to their constituents about how their district could gain by having them represent them. It's all about having conversations with other citizens that don't swing from one extreme to another.

Just remember to be respectful everyone! Tough topics require care and thoughtful responses

Haha, I think I was editing as you were typing....

There is going to be times where it looks like that for gender equality it is at the expense of the other, simply because the other for centuries has had the upper hand. In this country it has only been 100 years of Women having the right to vote, and we are "just now" getting solid representation in our government. So please, do not talk to me about........oooooh, I call foul because you say you want equality, and it is at my expense as a man. Um, nooooo......just having to push back because it has been a full on battle to even get to where we are now, and still FAAAAAAAAAAAAR from being equal in many areas of society. So, I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy where that is concerned. We are not going to gain equality without men losing something, sorry......it is just how it is.

I agree but think the last bit needs clarification. What men need to “lose” is the belief they are entitled to something because of their gender. I think most would agree that belief was false in the first place. Women are demanding men let go of that perception. 100 years ago when women in the US were enfranchised many men and yes some women thought it would be the country’s downfall, clearly it wasn’t. Every fight for equal rights requires the privileged to see enough value in equality and the non-privileged as humans to give up their perceived superiority for the greater good. That’s a necessary but difficult thing to do. Change, particularly if we weren’t the one who initiated it, is something humans in general are resistant to especially if we perceive we’re losing something. Nostalgia for the way things were when we grew up is a real and powerful feeling. It might help if men could flip the script and realize they are also gaining something, a more free society.

There is going to be times where it looks like that for gender equality it is at the expense of the other, simply because the other for centuries has had the upper hand. In this country it has only been 100 years of Women having the right to vote, and we are "just now" getting solid representation in our government. So please, do not talk to me about........oooooh, I call foul because you say you want equality, and it is at my expense as a man. Um, nooooo......just having to push back because it has been a full on battle to even get to where we are now, and still FAAAAAAAAAAAAR from being equal in many areas of society. So, I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy where that is concerned. We are not going to gain equality without men losing something, sorry......it is just how it is. That loss is not something that degrades men, that is not what is happening. That loss is simply women gaining the power to speak for themselves, to make decisions for themselves, to be given the right to change things because they see and feel the need to do so. The equality comes with allowing change, it isn't about taking something away...it is about giving something back that wasn't yours to begin with.

@Sully,

Very good points. Note taken. But, given that we're all living within artificial socially defined parameters that have been created over centuries, you have to work with what you've got. If you intend to blow up / dismantle something, at least have a solid idea that is actually workable, palatable, and able to be implemented without resorting to soft reboots every year. (I.e. end this iteration / interpretation / show tinkering now and then produce a proper movie in 2021-2022 with said changes - with a different, fresh cast and iteration / interpretation from the get-go).

And, I agree with your point about the suit being adult bit. Again, it's a Hollywood interpretation and a particular agenda at play and they're not always exceptionally astute or on-point in this regard. In many respects, they're "old-fashioned" and "out of touch" with many issues. They try to be on-point, true, but sometimes (in this case, more often than not) the message gets lost in translation / interpretation and implementation.