MIKE GOLD: Perception

Mike Gold

ComicMix's award-winning and spectacularly shy editor-in-chief Mike Gold also performs the weekly two-hour Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind ass-kicking rock, blues and blather radio show on The Point, www.getthepointradio.com and on iNetRadio, www.iNetRadio.com (search: Hit Oldies) every Sunday at 7:00 PM Eastern, rebroadcast three times during the week – check www.getthepointradio.com above for times and on-demand streaming information.

You may also like...

8 Responses

  1. Vinnie Bartilucci says:

    I don’t think there’s going to be as much complaint over Jackson as Fury as there will be over the fact that Stark had been Iron Man for YEARS before they selected Nick Fury to head SHIELD… First the organic webshooters and now this. How that POSSIBLY make good movies if they play fast and loose with the facts like this?

    I recall a lot of people complaining when Michael Clarke Duncan was cast as the Kingpin as well. "How can they cast a black guy in a white role?" the fans said. Of course, I don’t recall anyone complaining when Roscoe Lee Browne voiced him for years on the Spider-Man animated series…

    It’s perception, and tradition, more than anything else. Comic fans percieve the character as white, and any attempt to make him black just competes with that internal perception. And some will claim a political purpose to it, as opposed to just trying to get the best actor for the role.

    And in many cases, that’s the problem wth gay marriage too. For some people, the word they have a problem with in that phrase is "gay". They’d be anti gay lemonade drinking in public if it became an issue, because in fact, they’re just plain anti-gay. For a lot of people, it’s the word "marriage." People have a definition in their minds of what marriage means, and any attempt to change that definition is going to be met with resistance.

    Take this example. The english word for the male monarch of a country is "king". Now let’s suppose that a woman rises to said position, and does a GREAT job. keeps taxes in line, works with the parliament, everything you’d expect in a great ruler, she’s universally respected. Now suppose one day, she announces that she want’s to be called "king" instead of "queen". No matter how good a job she’s been doing, there will be people who will bristle at that suggestion, not because of the person, but because That’s Not What The Word Means.

    There are two halves to the Pro-side of the argument. One is to receive the legal protection and advantages of the marital state; insurance coverage, next-of-kin status, right to sign paperwork on the partner’s behalf, etc. These are all important and reasonable things, and most people when asked don’t see a problem with extending such benefits to a gay couple. It’s when you call that set of benefits a "marriage" that people hesitate, not because of the gay aspect, but that ingrained, traditional definition of the word.

    The other half of the argument is the wider goal of Acceptance. And while you can easily extend legal benefits by legislation, you cannot legislate acceptance. And IMHO, I think there are many in the cause who are more interested in the acceptance half of the argument than the legal status half.

    I think the better way to go is to get the legal benefits, and let the language iron out the rest. People who are anti-gay everything are USING the emotional attachment to the word’s definition to block the whole package. So take that term out of the argument for now. Let them call it a "Civil Union" (Vermont’s had that for some time, and I haven’t heard anyone claim that it "isn’t enough") or whatever they like. If they STILL argue against it, then there must be another reason for their dissension-I wonder what it could be?

    Colloquially, people will say "married". People aren’t going to say "Bill and I got Civil-Unioned last weekend". The only people who will not are the ones who are against the whole idea in the first place. They’ll show their colors by saying "You didn’t get ‘Married’ you had a ‘Civil Union’, get it right!" and fold their arms like they won. Legally, the two will be identical, save for the term. And few people will emphasize the difference. A few well-meaning hetero coples will probably go for a civil union for themselves to help blur the line as well. And down the line, the difference will be nothing but a technicality.

    • Adriane Nash says:

      The difference between the current Civil Union situation and what you're suggesting is right now it looks alot like 'seperate but equal' but it's not and besides history have proven that method a total failure when dealing with bigotry. That's because Mister and Mister/ Miss and Miss MUST go to the statehouse/courthouse to get the union validated, while Mister and Miss get their union sealed by various officials who stamp the 'permit'. straight couples should have to do the civil cermony for the legality of the state to see their unions and have whatever church/reliuous sanction cermony be a SEPERATE ceremony. Right now priests are ordained to preside over the same actions that judges / justices of the peace have, therefore giving them that same power to make it legal. I'm a heathen and I know it but I hold The Constitution higher than The Bible. And its unconstitutional if its not a seperation of church and state as well as seperate but equal was found to be unconstitutional as far as educating our children, water fountains and so forth.I fully support two people in love getting to get whatever piece of paper they need to be seen as each others next of kin and have to suffer the tax burdens and get the insurance breaks no matter what sexual orientation they are. But right now if Civil Unions are just for those folks over there, then its not equal because its just not the same. If everyone has to get one cermony to be recognized by the state no matter what, that's what I say we need (you know the system many European countries alreday have in place for their straight couples). Plus I've heard it could be a good source of revenue.

      • Vinnie Bartilucci says:

        I had to re-read your comment, but I see that you are indeed saying that this is NOT a case of separate but equal, so that's good. There are "separate but equal" men and women's rooms, but blessedly few people are complaining over that.As I mentioned, I expect a number of well-meaning hetero couples to go for the civil union paperwork, just to help keep it from being a 'those people over there" type of situation.Leaving the CU paperwork as a civil-only ceremony also removes one of the teeth in the opponents' arguments, as it removes the need or possibility of a church having to sanction said union. Leave the ceremony as a separate thing, the "real" celebration, if you will.I know I'm leaving the emotion out of the argument, and dealing with facts and strategies, but I can't help it. I'm a guy (and pretty much a conservative) so I deal in facts better than I do feelings and "truthiness".

  2. Michael H. Price says:

    Yes, and didn't the 1989 "Batman" movie set up Billy Dee Williams to become Two-Face? Made sense from where I sat in the screening-room.– MHP

  3. Linda Gold says:

    And how much better that movire would have been than what we got.

  4. Victor Agreda Jr says:

    Billy Dee as Two-Face? Awesome.Sam would bring a nice edge to Fury, IMO. Remember that studios rarely care about purity, but obsess over market segmentation. So while comic fans may yell in consternation, it did little to change those organic web shooters. And honestly, it worked OK. Lord of the Rings skips a few chapters too, but they reflect the best of what an adaptation can be…

  5. Dave says:

    I kind lost the train of thought on this one — are Nick and Um Dum Dugan tying the know?

  6. Michael H. Price says:

    Well, anyhow — if the adherents of some institution (comix/movies fandom, marriage, ice-cream socials, you-name-it) should feel the sanctity of the deal threatened any time its artificiable tenets are tested by natural diverskity, then it cannot be much of an institution, to begin with. What? Can't bring Pistachio to the table? Nutz to that!– MHP