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

@SSAV and @Kelly:

Thank you for your insights and comments. I will address them quickly to keep the dull roar down.

1) Stereotypical assumptions - no. I would ask the same of male actors. It's just that society in general skews the responses / reactions that way. Heck, I'd ask any male lead the same thing and if they balked, I'd rake 'em over the coals. Twice as hard.

2) Starting a family - this was added simply because Melissa has already stated this desire in an interview. I am only giving a valid set of reasons why she may wish to opt out of SG after this season. Again, like my previous point, I'd ask the same of male actors. Given the huge workload, and increasingly inherent problems with the show, I simply stated that she might consider this option. It's not a demand, nor an assumption that she will or won't do this.

@Kelly replied:

"So, when they made changes to Flash's costume, you automatically assumed he would be leaving the show soon to have a family????? Really????

It's not about "asking" the question.....it is about the "automatic go to" in this case. NO ONE, (well some called foul on the suit changes for Flash, yes) automatically had the "thinking" whelp this is the end of that and I bet he wants to have a family. "

******

Thanks for the questions.

Not to be rude, and forgive me if it appears so, but it's a gargantuan no on all counts. Please do not make assumptions or jump to conclusions or try to put words in my mouth in this matter. The "automatic go to" in this case is of your narrow interpretation of my postings, not my intent, assumptions about, or line of thinking. You're looking for a convenient bogeyman or scapegoat where one does not exist. This is your reflex "go to" assumption reaction showing, not mine.

Since I don't watch the Flash as a point (it is truly a chore to sit through - worse in many respects than SG) and cannot stand Arrow for a variety of reasons, your assumptions about them have little bearing. If I was a fan of the show(s), and having seen what I already have of them, they've been thoroughly ditched. I have a hard time enough with them when they are in the crossovers. They do absolutely nothing for me, and as it relates to F & A's multiple costume changes, both costumes (and any variations thereof) are write-offs in my view. As it pertains to male cast members wishing to start families, it is a cyclical, counterproductive, and academic argument.

As for the Melissa Benoist bit regarding wanting a family (your "automatic go to" trigger, so to speak), if I recall, the interview may have been when she was married to Blake Jenner and may or may not have been intended in jest. You can score a point here if you wish but the "automatic go to" was not there nor was it implied or intended. I may have misinterpreted what was said and that was an error on my part. They do happen form time to time. No one is perfect.

The bottom line is this: I am not a fan of Melissa's choice for the new suit and think it will be hugely detrimental to the show in the long run for a variety of reasons. I may be proven wrong - and I hope I am - for the sake of the show, but it is a fait accompli (accomplished fact). She will wear it and she will be judged for it (whether it's a positive assessment or a negative one) by the viewers. Whether it empowers her or de-powers her, so to speak, is to be determined. These are current social conventional norms and values, but not necessarily mine. Rail against these injustices if you wish, but not against me.

@Brierrose wrote:

"@ Romulus please be aware when you say things like this it makes you seem at best out of touch. It’s that attitude that’s caused the pushback in this thread. It’s of course your right to have any values you chose. I ask you to think about how those values make you look and if that’s the image you’re proud to project. "

*****

Fair point. Well taken, but do not bring pride into it. The type of attitude that has caused the pushback and sharp reactions is the over-reaction of some users to it. Old-fashioned values are not "bad" or "good." Hard work, decency, fairness, and goodwill toward others are old-fashioned and "out of touch." Do you dismiss them as weak or out of place in today's world? Many of the PC and equality debates and current ideology would tend to project that impression. And that is why it doesn't have widespread support across genders.

Many males would love to lend a helping hand (and many do) to right the ship and correct social injustices, so to speak, but they continually get slapped away as misguided, old-fashioned, out of touch or weak by the very people they're trying to help. And, please don't begin to bring in the "toxic male masculinity" or "condescending male" red herring into it because that would disingenuous and a massive fallacy at best. Any single mother with male children will tell you this, female empowered or otherwise.

It was a male, not a female, who made a successful pitch to WB back in 2007 to get this character to the screen with the vast majority of the attributes we see on TV today. Who do you think made the pitch?

The fact that Melissa chose/chooses to wear pants isn't really the issue. She can wear whatever she pleases, but aesthetically and visually speaking, the changes to SG's costume are totally rotten. As Kara Danvers it works very well and is within character. It projects confidence and ability. Most females can relate to this. As the Supergirl character, it does not mesh. It eliminates her femininity and genericises her at best. Don't shoot me for saying being feminine isn't "good" or "bad", it simply is. Gender exists for a reason (be it by creation or evolution - you choose).

In all honesty, I'd have the same reaction to Arrow if he decided to don a tutu or if the Flash opted for frills (admittedly, it might be fun to see but it would not be within character or really workable). It does not work. Instead of a lead superhero who happens to be female and empowered, we're presented with an androgynous video game version of the character. If that's what she wishes to project, she will, and it may or may not work. The current iteration of Wonder Woman works because she combines femininity and power. Captain Marvel, despite being financially successful, really kinda does the opposite.

Hi everyone,

Thanks for the comments and somewhat heated exchanges. Very informative. It has added a new perspective on things.

Here are my final thoughts (fwiw) regarding the changes:

1) The new suit does not / will not work as intended on the TV show version because this character iteration was never supposed to go this far. It was supposed to be a launch point project between the old-fashioned world and the new one. The addition of pants should not be used to fix or patch up an already structurally-inconsistent version of the character and wonky TV show.

2) The pants version of the character will work (if handled properly and with a better overall colour / design scheme) in the proposed film version of the character. That is, if the suit with pants is used from the get-go and not as an add-on or remedy to an already inconsistency-riddled project. If they go with it from the beginning, it will work.

You see, the horse should go before the cart. This is not too hard to figure out.

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

No...

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.

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.

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.