"She, in my mind never lashed out at him for doing his job. She lashed out because he was -always- doing his job. He never made time for her."

So if Clark was a cop, a firefighter, a solider, or a doctor who was constantly on call, Lois' behavior would be fine and dandy, too? Because being Superman is no different. Lois knew full well what she was getting into. If she couldn't -- or more accurately -- wouldn't -- cope with it, then she should have backed out gracefully early on. Kurt Busiek remarked about her behavior once that you wouldn't tolerate a firefighter or soldier's spouse being that nasty about their husband's line of work because the character would be unsympathetic, and the same is true of the way Lois treated Clark for being Superman. She had no right to treat him the way she did.

As far as "never making time for her," I can think of several times when he did exactly that, or tried to do something special for her after he got done with his job. Secondly, what does Lois expect him to do, ignore all the cries for help and let people die? Oh, wait, that's exactly what she wanted in Stuart Immonen's giant lobster story, right down to standing him up "to teach you a lesson" when he fixed a romantic dinner for her.

" Was she unreasonable at times? Absolutely, and she apologized for it."

And went right back to doing the same thing over and over again. Her apologies mean nothing.

"That's what made the relationship so great, they were both flawed. Nothing wrong with her, or him...being wrong."

Being Superman = being wrong. Sorry. I didn't buy that logic when DC peddled it, and I don't buy it now.

Secondly, there's nothing "great" about a relationship where one party's being a selfish, meanspirited lunatic and the other is painted as a victim just by being who and what they are. I don't have any sympathy for Lois.

"She did they before they were married, and yes I hate that as much as you do. It was bad writing because either A) The authors couldn't think of another way for her to act to stall for the TV show"

It went beyond stalling for LOIS & CLARK. Again, Joey Cavalieri admitted that DC had changed their minds about marrying them off in the first place, Louise Simonson complained about having to play ball with the show, and right from the moment the marriage happened, DC was looking for ways to bust it up. They didn't them married, full stop. The only reason it happened was because LOIS & CLARK held them to their original deal.

"or B) They just didn't know how to write women"

Louise Simonson was the big Lois/Jeb shipper, and one of the people who wrote the meanest version of Lois. By contrast, Dan Jurgens -- who's gone on record as disliking Lois when she's written as hostile and self-absorbed -- really seemed to struggle when he had to write those stories. I don't think it's a question of not knowing how to write women. I think it boils down most writers favoring a hateful Lois and making it the go-to version.

"You act as if the character had a choice in how she acted, you can't blame a character for bad writing, you blame the bad writing."

That's not the way storytelling works. If a character is consistently portrayed as unlikeable, belligerent, selfish, and unsympathetic, the character can't be excused for it. Batman, from DARK KNIGHT RETURNS onward, has been depicted as a psychotic, hateful Marty Stu so much in so many different incarnations that it's tainted the character. Peter Parker, as of "One More Day/Brand New Day," is a truly disgusting, contemptible character, and the very fact that he didn't want to take responsibility for his mistakes means everything he ever claimed to stand for was a lie. Bella Swan in the TWILIGHT books has been criticized from day one as being selfish and manipulative, despite the authorial intent that readers were supposed to like her. You can't say "Oh, the characters can't be blamed" when the overriding portrayal is that of someone you can't like or sympathize with.

It also doesn't help that Lois Lane has a long history of being written as a nasty character. The Golden Age version has been considered by everyone from comic book encyclopedias to podcasters as a bitch. Margot Kidder's Lois is SUPERMAN II: THE RICHARD DONNER CUT is disgusting in the extreme, trying to expose Clark in front of the entire Daily Planet staff (yeah, way to show you can be trusted) and manipulating him into outing himself with blanks (yeah, because nothing says love like selfish trickery). John Byrne's Lois was criticized even by Dan Jurgens as being an obnoxious loony toon, with Jurgens arguing in favor of toning her way, way down. Kate Bosworth's Lois in SUPERMAN RETURNS is needlessly rude to everyone (what did that poor flight attendant do to deserve that attitude?), treats her fiance like a cold fish, and is an irresponsible mother (taking your son into a danger zone -- really, Lois?). Even in Rob Pratt's SUPERMAN CLASSIC shorts, she's written as hostile and smug. Granted, the Dini-Timm series and LOIS & CLARK showed her outgrowing that behavior as time went on, but that's not the norm for Lois. What people eventually came to call "Lois Lane: Superbitch" is the norm. Any time someone tries to get away from that and make her likeable, it's either short-lived or winds up being a rare exception to the rule. At some point you have to just accept the character is what she is and decide whether or not you like it.

"Well there was that one time in the middle of the Omac Arc that he had his robot pretend to be him to stop her from going to an interview she got the scoop on in the first place. (Then sending in said robot to go to the interview) without her even knowing about it. When she found out about it she was rightly pissed off. Did he have good intentions? Sure. Was it the right way to go about it? No. She apologized later, and so did he, then everything was alright again. He was a dick, she responded, they worked it out..."

OK, you've named ONE time where Superman made a bad call. As opposed to the many times Lois lashed out at him for no justifiable reason. How does this make Lois look any better?

"I fail to see how that makes her abusive."

How about Lois walking out on him under the guise of a vaction with her mother post-"Our Worlds at War"? Sending him a Dear John message saying she doesn't want to come back? Writing journal entries about how much she hates him for trying to save the Amazons from being slaughtered by Imperiex instead of babysitting her dad, who faked his death so he could be Luthor's lackey? Her irrational jealousy of Wonder Woman? Or her immediately accusing Clark of cheating on her with the women of the JLA when the Cir-El Supergirl showed up? This is not the behavior of a loving, understanding wife. This is the behavior of someone with a "me first" mentality and a willingness to step on anyone and everyone to get their way.

"Yeah that whole Jeb mess still pisses me off, but again...I blame the writing, not the character. I would have done it differently had I been on the job. (and frankly I'd have done it better, but I'm not one for modesty)"

Truthfully, I would have just ended the Lois/Clark relationship with the "death of" story. Either have the trauma of Clark's near-death experience convince Lois she doesn't want to be Mrs. Superman, or have the experience change both of them to the point where they realize they'd make better friends than lovers and amicably part ways. If DC was so eager to break them up, those would have been perfectly suitable options. But they wanted cheap soap opera instead, so we got the worst possible outcome.

"Also according to Dan Didio the whole marriage was a gimmick because of the TV show. When he doesn't even read comics because if he did he'd have known they got engaged in 92 and the show aired in October of 93."

The engagement was actually 1990, and LOIS & CLARK was created in-house at DC in 1989 under the working title "Lois Lane's Daily Planet" before it was turned over to WB. So the marriage was in the make even earlier, which makes what DC did even more repulsive. They set the whole thing in motion themselves, made the deal with WB to time the weddings in the comics and the show together, tried to weasel out of it, and then tried to blame the Frankenstein they created.

As to DiDio's role in all this...I don't even know if he was at DC at that point. He may not have been, in which case he may not have been aware of all the backstage stupidity. Even so, DC's been spitting blood at LOIS & CLARK ever since they held DC to that original agreement. If DiDio's parroting the company line, I can't honestly fault him. He kinda has to if he wants to keep his job.

"Most of her bitchyness/abusive behavior you mention is all pre-marriage anyway so what's it matter? "

The giant lobster story, "Our Worlds at War," and Cir-El were all post-marriage. I'd say it matters plenty, because DC did not want that marriage, period. It also matters because we now know how the Lois/Superman love story ends...badly. These two are not a compatible couple, and probably never were. Why should anyone want to see them hook up again when it went so horribly wrong the first time around and DC didn't want them together in the first place?

" Also Gail Simone is a Clark/Lois shipper. (Granted she was right at the time...she was a bitch, but I don't think -Lois- is a bitch, I think the writers at the time sucked, or the editors)"

The overriding characterization and perception of Lois as "Superbitch" pretty much says it all to me. It's lasted too long, been too deeply ingrained, and has too many proponents for it to not be the case. If that's how they want Lois to be, fine. There are admittedly some decent story opportunities that can come from that. But it makes her totally unsuitable as a love interest. A foil for Superman, or an ally he has a prickly relationship with? Sure, I can go with it. But not as his lover.

"There are plenty of times when they have done stupid shit to Supes (red/blue come to mind, also the New-52) where he is either A) Whiny B) a dick C) little of both. But I don't go say Clark is an asshole"

I don't think DC-Nu Superman is any of those things. Hot-headed and impetuous, yes. But otherwise he's consistent with what Superman's been in the past. And his feuding with Lois over the Daily Planet in recent times actually makes sense for both characters. Clark's right to feel that Morgan Edge's influence is corrupting the Planet and think Lois is wasting her time by staying there, and Lois is right to feel that she and Perry can change things for the better from within. Neither of them are wrong; they're just in a murky situation they don't have answers to. THIS I can get behind. But I cannot and will not abide Lois mistreating and lashing out at Clark for the mere act of being Superman. I cannot and will not abide Lois being a jerk to anyone, full stop. Has DC gone back down that road yet? No. But they will. It's only a matter of time, and past history shows that a respectable, likeable Lois does not have a long shelf life in any incarnation.

And with that, I'm finished. I've said all I have to say, and I don't have any desire to say anything more. Let's just call it a disagreement and be done with it.