I'm not going to respond to everything AC Curry said, but a few points...
You are right about the presence of black male characters in movies and I'll throw in television too, though you are forgetting about Storm, Catwoman, Amanda Waller, Tigress, Claire Temple, Lady Cop, and Vixen, all derived from the comics. And also Fish Mooney, created for the show Gotham. And Misty Knight will be in Luke Cage. So will I agree with you that there has been a serious dearth of roles for black females, its not the complete desert you describe. Let's keep it real here, if it's taken so freaking long to get a Wonder Woman film and she's the best known female superhero out there, do you really think that you are going to see a Monica Rambeau film before her? And the one black female superhero film that did get made, Catwoman was a disaster, so already if there is an uphill battle to get films based on female superheroes, and black female superheroes, then Catwoman's failure gave Hollywood the excuse it needed to not try again.
But all that being said, you seem to ignore that black men are not controlling who gets movies or who gets comic book series. If they are lucky they get to work on those series, if they are lucky, but its white men who are running the show. However your ire seems directed at straight black men, like it somehow straight black men's fault that there is a dearth of black female or even LGBT roles in comics. That being said, Arrow introduced Curtis Holt, their version of Mr. Terrific, who is a married gay man in the Arrowverse.
I've never been on Dr. Hill's page, so here you are ASSuming again. It's far easier for you to do that than to listen to what I have to say, especially if you don't agree with it. It's easier to deal with villains, that confirms your ideas about certain straight black males. I mention fragile egos because YOU keep talking about them. That's your best insult or rationale because you can't comprehend that people who disagree with you aren't troglodytes.
Coates has white liberal support. He works at The Atlantic, not a bastion of black thought, even though he has carved out a space there. Where he works is not made up, a lot of support he gets in the white media is not made up. Is he where he is because of a groundswell of support from black feminist and black LGBT activists? Or was he put on by white folks?
I didn't say that the lesbian Midnight Angels issues shouldn't be explored in a comic. Find the quote where I said that. But I have questioned and criticized why that subplot was given priority in the first issue of Black Panther over other things. And I speculated as to why that is. And to keep it real, I feel if this story line continues to develop and Black Panther is on the side lines then it will be an issue of Marvel/Coates using Black Panther as the brand to really have a story about two new lesbian characters. That is deceptive. It might shock you but I've read, and liked, some stories about Batwoman, a lesbian character. When I read those stories I was reading them expecting Batwoman to be front and center. If her straight sidekick had dominated the story and Batwoman was on the side line I would think that wasn't cool. That's not what I bought the book for. But once again you have to find something nefarious in that response, to reconfirm your own dark imaginings about unenlightened straight black men.
Regarding my alleged emotionalism, I think you are getting way out of joint due to what some people say on the internet about LGBT people on Dr. Hill's or For Harriet's, just like you have on this forum. On this forum, a handful of people have responded and expressed displeasure with aspects of Coates's first issue, but you've blown it way out of proportion to an attack on black women and LGBT. Seriously, internet commenters are going to ruin Dr. Hill's career? That dude has been a go-to Negro on FOX News and now CNN. He's been on Huffington Post, he's good. But the idea that he is above criticism, if Dr. Welsing is not above criticism then the people you revere like Dr. Hill are not above criticism either.
Emperor, a few points, read 'em or don't...
1. I never said or assumed you were on Hill's page...I ASKED if you were one of the people coming on there...it was a question. Though since you know about the Frances Welsing fiasco it would seem that you possibly have been on there.
2. I'm aware of who Coates has support from and where he writes. A lot of white people support black causes and anti racism and even reparations. Like it or not the support is needed. But in any case he has also been supported by black people as well. In any case, my points were never about whether or not black LGBT people and feminists support him (they do, along with many other black people who aren't named Cornel West...lol) but him possibly seeing a need to include their images and prescience in narratives involving black people. Even in a BP comic. Because they exist and don't see themselves included very often.
3. The female characters you mentioned aren't hardly getting the push or mainstream visibility the male ones are, which is my point. They usually are there to support the male characters. None of those characters currently have a comic, TV show, or movie coming out based on them. So the point is superfluous. Your point about WW makes it racial and only supports the fact that black women characters are even MORE marginalized then there black ones and though some BM are vocal about this many ignore it or are satisfied with them being back up characters to the male ones.
And let's not even go there about black LGBT characters.
And no, straight black men do not control who shows up on tv shows or in comics...never said that either. It's about supporting those images being shown. No right now a straight black male IS in control and showing images that are rarely shown regarding certain black people and it's being said it doesn't belong there.
And again, no one is saying straight black males are "villains" again with the projection. THIS is why I'm using the term fragile male egos...not because we disagree, but because you keep projecting ridiculous and exaggerated assumptions just from being criticized. And so are others on here. Happens a lot with us.
4. It doesn't shock me that you've read Batwoman...she's white so that makes her the gay thing a white thing...and I could be wrong about that. But you DO seem to have an issue with lesbianism among two black women being shown in a black panther comic in only the first issue.
And I get and can see the concern that T'challa is not the central figure in the first issue, but you mainly focused on the LGBT thing overtaking that as an agenda that doesn't belong in the comic...not just the fact that he's not the central character. And if Coates continues this the whole run I'll see and agree with that point even more...it it's only the first issue and your comments HAVE shown you don't think here images belong in this comic...especially front of racism. Again something Coates has always written about (despite his white liberal friends who support him) and something always addressed in a BP comic.
5. Did you check out "For Harriet"?
6. I'm not getting way out of joint about anything...on Hill's FB page there was a HUGE amount of Hoteps attacking him...way more than a handful...and no, OF COURSE no one actually believed or thought they were going to ruin his career or could...I wrote that to show how ridiculous and in their feelings they were. The vitriol was over the top and very real...and most of the posts were extremely anti gay and attacking him and the writer of the article as a fag and and a sell out...just for posting a critical viewpoint?
And no one said Hill was above criticism...he isn't. Who said that? But he wasn't being criticized...he was being virulently attacked, called every punk ass name in the book, was threatened, and so as the the original article writer.matter of fact, some went to dude's page and attacked him. So no, that wasn't just "criticism". Though you referring to him as a "negro" has some questionable undertones...
And no, I never said the same thing happens on here...I merely followed up bluezulu's point and yes, found your post and one other's disturbing and that was going to be it...YOU chose to address me even though I didn't even call you out by name...so here we are.
7. Dudes use the word "bitch" all the time to describe a soft dude...many women, even those who are feminists, use it for the same thing. calling a woman a bitch means another thing entirely and even though many have reclaimed that word long ago...there's even a quarterly feminist zine called "bitch"...but please don't try to confuse or misalign how it's being used on here. I think you know this and know the meaning isn't the same.
Again, we can agree to disagree but my points about your viewpoint on this stands. From your posts before you've admitted getting SOME things out of all this, and that's good.
Hope the rest of Coates run proves to be more entertaining for you.