Superheroes are under attack! This time, however, the attack is not at the hands of comic book villains and other-worldly menaces. It's coming from psychologists studying the behavior of young boys, who have determined that if we want to see "kinder, less stereotypical male behaviors," we've go to keep an eye on the actions of cinematic superheroes.

Dr. Sharon Lamb of the University of Massachusetts recently spoke at a psychology convention and stated: "There is a big difference in the movie superhero of today and the comic book superhero of yesterday. Today's superhero is too much like an action hero who participates in non-stop violence; he's aggressive, sarcastic, and rarely speaks to the virtue of doing good for humanity."


As the Telegraph reports, Lamb went on to say: "When not in superhero costume, these men, like Iron Man, exploit women, flaunt bling, and convey their manhood with high-powered guns." In the past, she believes heroes were figures kids could look up to because "they were real people with real problems and many vulnerabilities." "Original" superheroes had jobs and she claims were created to fight for social justice and the rise of fascism.

To add to the problem, she states that now boys are taught that they have only two options in life -- be superheroes or be slackers. "Slackers are funny, but slackers are not what boys should strive to be; slackers don't like school and they shirk responsibility." Man, I can't wait to see what she thinks of slacker boy Seth Rogen playing a superhero now...

But seriously, this whole idea is a rationale steeped in what seems to be half truths. Whether we're talking little boys or little girls, it's obvious that society provides them with very little options for how to grow up. The media system has never been very good at offering diversity ... in any form. Surely the representations on the screen help to moldcraft children's futures, especially if their home life doesn't offer alternatives that make them well-rounded individuals.

But is this fault resting with the superheroes, and has there been a change between the old days and now? I can't help but wonder exactly what time period she's referring to with the "superhero of yesterday", and and just what superheroes she means outside of Iron Man.

Tony Stark has always been the lovable, flawed antihero. Created in the '60s by Stan Lee and other comic book names, Iron Man was the superhero version of Howard Hughes. He was always a rich businessman and womanizer. He certainly hasn't changed; he just finally got to fly around on the big screen in recent years (and if anything, the new Iron Man is a lot less risque than the comic book version, especially when it comes to his drinking problem). The X-Men are all about duty and dysfunction. Batman and the Watchmen offer a sense of duty in a vigilante package. Spider-Man's entire storyline is about the responsibility that comes with power.

These aren't new stories. Each adaptation is a new twist mined from old stories and comic book battles. Their stories are just given more room to be themselves, rather than watered down tales with a knowing wink and charming tackiness, like the Batman and Robin television series.

What do you think of Lamb's argument? Have superheroes changed for the worse? Are they all like Iron Man? Weigh in below.