|
Post by rgsc on Mar 17, 2015 8:19:30 GMT -5
... btw i think compensating the years of "damsel in distress" should be done by more "dude in distess" not "nobody in distress" because if noone needs to be saved we wouldnt need superheroes at all, and "city in distress" just doesnt stike as much as a specific character we know. I don't think anyone is calling for less drama in stories to overcoming the damsel in distress trope or otherwise. While 'dude in distress' is one way to approach story (do you mean, by having female heroes come to the rescue?) I think it is more important to provide more opportunities for female characters to be shown in all manner of scenarios. Not only less Damsels but more heroics. There needs to be balance. Like with the sexy costume "debate", yes some people dress sexy and some people more conservatively; some characters have agency and others will need to be saved. The issue is there is a 75 year + history in comics (which goes back MUCH longer in literature in general) in which female characters have been frequently poorly treated. That is not to say you can't put a woman in jeopardy or show them as having moments of self-doubt or weakness. For the character to come across as authentic and for the story to be entertaining that has to be the case (and Barbara Gordon has seen her fair share of both jeopardy and doubt in this series). However, until a time when there is a balance in the way female characters are treated, every instance where there is a fridging or other ill-treatment of a female character will raise alarms as another in a long and unfortunately continuing history where woman are treated as objects to further a man's story. Small gains are being made but the progress is such that issues like this will continue to be a concern for the time being. There is a difference as treating characters as "sacred" and treating them/representing them with respect.
|
|
|
Post by caircoke on Mar 17, 2015 10:46:19 GMT -5
I have been reading a lot of the comments on other boards and on twitter, and would like to celebrate how interesting and civil the discussion is here.
If I were to sum up the number of people who would not have wanted the cover to be pulled: 1) it is artistically well-rendered 2) it references a famous and widely read story 3) it is evocative of the Joker's villainous character 4) to pull it is pro-censorship and anti-freedom of speech and "pandering" to a "vocal minority" 5) "I am not upset by it, and I can't see why anyone would be upset by it, therefore anyone who is upset by it is [insert insulting adjectives and nouns here]" 6) [insert threatening, misogynistic, hateful things and stuff here]
To sum up those who have objected to the cover: 1) it references an infamous story, in which a female character was "fridged;" i.e., subjected to sexualized violence in order to advance the plot of a male character, and thus reinscribes that victimization 2) it is antithetical to the tone of the current title, which has probably brought in more readers who are younger and/or female and/or LGBT, and the title's creators did not want the cover on their work 3) it is triggering to those who have experienced, or know someone who has experienced, violence (particularly sexual violence; and such people are much more likely to be young, female, LGBT) 4) "I am not upset by it but I could see how someone else would be" 5) it is disappointing that DC has made some strides in finally recognizing that their audience is diverse, but this shows that they "still don't get it."
Many of the comments on the side of keeping the cover skipped right over talking about the art, and range from dismissive to threatening toward those upset by the cover (I'm *not* talking about anyone here at TC, but on other sites). I could have written this very same sentence about debates over the sexualization of female characters in broke back poses. Because the two things are related.
These commenters seem to feel attacked and threatened because something they like and want to see, and have become used to seeing, has been objected to, or taken away. What is being objected to in both cases is the representation of women as objects. These commenters seem to feel that objections to these representations are occurring in a vacuum in which everyone is equal in real life, and male superheroes are sexualized too, and male superheroes are subject to violence too in fictional life.
These equivalences are simply false. Objections to these representations are happening in a world in which violence against women (including sexual violence) is something that occurs, statistically, every minute of every day, and women are still more often than not blamed for it and on guard for it. They are happening in a world in which those whose voices have been silenced for years and years and years--the voices of those who have been never portrayed at all, or only portrayed in very small numbers, or only portrayed in objectified, stereotypical ways--are speaking up and being heard.
People in the most privileged groups have been able to ignore much of this before now. They have had the luxury of seeing themselves overrepresented not only in fiction, but also in social, political, and economic positions of power. And many of them don't want to hear it; they are afraid that treating other people better means that they will get treated worse. But equality doesn't work like that. The key to all of this, as our forum-friend Sailor Marvel has said, is to have empathy. To think about and *care* about how other people, different from us, might feel. To ask, if someone is upset by this image, why is that, and to care enough about the answer to maybe make ourselves uncomfortable by questioning ourselves and our own assumptions. To think about how we'd like to be treated--how we'd like to see people like us portrayed in fiction--and to treat others accordingly.
|
|
matt
Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.
Posts: 75
|
Post by matt on Mar 17, 2015 11:46:58 GMT -5
I said earlier that this cover did not offend me and i would of bought it if it were to sold. I respect and understand why so many are upset and i'm glad we can talk about it here and not play the blame game and point fingers at each other like i'm seeing on twitter. While many are blaming anyone who wasn't for the cover for it being canceled. I saw dozens of tweets flat out blaming women and that just isn't acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by pacino on Mar 17, 2015 11:57:33 GMT -5
For some reason many people feel personally attacked when something they like is critiqued or disliked by others.
|
|
|
Post by pacino on Mar 17, 2015 11:58:10 GMT -5
Really good wrapup, caircoke.
|
|
|
Post by sailormarvel on Mar 17, 2015 12:07:54 GMT -5
I have been reading a lot of the comments on other boards and on twitter, and would like to celebrate how interesting and civil the discussion is here. If I were to sum up the number of people who would not have wanted the cover to be pulled: 1) it is artistically well-rendered 2) it references a famous and widely read story 3) it is evocative of the Joker's villainous character 4) to pull it is pro-censorship and anti-freedom of speech and "pandering" to a "vocal minority" 5) "I am not upset by it, and I can't see why anyone would be upset by it, therefore anyone who is upset by it is [insert insulting adjectives and nouns here]" 6) [insert threatening, misogynistic, hateful thing stuff here] To sum up those who have objected to the cover: 1) it references an infamous story, in which a female character was "fridged;" i.e., subjected to sexualized violence in order to advance the plot of a male character, and thus reinscribes that victimization 2) it is antithetical to the tone of the current title, which has probably brought in more readers who are younger and/or female and/or LGBT, and the title's creators did not want the cover on their work 3) it is triggering to those who have experienced, or know someone who has experienced, violence (particularly sexual violence; and such people are much more likely to be young, female, LGBT) 4) "I am not upset by it but I could see how someone else would be" 5) it is disappointing that DC has made some strides in finally recognizing that their audience is diverse, but this shows that they "still don't get it." Many of the comments on the side of keeping the cover skipped right over talking about the art, and range from dismissive to threatening toward those upset by the cover (I'm *not* talking about anyone here at TC, but on other sites). I could have written this very same sentence about debates over the sexualization of female characters in broke back poses. Because the two things are related. These commenters seem to feel attacked and threatened because something they like and want to see, and have become used to seeing, has been objected to, or taken away. What is being objected to in both cases is the representation of women as objects. These commenters seem to feel that objections to these representations are occurring in a vacuum in which everyone is equal in real life, and male superheroes are sexualized too, and male superheroes are subject to violence too in fictional life. These equivalences are simply false. Objections to these representations are happening in a world in which violence against women (including sexual violence) is something that occurs, statistically, every minute of every day, and women are still more often than not blamed for it and on guard for it. They are happening in a world in which those whose voices have been silenced for years and years and years--the voices of those who have been never portrayed at all, or only portrayed in very small numbers, or only portrayed in objectified, stereotypical ways--are speaking up and being heard. People in the most privileged groups have been able to ignore much of this before now. They have had the luxury of seeing themselves overrepresented not only in fiction, but also in social, political, and economic positions of power. And many of them don't want to hear it; they are afraid that treating other people better means that they will get treated worse. But equality doesn't work like that. The key to all of this, as our forum-friend Sailor Marvel has said, is to have empathy. To think about and *care* about how other people, different from us, might feel. To ask, if someone is upset by this image, why is that, and to care enough about the answer to maybe make ourselves uncomfortable by questioning ourselves and our own assumptions. To think about how we'd like to be treated--how we'd like to see people like us portrayed in fiction--and to treat others accordingly. Women live with a constant awareness of how vulnerable we are to violence. It's not paranoia. It is reflected all around us, including in the nerd community we love. The cover is triggering to a lot of people, so it is particularly sickening that a lot of people incensed by the decision to remove it have made the cover their avatar on social media, and repeatedly tweeted it at those who objected to it. And it doesn't surprise me that a lot of the hashtags concerning this have now been taken over by GG. I don't understand the logic of threatening violence against women because they complained about a cover depicting violence against a woman. This is not about censorship or SJW deciding what you can and cannot read, or what you can and cannot find beautiful. This is about a cover (and a story, if we are including TKJ) that really upsets a lot of people. The least you can do is listen to why that is the case. Have empathy. Listen to people. Don't be an asshole. But really, it is a balm to come from twitter to the forums and see how civil the debate is here. Thank Odin for the Talking Comics community, eh?
|
|
|
Post by sailormarvel on Mar 17, 2015 12:23:19 GMT -5
I've been thinking a lot about this and will of course talk about it on tonight's show. But I have some specific ideas about some of the points brought up here. (On top of that thank you for keeping the discussion respectful and interesting. It's been awesome to see) The piece itself is pretty stunning. It's a wonderful piece of horror art and also perfectly evocative of The Killing Joke. The problem lies, not in the image being mysoginistic or malicious, but in being unaware or ignoring the very real critiques that have surfaced about that story. It's an homage, but one that memorializes the character being used as an object and a plot device. With what the current Batgirl run is going for that message is completely at odds. Yes it is variant cover, but as Cameron, Babs, Brendan and others have said they want everything to reflect the story and core of the book they are writing. Of course those robot chicken and Lego covers are not keeping in tone, but there is a lot more leeway when you are being super silly than when you are evoking something so serious. I also want to talk about the "damsel and dudes in distress" point one poster brought up. I completely agree that no character is sacred in service of a great story. But I think the qualm with image is that it's not part of a story, or arc for Batgirl it was a sensational image made to sell books. This trauma is part of her history, and I think it's been used to great effect by creators inside of stories. But putting it on a cover, even a variant, seems to be courting an audience, not of Batgirl, but of Alan Moore and The Killing Joke. Again. This is my opinion and I appreciate you all having such a good debate about everything here! Cheers! Hi Bobby! I look forward to the podcast as I always do! I just wanted to make a brief comment about what you said about the cover not being misogynistic or malicious. I agree with you that the intent was not misogynistic or malicious. I just wanted to add that the cover and TKJ are prime examples of what Gail Simone called Women in Refrigerators, women in comics suffering violence (often sexual or sexualised) in order to further the development of male characters and/or spur them to some kind of action. The cover, isolated from TKJ, is even more upsetting because we have violence against a female character for no narrative reason. I agree that it is a great piece of horror art, especially as it reflects a horror that is very real to a lot of people. So for me, the problem is two-fold: the cover doesn't reflect Barbara's current story and it is another example of fridging. I have said this already, but thanks for creating this safe space for all of us
|
|
|
Post by henrythemorerecent on Mar 17, 2015 15:50:27 GMT -5
Not to detract from the conversation, but I almost feel like TC should do an end of year "Top 10 Controversies of the Year" episode. Because it is only March and so far there have been too many comic related death threats thrown around to even count. Back to the conversation though, thats what the biggest problem with this whole thing is. Not the subject matter of the cover, the art etc. Art will always divide opinion. If a cover/comic/movie etc was cancelled every time there was divided opinion, we would live in an artless world. But the reason, from what we've seen, why the cover is being pulled is because once again those internet villains, who think its okay to take everything to a threatening level, still have the loudest voices. If what this thread contains was the bulk of the argument, I have no doubt the cover would still come out and there would have been at worst some arguments and discussion. Some people wouldn't like it, some would. And thats art. But because the loudest voice belongs to those idiots who hide in their little caves until the next controversy pops up and start throwing around threats to whichever side they disagree with, unfortunately many people miss out. It's like in school when one kid is misbehaving so the teacher forces the entire class to have detention. What really bothers me is that those misbehaving people out there will not see this situation for what it is and treat this as a "win". Because thats the attitude they have.
|
|
|
Post by jonathansoko on Mar 17, 2015 16:20:59 GMT -5
I'm not sure I'd be interested in a all controversy show. I try to focus on the positive, hearing too much about that stuff can be depressing
|
|
|
Post by caircoke on Mar 17, 2015 16:22:25 GMT -5
Not to detract from the conversation, but I almost feel like TC should do an end of year "Top 10 Controversies of the Year" episode. Because it is only March and so far there have been too many comic related death threats thrown around to even count. Back to the conversation though, thats what the biggest problem with this whole thing is. Not the subject matter of the cover, the art etc. Art will always divide opinion. If a cover/comic/movie etc was cancelled every time there was divided opinion, we would live in an artless world. But the reason, from what we've seen, why the cover is being pulled is because once again those internet villains, who think its okay to take everything to a threatening level, still have the loudest voices. If what this thread contains was the bulk of the argument, I have no doubt the cover would still come out and there would have been at worst some arguments and discussion. Some people wouldn't like it, some would. And thats art. But because the loudest voice belongs to those idiots who hide in their little caves until the next controversy pops up and start throwing around threats to whichever side they disagree with, unfortunately many people miss out. It's like in school when one kid is misbehaving so the teacher forces the entire class to have detention. What really bothers me is that those misbehaving people out there will not see this situation for what it is and treat this as a "win". Because thats the attitude they have. Those who found the cover upsetting were NOT the people using threats. It was the people who defended the cover who were using threats--against those who were upset by it. Threats did not win the day here. Listening to people who were upset, offended, and uncomfortable did. Empathy did.
|
|
|
Post by henrythemorerecent on Mar 17, 2015 16:24:18 GMT -5
I'm not sure I'd be interested in a all controversy show. I try to focus on the positive, hearing too much about that stuff can be depressing Haha sorry, perfect example of written words not being able to show tone, I was just being sarcastic about the Controversy show. I was just pointing out how much there has been in such a short amount of time. Its exhausting.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Mar 17, 2015 16:34:05 GMT -5
Those who found the cover upsetting were NOT the people using threats. It was the people who defended the cover who were using threats--against those who were upset by it. Threats did not win the day here. Listening to people who were upset, offended, and uncomfortable did. Empathy did. YES. Thank you. The misinformation campaign by the "save the cover" people in the last 24 hours has been one of the most upsetting things about all of this; they very very quickly began treating it as fact that Albuquerque pulled the cover because he'd been threatened (how very Fox News of them), a claim that he himself dispelled last night on twitter. His statements and the statements of Cameron Stewart and DC corporate have all been very clear that this was a decision made through empathy and listening to and understanding why some people objected to it when the image was released, and for that they should be applauded. The artist himself and the writers of the book were the ones that made this decision; that's all people need to know. It's not censorship, it's not corporate backpedaling, it's not cowering to the "PC police", it's an artist taking back his own piece and saying, "You know what, you're right; it wasn't appropriate for the book, and I can do better." Again, all of these things should be applauded.
|
|
|
Post by henrythemorerecent on Mar 17, 2015 16:41:42 GMT -5
Not to detract from the conversation, but I almost feel like TC should do an end of year "Top 10 Controversies of the Year" episode. Because it is only March and so far there have been too many comic related death threats thrown around to even count. Back to the conversation though, thats what the biggest problem with this whole thing is. Not the subject matter of the cover, the art etc. Art will always divide opinion. If a cover/comic/movie etc was cancelled every time there was divided opinion, we would live in an artless world. But the reason, from what we've seen, why the cover is being pulled is because once again those internet villains, who think its okay to take everything to a threatening level, still have the loudest voices. If what this thread contains was the bulk of the argument, I have no doubt the cover would still come out and there would have been at worst some arguments and discussion. Some people wouldn't like it, some would. And thats art. But because the loudest voice belongs to those idiots who hide in their little caves until the next controversy pops up and start throwing around threats to whichever side they disagree with, unfortunately many people miss out. It's like in school when one kid is misbehaving so the teacher forces the entire class to have detention. What really bothers me is that those misbehaving people out there will not see this situation for what it is and treat this as a "win". Because thats the attitude they have. Those who found the cover upsetting were NOT the people using threats. It was the people who defended the cover who were using threats--against those who were upset by it. Threats did not win the day here. Listening to people who were upset, offended, and uncomfortable did. Empathy did. I know that, and I never said it was the people upset by the cover. No need to put words in my mouth. All I'm saying is those people who did make the threats were in the wrong. This was the official statement, which I read before jumping to any major conclusions: And below is DC's official statement: "We publish comic books about the greatest heroes in the world, and the most evil villains imaginable. The Joker variant covers for June are in recognition of the 75th anniversary of the Joker. Regardless if fans like Rafael Albuquerque¹s homage to Alan Moore¹s The Killing Joke graphic novel from 25 years ago, or find it inconsistent with the current tonality of the Batgirl books, threats of violence and harassment are wrong and have no place in comics or society. We stand by our creative talent, and per Rafael's request, DC Comics will not publish the Batgirl variant. DC Entertainment Albuquerque also took to Twitter to explain that the "threats" mentioned in DC's statement were in reference toward threats aimed at people offended by the cover, not Albuquerque nor anyone associated with DC." So it says "threats of violence and harassment are wrong and have no place in comics or society". The threats made by those people are very much PART of the reason it was pulled. And the cause of those threats was disagreement on the cover, and some people took it too far. The disagreement and negativity towards the cover lead to those threats but was not the reason the cover was pulled. As I said, I'm sure if it was just fans saying they were offended by it, it probably would have still come out, but because of the fact is escalated so far as to have people threatening others, it was not worth the trouble. There is a lot of offensive art out there depending on what someones views are. As I said, thats why its art. But it doesn't make me unempathetic because I think this cover is a good piece of art. And call me wrong, but I don't think anybody on the civil side of this argument is right or wrong. I think those who like it have every single right to like it. And those who don't have every right not to. It's a choice. But its the actions of the less sensitive that have caused this to escalate so that, as I said, people who just genuinely appreciated it for what it was miss out entirely. But to that last comment that threats didn't win the day, I'm simply saying that those people who have the mental condition to feel that making threats is acceptable, would view this as a win and encourage them to continue. Because thats the type of people they are. Jesus Christ its just comic books
|
|
|
Post by battyfordc on Mar 17, 2015 18:12:39 GMT -5
All this whole thing has taught me is to fear for the future of comics. How limited are we going to be in the future if we complain about every little thing that isn't PC. Fear for the future.
|
|
|
Post by caircoke on Mar 17, 2015 18:33:44 GMT -5
All this whole thing has taught me is to fear for the future of comics. How limited are we going to be in the future if we complain about every little thing that isn't PC. Fear for the future. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on the cover. But in response to the charge that "we complain about every little thing that isn't pc," I would just reiterate that there are real-world inequalities and violences that the cover is indicative of and there are real-life people that find it upsetting. As I said above: "The key to all of this, as our forum-friend Sailor Marvel has said, is to have empathy. To think about and *care* about how other people, different from us, might feel. To ask, if someone is upset by this image, why is that, and to care enough about the answer to maybe make ourselves uncomfortable by questioning ourselves and our own assumptions. To think about how we'd like to be treated--how we'd like to see people like us portrayed in fiction--and to treat others accordingly."
|
|