http://www.cnbc.com/id/102520004
![Image](http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/img/editorial/2015/03/19/102520079-joker-batgirl.530x298.jpg?v=1426787544)
Unfortunately no country is safe from people who have agendas they hide in the clothing of "justice" or whatever the holy crusade of the week is. this has nothing to do with a country but of allowances of the small few to dictate change because they yell the loudest, no matter if they yell the truth or not.Ezekiel wrote:Wait, this unleashed the hounds of social justice as well? Aren't you guys across the Atlantic supposed to be living in the freest country in the world? Keep the picture exactly how it is but replace Batgirl with a Batman having the same terrorized look on his face and nobody could care less about it. People making an uproar over such things start to feel creepy to me.
Indeed. The reason for Batgirl's distress is only relevant if you know the context.KnightsofGotham.com wrote:One of the more desperate arguments is that the cover doesn't jive with children.
the real problem with that is that the image by itself is harmless. its when you realize that this is the same Batgirl that the joker shot, stripped naked and took pictures of that you understand the look on her face.
but if Children already knew about the killing joke then people should be upset with that, bnot a harmless picture.
This is actually a really great idea! that way the easy offended or the young can stick to kiddie DC and leave the hard hitting story lines for the rest of usHeroine Addict wrote: DC really need to put their kiddie-friendly stuff in a separate universe. That way, they won't have to address the history which has been carried over into the New 52. Let the selfie-taking Batgirl go off on adventures with impish twat Batmite and a talking Bathound.
Having this conversation on a forum where most of the community comes to find videos of super heroines being defeated seems at odds with itself. Im pretty sure you can expect to see the same answer on repeat.vnv7272 wrote:I think it fits for the subject matter in context with the comic.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102520004
That's fair enough. But it raises the issue of whether the Burnside Batgirl should exist in the same universe as The Killing Joke?SHL wrote:Having this conversation on a forum where most of the community comes to find videos of super heroines being defeated seems at odds with itself. Im pretty sure you can expect to see the same answer on repeat.vnv7272 wrote:I think it fits for the subject matter in context with the comic.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102520004
I think there is a simpler formula when it comes to talking about this cover:
1. Do you still read comic books? (If 'Yes, go to next question: if 'No', don't)
2. Were you currently reading the new Batgirl series? (If 'Yes, go to next question: if 'No', don't)
3. Congratulations, you are allowed to have an opinion. Please submit it into the inbox of 'who gives a shit'.
The Batgirl in Burnside series has an specific kind of audience, that audience probably isn't pro-rape in comic books.
I for one have been reading the series and while I enjoy my super heroines-in-peril-likelotsofsexualperil, I don't need sexual violence in everything I consume. Personally, I kind of get sick of it to be honest. And if I ever have a daughter I would hope there were a few comic books she could read where rape culture wasn't in-between the lines in the story, or literally plastered on the cover.
As KnightsofGotham said, you only get that reference if you know The Killing Joke. The cover itself merely depicts Batgirl in a state of distress.SHL wrote:You don't see anything wrong with the cover? Go find me a children's book or young adult novel where the main character gets shot in the spine, stripped and sexually humiliated in front of her father.
Seriously.
You had a half way decent argument until this part, in my opinion.SHL wrote: You don't see anything wrong with the cover? Go find me a children's book or young adult novel where the main character gets shot in the spine, stripped and sexually humiliated in front of her father.
If this was the main cover for the comic I would agree.... if this was the only cover chosen you would have a valid and strong point. But it was a variant and just like Gamergate those who wish to disturb for their own agenda have derailed the train off its original tracks and forced it into something it wasn't supposed to nbe.Heroine Addict wrote: But it raises the issue of whether the Burnside Batgirl should exist in the same universe as The Killing Joke?
I am pretty sure if the Joker raped Jason Todd it would be a bigger controversy than this comic cover has been.KnightsofGotham.com wrote:SHL wrote: Let me ask you a serious question......
Knowing that Joker killed Jason Todd (a male)
If this was a picture of Jason Todd standing next to the joker and instead of a gun he was holding a crowbar and Jason had that exact same face on.....
would this have been an issue?
or are we here because the militants who demand equality for women but demand that women be treated differently than men made this into an issue?
funny it didn't even cause a stir when he was raped by TarantulaSHL wrote:
I am pretty sure if the Joker raped Jason Todd it would be a bigger controversy than this comic cover has been.
KnightsofGotham.com wrote:And before we forget about it with the emotion on both sides....the artist himself asked for it not to run after harassment and threats. DC didn't pull it, the artist himself got trolled so hard that he asked to have it pulled.
Plus Batman was drugged and raped by Talia. Again does it not matter cause its a hot woman? In fact she had a kid and now he's stuck with a kid.KnightsofGotham.com wrote:funny it didn't even cause a stir when he was raped by TarantulaSHL wrote:
I am pretty sure if the Joker raped Jason Todd it would be a bigger controversy than this comic cover has been.
in Nightwing #93
or does that not count because he was raped by a woman?
You mean stuff like this?:Omega Woman wrote: Also, just my two cents: I'd probably be much harder on any cover referencing "A Death in the Family" (that story where Jason Todd died), since "A Death in the Family" is such hideously written Reagan-era propaganda that just thinking about it makes me want to vomit.
At this point I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. People in the US don't take men being raped by women seriously, everyone always wants to high five the middle school/high school boy who has sex with a female teacher.KnightsofGotham.com wrote: funny it didn't even cause a stir when he was raped by Tarantula
in Nightwing #93
or does that not count because he was raped by a woman?
It shows a woman put in a horrible situation by a man and everyone knows that throughout the centuries women have been put in horrible situations by men so we can't have anything like that in any sort of FICTION because if you dare to make it or even like it, then it means you are a perverted little fucker who eats children in real life and sees women at best as useful accessories for his everyday needs.Mr. X wrote:What exactly is wrong with the cover?
Then I will do us Both a favor and stop trying to explain it.SHL wrote:
At this point I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
Well, sexual violence against women is always treated more sensitively than mass murder. The suspicion being that men might get off on seeing Batgirl in that situation. While violence against any hero or heroine is supposed to be exciting, the issue is whether a section of the market will find sexual violence arousing.dantoon wrote:Why is it even considered sexist? Don't these reactionary blowhards know that Joker's a VILLAIN? He's been shown murdering innocent people for decades but apparently showing imagined rape overtones is too much.
Apologies for nicking this bit out of context, but I think it's an important detail. One thing I have often seen people say when they are talking about villains in movies and stories talking about the horrible things characters do, they say, "Well why are you upset about rape, when this character has done all these other things?"Heroine Addict wrote:Well, sexual violence against women is always treated more sensitively than mass murder.dantoon wrote:Why is it even considered sexist? Don't these reactionary blowhards know that Joker's a VILLAIN? He's been shown murdering innocent people for decades but apparently showing imagined rape overtones is too much.
No, the artists who create the comic were not consulted, when they were consulted, they said no. If you look at what the Batgirl comic is now, it's not hard to see why they wouldn't want it on there, even as a variant. They know their audience pretty well.Mr. X wrote:I think it was the original artist that was pressured to remove it. Point is this thing shouldn't be some issue. It breaks no comic code. And there has been worst stuff done to men on covers. Superman beaten to death by Doomsday for example.
People also get murdered, assaulted, robbed, threatened. In fact men are more likely to be the victim of all violent crime other than rape and DV and with DV women commit about 45% of DV. Men are 5 times more likely to die on the job, die more from chronic illness and die much more from war and combat. So if anyone should be scared its men. The cover in no way implies rape.Dogfish wrote:Apologies for nicking this bit out of context, but I think it's an important detail. One thing I have often seen people say when they are talking about villains in movies and stories talking about the horrible things characters do, they say, "Well why are you upset about rape, when this character has done all these other things?"Heroine Addict wrote:Well, sexual violence against women is always treated more sensitively than mass murder.dantoon wrote:Why is it even considered sexist? Don't these reactionary blowhards know that Joker's a VILLAIN? He's been shown murdering innocent people for decades but apparently showing imagined rape overtones is too much.
The reason is that a hell of a lot of women get raped. Enough women get raped that rape is something that women are often realistically scared of. What real fears do the big comics bring into play for their male characters? Monster kills you during a gigantic battle? Drugged up supervillain breaks your spine? Not sure I see that as something I might have to deal with.
Sexual assault is a common enough real fear that it probably shouldn't be the stuff of comics that traditionally present fantastical situations for a younger audience. Throw some giant space monsters in there. Maybe a robot that shoots lasers out its nose. Everybody can enjoy that.
Also, as an addendum, it is worth remembering that even Alan Moore doesn't like The Killing Joke, and that it was never intended to be canon (because it is heavily implied that the Joker is killed at the end, which of course he isn't if it is canon). It is also one of the worst examples of fridging you'll ever find, barring the one with the actual fridge. If DC wants to celebrate 75 years of Joker, probably would be well advised to step around that particular story.
Of course the cover implies rape. Not sure they could fit much more phallic imagery in there if they tried. Maybe have the silhouette of a hot dog van off in the background? If there's (somehow) no rape implied it's just the Joker with a gun, so why would Batgirl be crying? She doesn't have any fear of armed men by the normal run of things. It's clear there's something else going on in the picture.Mr. X wrote: People also get murdered, assaulted, robbed, threatened. In fact men are more likely to be the victim of all violent crime other than rape and DV and with DV women commit about 45% of DV. Men are 5 times more likely to die on the job, die more from chronic illness and die much more from war and combat. So if anyone should be scared its men. The cover in no way implies rape.
"What real fears do the big comics bring into play for their male characters? Monster kills you during a gigantic battle? Drugged up supervillain breaks your spine? Not sure I see that as something I might have to deal with."
Women are not commonly raped in comics and comparing real world events to comic book violence is a fallacy. And who by far is beaten and killed in comics? Men.
No it does not imply rape. How? It implies threat. If that were Robin instead of Batgirl would that imply rape? Its the Joker. Anyone would be scared.Dogfish wrote:Of course the cover implies rape. Not sure they could fit much more phallic imagery in there if they tried. Maybe have the silhouette of a hot dog van off in the background? If there's (somehow) no rape implied it's just the Joker with a gun, so why would Batgirl be crying? She doesn't have any fear of armed men by the normal run of things. It's clear there's something else going on in the picture.Mr. X wrote: People also get murdered, assaulted, robbed, threatened. In fact men are more likely to be the victim of all violent crime other than rape and DV and with DV women commit about 45% of DV. Men are 5 times more likely to die on the job, die more from chronic illness and die much more from war and combat. So if anyone should be scared its men. The cover in no way implies rape.
"What real fears do the big comics bring into play for their male characters? Monster kills you during a gigantic battle? Drugged up supervillain breaks your spine? Not sure I see that as something I might have to deal with."
Women are not commonly raped in comics and comparing real world events to comic book violence is a fallacy. And who by far is beaten and killed in comics? Men.
Bear in mind, we're talking about art here. When you say something in art, you don't write it down in big fat letters. Everything is implied to a greater or lesser extent. And the extent to which rape is implicit in that image is just, well, damn.
As to comparing the problems of men to those of women, that stuff is complicated, and there's a lot to it, I'm going to have to err on the side of agreeing to disagree. You're going to have to figure out the problems of women in a patriarchal society for yourself because I don't have time to explain it all.
I think if it was exactly the same kind of pose, with Robin in it, crying, yeah it'd still imply something more than simple fear. Don't forget this is also a reference to a story where Batgirl is sexually assaulted by Joker. So if Robin was bent over and fucked up the arse by the Joker in a story, and then this cover appeared, then yeah, I'd say the rape implication would be as strong as it is here.Mr. X wrote:
No it does not imply rape. How? It implies threat. If that were Robin instead of Batgirl would that imply rape? Its the Joker. Anyone would be scared.
Blocking this is the sexism of lowered expectations. Someone said the title is a fluffy kid's title. Ok I can see blocking this because of that but to say this somehow implies rape is absurd.
You read WAY too much into that cover.Dogfish wrote:I think if it was exactly the same kind of pose, with Robin in it, crying, yeah it'd still imply something more than simple fear. Don't forget this is also a reference to a story where Batgirl is sexually assaulted by Joker. So if Robin was bent over and fucked up the arse by the Joker in a story, and then this cover appeared, then yeah, I'd say the rape implication would be as strong as it is here.Mr. X wrote:
No it does not imply rape. How? It implies threat. If that were Robin instead of Batgirl would that imply rape? Its the Joker. Anyone would be scared.
Blocking this is the sexism of lowered expectations. Someone said the title is a fluffy kid's title. Ok I can see blocking this because of that but to say this somehow implies rape is absurd.
Also, and perhaps most importantly, it's an image from a Batman story where Batgirl is just thrown in as an aside. It's the low point of the entire characters existence, not in the story so much as in the creative journey for the character. There's a famous conversation between Alan Moore and Len Wein (editor at DC for the project) where Moore asked about whether it was okay to have Joker do permanent damage to Batgirl, and the response was, "Yeah, okay, cripple the bitch"
So this is not just a call-back to a story that ended badly for the character, but an era when even the creators of the character couldn't give a lesser fuck about her. Moore's story threw her under the bus to add weight and shock value because he couldn't find a way to create these things on his own (and he freely admits himself to such flaws with the work).
The fact that Batgirl is now a thriving title in its own right is a very eloquent 'Fuck you' to that era, and I don't think the current writers and artists ought to feel compelled to pay homage to that it. It was bad enough the character had to be disabled for as long as she was. Batman walked off a broken spine in about five minutes and Superman was dead for what three months?
HERE YOU GO! THE REAL THING!vnv7272 wrote:I think it fits for the subject matter in context with the comic.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102520004
Which kind of relegates Batgirl to a separate kiddieverse, having safe little adventures with incompetent comedy villains who can be defeated by a smartphone app.Omega Woman wrote:Forget it. Writer Cameron Stewart even said he had no plans for the Joker to appear. Ever.