|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 17, 2015 16:18:40 GMT -5
To answer your question: Many Batman fans who are also men's rights activists are sociopaths because they are men's rights activists. And I've learned not to take people seriously if their knee-jerk response to controversy is to blame everything on "PC police" or "radical feminists." After all, it's not unknown for right-wing ding-dongs to get upset over something a "liberal" said, but no one calls it political correctness when they have to bend over backwards to appease right-wing ding-dongs. It's sociopathic to care about men's rights? |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Mar 17, 2015 16:21:51 GMT -5
To answer your question: Many Batman fans who are also men's rights activists are sociopaths because they are men's rights activists. And I've learned not to take people seriously if their knee-jerk response to controversy is to blame everything on "PC police" or "radical feminists." After all, it's not unknown for right-wing ding-dongs to get upset over something a "liberal" said, but no one calls it political correctness when they have to bend over backwards to appease right-wing ding-dongs. It's sociopathic to care about men's rights? That's not what I said and you know it. |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 17, 2015 16:25:38 GMT -5
It's sociopathic to care about men's rights? That's not what I said and you know it. I don't know it and I am used to this sentiment so forgive me if I took it at face value. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Mar 17, 2015 16:29:40 GMT -5
Not quite. As I stated, "based on the aftermath", it was shown pretty clearly she didn't "love" it. Your, I presume, joke about Jim Gordon never happened so there was no aftermath to gauge it by. So no double standard in what I said, just "was shown how she felt" and "wasn't shown how he would have felt". Maybe you should read the original story. It's been a while since I read Killing Joke since I didn't care for it. If there was a scene in it with the Joker using a leash on Jim Gordon, then I apologize for misspeaking. I'd go back and check, but like I said I didn't like it so I don't own it. |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 17, 2015 16:36:34 GMT -5
Maybe you should read the original story. It's been a while since I read Killing Joke since I didn't care for it. If there was a scene in it with the Joker using a leash on Jim Gordon, then I apologize for misspeaking. I'd go back and check, but like I said I didn't like it so I don't own it. Here's part of it. A lot of people seem to forget about it...  Sure, he wasn't crippled, but I don't think it should be a competition. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Mar 17, 2015 16:38:07 GMT -5
I don't think very highly of the men's rights movement. Perhaps I might feel differently if they spent a little more time actually trying to do something for men's rights instead of getting all huffy over every imagined slight against their male privilege. I read A LOT of material about feminism and men's rights, and many men's rights activists seem to have two modes of argument: death threats and rape threats. It's disgusting. And I don't believe there are any sincere men's rights activists. If there were, they would be acknowledging that the movement is overrun with truly terrible people and they would be doing something to distance themselves from that element. Instead of that, we get a lot of lame mansplaining. Here's a recent story about a men's rights conference: "Good fathering" |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Mar 17, 2015 16:43:48 GMT -5
Not arguing here, just wanting to understand what you mean. How was there already negative publicity before the picture was released through whatever public venue it was? Sorry if I wasn't clear. What I meant was by the time the decision was made to pull the cover they already had the negative publicity. They didn't pull it because of fear of negative publicity, they pulled it because they already had it. I get what you're saying now. I guess maybe they could have felt it would spiral further out of control if they did release it anyway, as I remember the "tentacle rap/porn" Heroes For Hire cover, that got a lot of publicity for it's, while in a different way, titillating content. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Mar 17, 2015 16:45:03 GMT -5
It's been a while since I read Killing Joke since I didn't care for it. If there was a scene in it with the Joker using a leash on Jim Gordon, then I apologize for misspeaking. I'd go back and check, but like I said I didn't like it so I don't own it. Here's part of it. A lot of people seem to forget about it... Sure, he wasn't crippled, but I don't think it should be a competition. I don't remember that part either and I own the book. And have read it several times, though not recently. |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 17, 2015 16:47:59 GMT -5
I don't think very highly of the men's rights movement. Perhaps I might feel differently if they spent a little more time actually trying to do something for men's rights instead of getting all huffy over every imagined slight against their male privilege. I read A LOT of material about feminism and men's rights, and many men's rights activists seem to have two modes of argument: death threats and rape threats. It's disgusting. And I don't believe there are any sincere men's rights activists. If there were, they would be acknowledging that the movement is overrun with truly terrible people and they would be doing something to distance themselves from that element. Instead of that, we get a lot of lame mansplaining. Here's a recent story about a men's rights conference: "Good fathering" Mansplaining...privilege...keep going, I almost have bingo. Funny, the way you describe men's rights activists sounds exactly how feminism appears to me. I've been following a number of MR groups lately and they have legitimate concerns. No rape/death threats yet, though. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Mar 17, 2015 16:57:19 GMT -5
Mansplaining...privilege...keep going, I almost have bingo. You're being dismissive of some real issues you don't really want to deal with. A perfect example of mansplaining. And if you haven't seen any death threats or rape threats, you aren't paying attention. |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 17, 2015 17:08:58 GMT -5
I'm only dismissive of issues I find frivolous, like what kind of shirt a man wears on TV.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Mar 17, 2015 17:35:06 GMT -5
To be clear, I brought this up specifically because of interactions I am having about this cover on a different forum. There are maybe 20 or so posters over there defending the cover, and over the course of the conversation, it has become very clear that almost all of them are right wingers. The stuff I had in quotes in my original post - blaming this controversy on the media, on the "PC Police," on "radical feminists," on what they derisively call "social justice warriors," people implying that those against the cover are hypocrites that support ISIS, calling people against the cover "whiny gestapo," claiming that DC's decision to pull the cover proves America has become "a nation of wimps," comparing DC's decision to the Charlie Hebdo attacks - these are all actual comments from people defending the cover, just in the one thread I am participating in. Yes, it's a very small sample size, but it honestly made me wonder if in this post-DKR world, those types of people are more likely to be drawn to Batman than to other characters. I think it's a valid and interesting question. Well with so much sympathy for criminals and their criminal behaviour these days, to the point where agreeing with Darren Wilson or George Zimmerman's acquittal gets you branded with a big "R" scarlet letter, Batman is an opportunity for wish fulfillment for people who are disgusted by the climate of political correctness. This is especially true of his portrayal in The Dark Knight Returns, where he brutalizes criminals the liberal justice system is too soft on. But I don't think this has any connection to sociopathy or sadism, it's just a political viewpoint. Personally, as an aspiring comic book creator the current climate absolutely terrifies me. Just the other day Erik Larsen spoke out against what he saw as a lousy trend in character design and was lambasted and insulted for being a misogynist pornographer. Frank Miller spent years working on his response to the 9/11 attacks (a piece that is comics as art rather than commercial product) and before he even released it he was condemned. It's a very small industry and it is quite left leaning both in readership and creatives. Chuck Dixon said that other conservative creators have refrained from making their beliefs public simply because it could cost them their careers. If your opinions don't side completely with the left it can turn all of social media against you and ruin your life. Yes, there is a freedom of speech and freedom of the market but there is a witchhunt not just against conservatives but against anyone who carries a conservative viewpoint. And it's one thing to go after something said on Twitter or in an interview, it's another to target the art. DC and Marvel are corporations and I don't think the Batgirl or Manara cover is that big of a deal. The artists got paid but the companies weren't obligated to use it. Big deal. The problem is what it leads to, especially with creator owned material becoming an increasingly important component of a creator's career. If you come out with an Image series and the PC nuts and the SJWs and the feminists roll the social media tank up to your door what do you do? Social media has given people great power but unfortunately a lot of that power is being used by what I see as hysterical children whining about something as unimportant as being offended by words and images on a piece of paper. In answer to your Jason Todd scenario: I would say that had the Joker stripped him naked to degrade him, sent pictures to his parents, and possibly sexually assaulted him, and the hypothetical cover used on a fun, lighthearted series starring Jason Todd, then I think there would have been some outcry against that too. At least I'd like to think so.
For some reason I think beating a child to death with a crowbar is worse tham crippling and sexually assaulting an adult. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 17, 2015 17:37:19 GMT -5
Are there legitimate areas where men have problems? Yes. Child custody is one of them.
Do "men's rights movements" ever actually address those legitimate issues? Almost never.
Seriously...when you hold nearly every high card and every trump card as a group, it's hard to take your "rights" concerns very seriously.
The White Anglo-Saxon Protestant White Male oppression is just terrible.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on Mar 17, 2015 17:59:27 GMT -5
Are there legitimate areas where men have problems? Yes. Child custody is one of them. Do "men's rights movements" ever actually address those legitimate issues? Almost never. Seriously...when you hold nearly every high card and every trump card as a group, it's hard to take your "rights" concerns very seriously. The White Anglo-Saxon Protestant White Male oppression is just terrible. I think mens activists resort to rape and death threats because physical strength is the only natural edge men have over women. These pinheads can't battle womens rights groups intellectually so they resort to being animals. I have a lot of issues about man's place in society, I think the pendulum has swung too far the other way in a few areas, but I keep quiet simply because I don't want to be associated with what is effectively a sexist version of the KKK. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2015 18:11:43 GMT -5
It's a scared looking Batgirl with The Joker leaning over her shoulder. A pistol in one hand, and with the other he's using his finger to draw Joker lips on Batgirl's face in red paint, or blood. It's an unsettling image, but not graphic, and not any more unsettling than any number of DC superhero covers over the years. But to the credit of the people who dislike it, it is not in the tradition of this new lighthearted Batgirl series, and does seem out of place on this title. To be clear, my problem with the cover is less about the image itself and more about the context. This is a variant cover. The Joker does not actually appear in Batgirl #41. As a result, the image of him threatening her - or dominating, more like, given that she is whimpering and crying and apparently entirely in his power - has no relation to the story in Batgirl #41. If this same image were on a new story, it would still bother me to a degree, but not nearly as much, because what happens in the story could explain it and give it a different context. But since this cover doesn't have anything to do with the issue it's appearing on, the only context for it is the events of The Killing Joke, which I think is obvious by the fact that The Joker is wearing his outfit from The Killing Joke. Also the artist said as much in his statement. Batgirl is basically in one scene in The Killing Joke, the one where she's shot, crippled, stripped naked and photographed. The only context for this cover is that it is explicitly referencing what Joker did to her in that story - and not just referencing, celebrating, as the whole point of Joker Month is to celebrate the character's 75th anniversary. The cover is well drawn. And perhaps in a different context, where it's attached to a new, different story, it wouldn't be a big deal. But it's a cover specifically exploiting and marketing the infamous degradation of a female character as a sales point. That I have a big problem with. That's one of those things I have a problem with regardless of what's actually on the cover. Variants for variants sake, completely disregarding the contents of the comic. It's a scared looking Batgirl with The Joker leaning over her shoulder. A pistol in one hand, and with the other he's using his finger to draw Joker lips on Batgirl's face in red paint, or blood. It's an unsettling image, but not graphic, and not any more unsettling than any number of DC superhero covers over the years. But to the credit of the people who dislike it, it is not in the tradition of this new lighthearted Batgirl series, and does seem out of place on this title. With this I think you've hit on one of the big issues that people have with this cover. If this particular cover were the cover for a new printing of the Killing Joke, there probably would have been little to no uproar. But to reference the story where Batgirl was violently wounded, degraded, and maybe even raped as a cover on what is purporting to be a "lighthearted" series is seriously tone-deaf on DC's part.
Here's the cover: 
Yeah, I understand that. I am completely not surprised though. I mean, how long could DC possibly allow a lighthearted mainstream superhero story to exist in continuity with the rest of their output? To me is much like Marvel trying to market Spiderwoman to female readers who are tired of the status quo representation of females, and then immediately hiring Milo Manara to make a sexy variant cover for the series. They just don't care. They can't resist going back to old standards. And blood, guts, and women in refrigerators is definitely an old standard. |
|
