|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2015 0:31:18 GMT -5
It's not true though. If it were, Bruce Wayne would have been crippled in the Batcave for thirty years. Oh, and he'd also have gotten fingered a little by Bane after he got his ass kicked.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 19, 2015 0:49:12 GMT -5
I was fine with Manara's Spiderwoman cover - thought it was sexy but not demeaning, as it looked to me the character was prowling in an active and predatory manner.
Hate the Batwoman/Joker for the its celebration of what I see as a power-fantasy cult centred on that character and that I've always found disgusting. And yes, by subjecting the title character to that fantasy: unlike the Batman bondage examples, in which he's almost always depicted struggling manfully with a defiant grimace on his face, Batwoman is cowed, subjugated, crying, frightened. It also disgusts me that the Joker is dressed as a pop-culture pimp, complete with floppy hat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2015 1:02:20 GMT -5
I'm the opposite. Although I think Manara is a great illustrator, I felt like he dialed that cover in, and thought it was kind of ugly. Even ignoring the context of the image (which I understand why there was uproar because of) I just don't think the cover is great.
The Batgirl cover is an image that impresses me, though I also understand why context is important and why it upset people. It's a striking piece though, and it's one of those images that can provoke an emotion from viewing. Of course, that's the issue in the first place. But if he was hired to create a single image that represented The Killing Joke without being explicit, he did it about as well as it can be done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Mar 19, 2015 7:36:48 GMT -5
That's evidence of another issue of concern: when something happens to a woman it matters, but when something happens to a man it is blown off or doesn't even register. That doesn't seem to be it at all, because as I said one was repeatedly referred to over the years and the other had zero impact on the character what so ever and was never showed again. There for it doesn't register because of some bias but rather simply because of the way the human brain stores and processes memory, repeated instances are remembered while singular instances(barring some related life altering event) are cycled out. In addition to thwhtguardian's comment: It's more that it is very common in comics (and other forms of fiction) that bad things happen to women so we can get a reaction out of a main male character (Gwen Stacy, Karen Page, Batgirl, the list goes on and on). The villain attacks the female to get at the male protagonist. The other way around is WAY less common (Ever notice how female heroes tend to rescue their female friends/sisters/daughters a lot? Or that female superheroes' love interests tend to be superpowered or otherwise highly skilled themselves while male superheroes' love interests very often tend to be regular humans). I don't agree with all examples on Women in Refrigerators (for example: Diamond Lil getting breast cancer (or rather potentially having breast cancer but her invulnerability preventing the doctor from doing a biopsy to be sure) is not a case, because that whole plotline was about Lil reacting to it and Lil herself finding a solution to her problems.), but a lot of them show how female characters tend to be used to provide motivation for oomale characters. Of course you can find a lot of examples of things being the other way around (you have over 70 years of comics to pick from), but in the overall view those are a small part of the complete history of comics. These issues are not about not caring about males, because they affect both males and females (albeit in different ways); women tend to be put in the victim role, but males when victimized are expected to shrug things off and female-on-male violence tends to be trivialized. Both of which are toxic ideas in themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 19, 2015 8:24:01 GMT -5
That's evidence of another issue of concern: when something happens to a woman it matters, but when something happens to a man it is blown off or doesn't even register. As a man, I'm absolutely fine with this.
I think that, on average, men threatening women with physical violence should be viewed much more harshly than a woman threatening me. Wow. I don't even know what to say to that. Not all men are larger and stronger than all women. The ol' pay gap myth. I've worked jobs where I got paid less than women who had less responsibility, work and experience. Explain that. It's not a day to day concern of most women, either. If it is, they have issues they need to sort through. How is ear-piercing a ritual? Some girls get it because they want it, some don't. At least they don't have their genitals mutilated at birth. Still waiting for my financial reward. You simply can't compare "all men" to "all women". Everyone has a different life shaped by infinite influences random and otherwise. Life is extremely difficult for some men, very easy for some women. That's the problem with these dogmatic movements: they don't see anyone as an individual. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 19, 2015 8:29:35 GMT -5
I would like to know what kind of people complained about that cover. Sounds like many people these days are too sensitive and have knee jerk reactions for many non serious events. Why wasn't there an outrage over the following 2 covers from Barbara Gordons BOP series?   Some people have too much time on their hands. |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 19, 2015 8:38:14 GMT -5
<abbr data-timestamp="1426768608000" title="Mar 19, 2015 8:36:48 GMT -4" class="time">Mar 19, 2015 8:36:48 GMT -4</abbr> Dizzy D said: In addition to thwhtguardian's comment: It's more that it is very common in comics (and other forms of fiction) that bad things happen to women so we can get a reaction out of a main male character (Gwen Stacy, Karen Page, Batgirl, the list goes on and on). The villain attacks the female to get at the male protagonist. The other way around is WAY less common (Ever notice how female heroes tend to rescue their female friends/sisters/daughters a lot? Or that female superheroes' love interests tend to be superpowered or otherwise highly skilled themselves while male superheroes' love interests very often tend to be regular humans). I don't agree with all examples on Women in Refrigerators (for example: Diamond Lil getting breast cancer (or rather potentially having breast cancer but her invulnerability preventing the doctor from doing a biopsy to be sure) is not a case, because that whole plotline was about Lil reacting to it and Lil herself finding a solution to her problems.), but a lot of them show how female characters tend to be used to provide motivation for oomale characters. Of course you can find a lot of examples of things being the other way around (you have over 70 years of comics to pick from), but in the overall view those are a small part of the complete history of comics. These issues are not about not caring about males, because they affect both males and females (albeit in different ways); women tend to be put in the victim role, but males when victimized are expected to shrug things off and female-on-male violence tends to be trivialized. Both of which are toxic ideas in themselves. This is just a natural progression of most main characters being male. They're more likely to have an important female in their life. I haven't noticed women rescuing females a lot, but I can certainly think of examples of them rescuing men. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Mar 19, 2015 8:42:21 GMT -5
I would like to know what kind of people complained about that cover. Sounds like many people these days are too sensitive and have knee jerk reactions for many non serious events. Why wasn't there an outrage over the following 2 covers from Barbara Gordons BOP series? Some people have too much time on their hands. Probably because neither of these covers showed the female character (the one that had been famously crippled, stripped & degraded, and probably raped) in a cowed, submissive, powerless position at the hands of the lunatic who did the crippling, stripping, degrading, and (probable) raping. And the covers weren't used on a series that purports to be a "fun, lighthearted" series starring the victim. These covers have no connection to the aborted Batgirl cover, other than featuring the Joker. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 19, 2015 8:47:51 GMT -5
The connection is that her "Bogeyman" is the Joker. These issues introduced him into her world again and it was a big deal to her. The second cover has him pointing a gun at a young girls head.
|
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 19, 2015 8:52:39 GMT -5
Here's a cover that's closer in tone, did anyone care about it?  |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 19, 2015 8:57:17 GMT -5
Here's a cover that's closer in tone, did anyone care about it? You know wolf, it's a different world now. Many people are easily offended these days. |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 19, 2015 8:58:37 GMT -5
Here's a cover that's closer in tone, did anyone care about it? You know wolf, it's a different world now. Many people are easily offended these days. Plus we have the internet. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Mar 19, 2015 9:36:47 GMT -5
You know wolf, it's a different world now. Many people are easily offended these days. Plus we have the internet. And it's not nearly the same in tone. She's not shown cowed and crying and totally submissive. She looks scared, but she's fighting back. And Suicide Squad was not rebranded as "fun & lighthearted". |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Mar 19, 2015 9:42:30 GMT -5
The connection is that her "Bogeyman" is the Joker. These issues introduced him into her world again and it was a big deal to her. The second cover has him pointing a gun at a young girls head. I won't repeat everything that I explained earlier. Suffice it to say, neither cover has anything to do with the Batgirl cover that got pulled, or the Killing Joke (ok, maybe in one of them he's wearing the same hat), except that they have the Joker on the cover of a comic with Barbara Gordon in it.
And from looking at the back of the "young girl's head", you can't even tell it's a young girl. Also, the positioning of the "bang" flag shows the gun is either in front of the figure's face or the flag went all the way through the head.
|
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 19, 2015 9:51:45 GMT -5
Plus we have the internet. And it's not nearly the same in tone. She's not shown cowed and crying and totally submissive. She looks scared, but she's fighting back. And Suicide Squad was not rebranded as "fun & lighthearted". I don't see her fighting back at all. And the gun is actually pointed at her! You are splitting hairs. The two covers are close enough to be effectively identical. |
|
