What were people going to do if they didn't change it; not buy the alternate cover?
It's not like all these whiners buy anything anyway. They're just looking for something to complain about. Also lol at "rape culture" reaching its way into comics and being a legitimate concern. Maybe if he had her bent over with his cock out.
The assholes who started threatening people for complaining, prompting the artist to ask it to be pulled: Article
"Regardless if fans like Rafael Albuquerque’s homage to Alan Moore’s 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."
The anti-feminists in other words.
Once again, people don't seem to get that people are allowed to complain about things. It's not even the people complaining about how inappropriate it was that got it pulled (and it is true that you don't really see male covers like that, and how every other Joker cover was jokey except for this one, and it's completely at odds with the tone of the book), it's actually the people who couldn't handle the complaints and decided to threaten them.
The anti-feminists prove themselves time and time again to be the big assholes who act worse than what they complain about.
It's the artist himself who wanted it withdrawn, it's not censorship or similar that you'll no doubt people here, and things only really got out of hand when the anti-feminist brigade decided to escalate things, which got both DC and artist annoyed with them.
Both the artist and DC thought people were out of line. Whether or not you consider it 'major,' the people who's call it is do.
This is kinda like a smaller version of gamergate- you know, the 'some assholes get annoyed at small-time feminist game developers, attack everyone in sight for months.'
Fortunately comics isn't as bad as video games, but still, that's where the real problem lies.
Our job, as comic fans, should be to stand up and say, "Hey assholes! Stop threatening comic fans for not liking a cover! You're the problem here!".
Someone did a cool Superman version, to illustrate how we don't really get this kind of victimization-image with male heroes. I've certainly never seen a cover like that! Even if they're beaten or afraid or captured, the context is usually a lot different.
Q99 is right, at least as far as the article indicates. It appears the threats made against the "feminists"(the article technically made no mention of feminists) were what got the artist to request the change.
I don't think the Superman/Doomsday picture is a good example of a reversal though, as it is doesn't actually relate to anything with those characters. It's not that he's male, but he's Superman and that is Doomsday. Those poses are a situation they'd never be in.
I wouldn't expect to see Wonder Woman in that pose either....cuz she's Wonder Woman. Not a frightened little girl.
Last edited by StyleTime on Mar 18th, 2015 at 09:40 PM
What, the artist? The artist who made it? Isn't a credible source on his own feelings on the subject? Or DC, who's statement is also clear?
Well, it is. It may try and present itself as otherwise, but that's what every third-party investigation who tries to look into GG and find out what it's really out finds muck-loads of harassment.
So? Threatening them for it is still totally out of line.
The op may have been written as 'let's complain about these feminists,' but the reality of the situation is 'people complaining about people who had a problem with it started threatening and harassing people until the artist and DC said, "HEY, Not cool!" '.
As per normal, the actual complaints may or may not make the company care, and it's up to the company to listen, but it's those who didn't like the complaints where things got out of hand.
Peril, yes. Batgirl being in *peril* is no problem, the main cover that has no complaints has a crosshair on her head.
However, defiant, or fighting back, or about to be rescued is what heroes tend to be in.
How often has Batman been shown in a villain's arm, crying? Not, like, crying over failing to save someone, but in a situation like this one.
Yea, and even *then*, you always see the calvary coming in on the page to save them.
---
Heck, one thing I want to emphasize: This is a Killing Joke reference. In the Killing Joke, Joker shoots Barbara and takes sexualized pictures of her, directly because Moore wanted to make people uncomfortable with a female character being victimized and sexualized, like, as a direct narrative thrust, that was his actual goal. And now people are seeing a reference to that... on a comic currently trying to aim itself to younger female readers, quite light-hearted, a break from the prior dark run, and at the same time every other Joker cover is of a different, usually much much more light-hearted sort that would fit.
It'd actually fit somewhat in the prior run, which was much darker, or if it'd been a *horror* month, it'd probably fit there, but if you just try and recruit a bunch of young adult female readers, don't be surprised if a cover based on a work that was specifically aimed by a master to victimize a young adult female character, and uniquely singled out next to the other books which get light-hearted comedic joker, or just Joker on his own, does not make them happy!
And if they are not happy and let it known, don't threaten them for it! Or even act like it's odd.
And if they are attacked for it, don't try blaming them for the problem. DC gave mixed signals (minor issue), and assholes threatened people (big issue). That's where the problem lies.
if he had simply said about the book that it was not matching the tone of the series that he was trying to write (and tbh, it's been shit, but that's something else entirely), and left it at that, I never would have had a problem with.
given how often this shit is cried wolf, i'm hesitant, yes. if I see a source that actually shows a death threat, then i'll change my tune.
you mean all the hit-pieces done by people afraid to call a woman (or a man associated with a woman) on their bullshit without being branded a misogynist?
I'm not snapping, btw, even if it seems that way. I'm just tired of people acting like the GGers are some sort of awful bogeymen when the anti side is just as bad if not worse, and will use any excuse to pardon their own ethically bankrupt behaviour.
you can't say on one hand that gaming is the most inclusive it's ever been, that so many women play games now, and then on the other say it's nothing but misogynist racists.
but I digress.
Yes, it is. Nobody deserves to be threatened for what is basically a harmless opinion. Just like me not agreeing with you doesn't mean i'm going to threaten you over it. We're just people on each other's screens.
Again, I don't necessarily agree, because this kind of censorship can set a worrying trend. People who like the cover and dislike DC's decision have as much right to complain as those that don't like the cover, whatever their reasons.
Still not saying threats are justified, though.
Come on. How many times have you seen a cover where a male is tied up, his hands behind his back, his hips thrust forward so his crotch dominates the figure? That's not defiant or fighting back. That's straight up ready to be anally raped. Sure, there are covers with defiant males, but there are plenty of ones with weak or terrified males too. A few of which actually feature the Joker with Batman and Azrael.
So is it the crying, then? Is that the problem? Or that she's just afraid? I'm genuinely asking.
And just to be clear, I'm not saying there's no sexism in comics. I'm not saying female characters aren't sexualised. They are. I'm just saying men are too. maybe not to the same extent, but still to the extent that we get shit like that magic mike cover not so long ago.
Edit: Possibly shitty spelling in places. Apologies.
I guess my problem with the comparisons to Batman/Superman/etc, is that I don't see that as an issue of gender. Q99 is comparing the full fledged heros, who readers expect to be defiant until the end regardless of their gender, to the child side-kicks, who readers expect can crack when the stakes get high enough. I wouldn't expect Black Canary to cry in Batgirl's situation either.
Gender representation is not equal obviously, but is comparing Batgirl's cover to Batman or Superman fair? Shouldn't we look at the male heroes-in-training?
Last edited by StyleTime on Mar 18th, 2015 at 10:47 PM
Ah, but when complaining, do you
A) Speak entirely in fallacies of the excluded middle?
or
B) Don't complain about anything ever again?
Clearly, 'peril' is not the complained when the main cover has crosshairs on Batgirl's head, Wonder Woman's has a bomb on it, and so on.
Ah, if only there wasn't a history of a major movement calling "It's fake!" whenever there was a real threat in recent memory.
Frankly, the 'it's fake' call has lost credibility. Not with the parade of proven threats on just this sort of issue.
And it's DC calling out threats and harassment. So.
Please. BBC, Boston Globe, etc.?
Calling GG on it's bullshit is not the same as being afraid to call a woman on hers.
A Boston Globe reporter talked to Gamergaters trying to find the 'good' core, and whereever he went, he found victim blaming, people calling for people to do stuff about the targets, Kohaku in Action once having *every* thread on the front page devoted to attacking someone, etc. etc..
"Oh, the entire outside world is just biased..." is normally a sign that it's not the outside world that's biased.
The anti side isn't just as bad or worse. Not if you compare the big names of each, or the biggest actions.
Milo laughed when Brianna Wu's dog died. Roguestar encourages doxxing (and most of the GG harassment patrol, back when they had one, has Roguestar avatars). A couple more are openly sexist. The members of the Sarkeesian effect just split up over one of them supporting Roosh V, pickup artist scumbag. The owner of 8chan is a GGer and openly complained about having to take down bomb threats against people against GG. The owner of 8chan's attack board /baph/ which has a guide on ruining lives is a GGer.
Anita Sarkeesian has... done nothing of the sort. Nor Brianna Wu, nor Wil Wheaton, nor Zoe Quinn. There is no equivalent to /baph/ or 8chan that's opposed to GG, and baph doesn't go after GG members, just GG's targets.
There have been no SWATTINGs of GGers. There's been multiple of people against it. No-one has received sustained harassment like Anita has, including both bomb and gun threats.
Also? 'Anti' is not a group that got together, they're just anyone opposed, often because GG going after them. If you're targeted, you can't help but be anti. If you are in it *purely* to be against harassment, you can't help but be anti. You don't need to know anyone else against it, you didn't chose to take on any banner, you are not choosing to be associated with a group like the converse, and you may not even have a choice in the matter.
That's the thing. The big names act in entirely dissimilar ways between the two sides, and one's only arguably a side to begin with.
The whole 'but we're equivalent, really' thing is part of how they get away with as much as they do. People love to push both-sides-are-bad narratives, but one side is, often, materially worse.
Gamergate isn't gaming.
Gamergate is misogynist racists. It's also maybe 10-20k people, while gaming is hundreds of millions.
Gamergate, like the name ironically implies, is gaming's scandal. Not the scandals they attack people about, they themselves are the scandal. They attack gamers, are anti a sizable number of game designers, and major game and tech companies like Blizzard and Intel are against them. I went to a sizable gaming convention and encountered *zero* gamergates out of the people I talked to.
Gamergate tries to conflate itself as gaming, but it's not.
Gamers are awesome. They're the ones that are being attacked by GG, and who GG is trying to hide behind.
And GG is seriously giving us gamers a bad name in academia, the media, the outside world... you name it, just at a time when people were beginning to take gamers more seriously. So, way to hurt gaming, GG. You suck forever.
Except, that's not censorship.
Asking someone to not do something when you don't have the power to force it- and when you are the audience, even- is not censorship if they hare not in any position to command it, merely request it.
This is comic fans, readers of Batgirl, who's aimed at a young female audience, saying, "Hey, we don't want that!"
And then DC, or any company, can judge and say, "Hm, we will/won't do that."
It's no different than people saying, "Stop put out crap like (Civil War/The Clone Saga/Hal Jordan's death/Spider-man's marriage/whatever people don't like)!". It has no compulsion, it's people saying what they want/don't want and the company can chose to listen one way or another.
And then people are trying to silence them with threats for it, which is much closer to actual censorship.
Trying to frame this as censorship waters down the term. If this was un-sexism related, if it was just a really junk cover, no-one would be crying censorship that it got pulled.
What?
Uh... ok, I'm going to need an example of what you're talking about, that's a new one on me!
If there are examples of men being anally raped, that does sound like a better counterpart.
Weak and terrified, yes. Crying, helpless at a villain's mercy, with no help in sight (the 'one character is in danger, a friend is there to help,' is an old standby, since of course it implies they'll get free), and in a reference to a sexualized story?
I'd like an example.
Fear on it's own is fine. Pretty normal. Cringing from an off-page menance is another classic. Terrified crying like this while the villain has them at mercy, captured, and there's no calvary coming, smearing fluid over the hero's lips or some equivalent action, is unusual.
I just realised you and I aren't going to agree on anything, so not going to drag this out any longer than it has to.
I would implore you though, to PLEASE read up on GG and see what the Anti side are doing. And you can say that they aren't a cohesive group if you like, but the same can be said about GG.
This horrible, one-sided demonising is not helping anyone, and it just makes people pick sides when they should be working together.
I'm not going to say I found what you said offensive, but please, read up on the subject some more.
KMC Community Forums
Mar 18th, 2015 08:15 PM
