-
[QUOTE=Pohzee;5780213]Yeah see, I don't see it as naysaying. It seems like y'all just want this as a status thing. Like sure it'd be nice if Steph was higher profile. No one should care about that you're right. They can make her a Robin if they want.
But it doesn't seem to me like from a story perspective its really that important to her character. With what's on the page I should say. And nothing has happened in the past 5 years to really add depth or importance to her time as Robin.
We'll see how the Robin's series changes that.
I really don't think its a sexist thing to acknowledge that there is a large difference between characters that were Robin for over a decade and appeared as Robin in multiple media adaptations from shows and cartoons to a character who was Robin for a single year for a single event with no long term plans to keep her as Robin.[/QUOTE]
It feels sexist because you're putting qualifications on it. She wore the suit and in story Batman referred to her as Robin and that's all that's needed. One is free not to care for the stories where she was Robin...but to say she wasn't when reality says otherwise is just gate-keeping and when you do that you need to ask yourself why you're doing that.
-
Why shouldn’t there be qualifications on it? Is it suppose to be that easy to be Robin. Cause honestly there is now an army of kids that were Robin.
Steph wan’t Robin for very long, her tenure was not meaningful, and she contributed nothing to the role. Her Robin story itself was about how she wasn’t the true Robin, but a pawn to lure back the true Robin at the time back. It’s like considering JPV a true Batman. Quite frankly her time in the suit was a black spot that reflected poorly on the very concept of Robin, and is honestly detrimental to the brand. Its an argument for why Robin shouldn’t exists.
While using isms might be a quick way to shut down a discussion, her being female is quite frankly irrelevant. No one is saying she not a true Robin because she is a girl.
-
[QUOTE=Godlike13;5780371]Why shouldn’t there be qualifications on it? Is it suppose to be that easy to be Robin. Cause honestly there is now an army of kids that were Robin.
Steph wan’t Robin for very long, her tenure was not meaningful, and she contributed nothing to the role. Her Robin story itself was about how she wasn’t the true Robin, but a pawn to lure back the true Robin at the time back. It’s like considering JPV a true Batman. Quite frankly her time in the suit was a black spot that reflected poorly on the very concept of Robin, and is honestly detrimental to the brand. Its an argument for why Robin shouldn’t exists.
While using isms might be a quick way to shut down a discussion, her being female is quite frankly irrelevant. No one is saying she not a true Robin because she is a girl.[/QUOTE]
There are zero reasons for qualifications...she was Robin in comics officially published by DC it's very much a black and white issue. And it's the same with JPV...it's silly to say otherwise.
Again, you're free not to care for the stories she appeared in as Robin...but she was Robin, I literally posted an image of it and the comics are physically in my collection.
It would be one thing if it was a one off in a Got Milk ad or something else non-official like a no-smoking book... but we're talking about actual comics and she's expressly called Robin on page.Anything else is a rationalization on your part...and it's not a great look.
-
A lot of kids, and even an Alien, were Robin in comics officially published by DC. That lacks meaning. Where are they then. The story she appeared in doesn’t even genuinely support her as Robin, as it was really about Tim and reinforcing him as the true Robin of the time.
And what’s not a great look is trying to demonize the character of others who don’t agree, with these insinuations that aren’t even relevant to their arguments.
-
[QUOTE=thwhtGuardian;5780378]There are zero reasons for qualifications...she was Robin in comics officially published by DC it's very much a black and white issue. And it's the same with JPV...it's silly to say otherwise.
Again, you're free not to care for the stories she appeared in as Robin...but she was Robin, I literally posted an image of it and the comics are physically in my collection.
It would be one thing if it was a one off in a Got Milk ad or something else non-official like a no-smoking book... but we're talking about actual comics and she's expressly called Robin on page.Anything else is a rationalization on your part...and it's not a great look.[/QUOTE]
Do you consider Tim and Jason as Batman given they wore the Batman costume during the Battle for the Cowl event?
-
[QUOTE=Godlike13;5780263]Is Jarro a RobinĀ…[/QUOTE]
This is where I come down on it.
Saying that Steph isn't a Robin has nothing to do with her gender, and it's actually kind of sad that this is the first thing people assume. We all know there's a lot of awful people out there, but just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they're a hateful bigot. It's not an "either/or" thing. Seriously, for f*ck's sake.
Steph wore the costume and was called Robin (for three entire issues!), so technically she was a Robin. But by that logic so is Jarro. But this logic, Clark Kent is also Batman, because he wore the suit and was called the name once. Actually, so is Alfred.
I don't really take issue with people considering Steph a Robin, but to me she's a Batgirl, and calling her a Robin is a thin, shallow attempt by DC to cover up the fact that every Robin in main continuity is a dude. They're artificially trying to make themselves look more inclusive by giving credit to Steph for a three issue story that seems to have been all about Tim. So how is calling Steph a Robin helping anything but someone's misplaced guilt and DC's transparent halfass attempts to ply the optics in their favor without earning it? Seems like pandering to me. This is tokenism, not feminism, and DC shouldn't be rewarded for it.
Carrie Kelley is a Robin. An Elseworld Robin, but still a Robin. Steph is a Batgirl. And it's not like that is some terrible thing to be. Being a Batgirl is a pretty badass thing. But if Steph took up the Robin mantle again and actually made it her's, instead of just keeping the seat warm for one of the boys I'd be fine with that too.
-
They're not mutually exclusive. Carrie is also Catgirl and Batwoman, and was only Robin in the first story.
-
Stephanie wasn't robin for reasons
1. she made a robin costume and demanded to be robin because she saw a class mate kiss tim and to get back at him she went to take his spot
2. bruce gave her that spot to try and lure tim back, heck the hole batfamily thought about at the time and even voice it to each other the only people bold enough to confront him about it was alfred and barbra
3.bruce gave stephanie a one strike rule where in she broke the rule and he kick her off the team while every other robin broke the rule til they died or quit
4.matches malone she didnt even know bruce was matches selena even mention how every member know bruce is matches but stephanie didnt
5.tim came back as robin during war games and all bruce ask him was he back. for all tim knew stephanie was still robin at the time and he still wore his suit and went to be be by bruce side and bruce welcome him back with open arms
-
And the other Robins have all gone by different names too. So it's a moot point.
Three issues. The story wasn't even about her, but about how her boyfriend was the "real, bestest, ultimate Robin ever" that Batman wanted back, and then she dies. Oh, and Bruce was largely just trying to make Tim jealous.
And y'all want to give DC inclusivity points for that? You guys go right ahead and do you, no worries. But I'm not giving them credit for that. They don't get to say "representation!" with a story that is nothing more than glorified fridging.
Think about that. Steph died so Tim could look more capable/important, and you want to give DC props for it.
-
[QUOTE=Ascended;5780440]I don't really take issue with people considering Steph a Robin, but to me she's a Batgirl, and calling her a Robin is a thin, shallow attempt by DC to cover up the fact that every Robin in main continuity is a dude. [/QUOTE]I don't even really get why all Robins being male would be a problem, since there is with Batgirl a separate mantle for the female equivalent.
-
Between the Robin 80th anniversary that included Steph and ROBINS where she appears too I think that is a True Robin.
She even appeared in one of ROBINS covers like if they are saying that YES. That she is the 4th Robin.
-
It should be no surprise that I think Steph is a "real" Robin, but here is my reasoning why Steph is, and for example Jarro isn't.
1) Steph was the title character in Robin for 3 issues. Yes, Tim was still a main character, and the story given Steph wasn't top quality, but she was the marketed lead of Robin in the Robin costume. Jarro was in the costume, but never the title character of a Robin series or miniseries. Duke (and the rest of We Are Robin) have a stronger case for being Robin with that qualification, but the second one is a clarifies a bit.
2) Steph was directly trained by and partnered with the Batman of the time as Robin. Duke has been trained and partnered with Batman, but not as Robin, as Signal. His Robin days were spent either avoiding JimBats or trying to convince Bruce he is Batman. And there is a certain Tim Drake quality to that - Batman needs a Robin - but he didn't partner with Batman under that name. Duke is definitely Batfamily, and part of the We Are Robins, but it didn't quite fit into the patterns that Steph fits.
3) Batman said she was his Robin multiple times. This is, of course, able to be explained away, as Didio did over and over after her death. But I don't think we should have to accept such self serving "logic" when the meaning on the page makes sense on its own.
4) Steph doesn't mean too much to the Robin Legacy except for being first in continuity girl Wonder, but it definitely is the reason DC felt guilty enough to make her Batgirl out of a crowded field of candidates. And that story of redemption and growing up was a very worthwhile one.
-
If the question is whether or not she officially served as Robin IV, then the answer is yes. She was referred to as Robin by Batman himself. Yeah, it was short-lived, never meant to be permanent, and DC disavowed it for years, but it happened as clear as anything else. For the record, Helena actually [I]was[/I] considered an official numbered Batgirl (see: the 2004 and 2008 DC encyclopedias). Jarro only appeared as Robin in a dream sequence (correct?) but I unironically wouldn't even mind him being considered an official Robin either. Might as well do something interesting with the mantle.
Then there's the thornier question of whether Duke and the We Are Robin kids officially "counted". They were in that Robin infographic DC put out in 2015-ish, along with Carrie Kelley... and Duke [I]was[/I] the Robin in Futures End, too...
We have enough "retroactive"/Year One-type stories with Dick, Jason, Tim, and even Damian; I really wish DC would do a one-shot or miniseries set during Steph's Robin career to flesh out her relationship with Bruce more. But she was totally Robin and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
-
With 40 people having voted so far, almost 1/3 still say she wasn't a "true Robin".[SIZE=1]
(27 people have voted "Yes" to 13 people voting "No".)[/SIZE]
-
[QUOTE=MajorHoy;5780936]With 40 people having voted so far, almost 1/3 still say she wasn't a "true Robin".[SIZE=1]
(27 people have voted "Yes" to 13 people voting "No".)[/SIZE][/QUOTE]
Or Two Thirds say its a dumb question with an obvious answer.