DC Comics Cancels "Batgirl" Joker Variant at Artist's Request

[Robotman]

here's the thing. it's an impressive piece of art referencing a classic story sure, but during that infamous scene Joker and his men tore Babs' clothes off and took pictures of her naked while she was helpless on the ground ('cause you know, he had just shot her through the spine). that's sexual assault in any US court. DC probably doesn't want to show one of it's "strong female characters" crying and helpless as the perpetrator of the sexual assault taunts her by painting a bloody smile on her face with a gun pointed at her crotch.

[Jeff Brady]

Well, the War on Terror had those same principles.

I'm afraid you've lost me.

But will he payed again ?.

He's a very good artist. I'm sure he'll get paid again for his work.

Since I don't actually know you or how you usually post, I'll bite. How is one born or how can one be born a feminist?

I thought I explained this succinctly the post you quoted. Everyone is born a feminist whether they know it or not. As we grow, we are taught to NOT be feminists.

When you were born, did you think your mother had the same value of your father (assuming both were present, loving parents)? Or did one have less value than the other simply because of the genitals one carried?

So I assume he is not allowed to be depicted doing anything that would be untoward in a cartoon for 9 year olds then?

I don't think it's a good idea. Though my particular threshold may be higher than others.

I trimmed this down not to misrepresent but just to include the statements I find a bit contradicting. That is, how can you tell someone that they are misusing the term censorship but then use a non-standard definition of misogyny? I'm sure the same people who come up with all sorts of ideas of what misogyny also come up with all sorts of things that fall under censorship that would not agree with your strict limitation.

I understand and appreciate your trimming.

However, I don't understand what you mean by "non-standard definition of misogyny".

I thought about using "patriarchal society" instead, but that term doesn't automatically include the demeaning and degradation of women. It doesn't include that in many states, women, by law, do not have free agency over their bodies and lives. It doesn't include a society in which women are paid unequal salaries. Wherein a woman's honor and intentions are questioned, if not blamed, for the horrible things that happen to her.

Perhaps it is a failure of my vocabulary that I could not think of a word that better exemplifies these conditions other than misogyny. What word would you suggest?

Stripping someone naked could be just to humiliate them as Joker also did to Commissioner Gordon in the story.

That is also sexual assault.

We will just agree to disagre on this point.

It's the law in some states.

[JBatmanFan05]

I have a healthy relationship with women, have had the same GF for 13 years, i was raised by a single mother who enforced respect for women in me,respect that my father didn't give her, i was raised by a strong and by some definition Feminist woman, but if you see rape in this drawing, then sorry that's on you, if you think because i appreciate a piece of art i think women as victims is "kewl" then that's your misunderstanding.
This is a piece of comic art, art that reveals the Joker for who he really is, a vile disgusting sadistic monster, this is to celebrate if you will his 75 years in existence, he is supposed to be the "hero" in these variants. This is not the main cover, Joker is supposed to be the star in these.

Great points Havoc.

And just because material is legal somewhere doesn't mean freedom isn't being "chilled" and censorship isn't happening.

[cranger]

Rafa said that the people complaining about the cover were threatened. Evidence? What is this? Matlock? You either believe him or you don't. However, if you don't take credible people at their word, that says a lot about you.

No, he did not. I already addressed this exact claim but it seems to have gotten deleted for reasons I surely hope were because I quoted something that needed to be deleted, so here we go again:

The artist only said, via Twitter, that he was not threatened. The writer than said the same thing and added that there were threats against those who objected. Now, as a side not, that does not exclude the possibility of threats/harassment towards people who supported the cover. So, the artist retweets the writers tweet but that is most likely to emphasize that he was not threatened but it could mean he agrees with the entire tweet.

So, noting that tweets are short and not the best source of information for an issue as messy as this, do you really think that either the writer or artist are claiming that there were absolutely no threats/harassment toward those who support the cover, or that they are even possibly able to be able to confirm that in any way?

It's not at all hard to believe. I mean, boys get so mad when you criticize their toys. We've seen this over and over again.

Also: I'm glad to see so many decent people here.

Hmmm.

[randomengine]

Here is the thing. I like the cover. I can see why people like it. On the other hand, I see the problems with the cover and why other people would object to it. Their objections override my interest in the cover. That's just how society works and should work and I accept it as a necessary cost of a free and fair society. I think we need to learn to be more aware of other people's pain and more responsive in avoiding it. DC did the right thing here, but a lot of people in our society have not gotten the memo on how to act and react to people in these kinds of situations. You just don't tell people in pain and distress, emotional or physical, to just deal with it.

[Baggie_Saiyan]

This has been blown out of all sorts of proportion, I mean death threats? hate messages? Really disheartening. Some fans really need to get a grip, I mean this was a variant cover after all.

[db105]

Public companies will, from this point on, generally try to avoid problematic stuff like that, since it's unappealing to most healthy people who respect women and have healthy relationships with them

Like for example the Joker, who as everyone knows is all about respecting people and having healthy relationships with them.

You seem to be under the impression that the only people who dislike these campaigns to get publishers to self-censor are the ones who want to buy, as you so delicately put it, "rapey covers". By doing so, you try to portray anyone who disagrees with you as a sick person. Not having any interest in discussing with you whether the cover is "rapey", I will only say that the extremely dark storytelling style that the cover reminds me of (and that we could see, for example, in the Gail Simone run) is not to my taste. That's why I did not buy it. Other people enjoyed it and that's OK too. My only problem is a reduced group of like-minded people effectively getting to decide what publishers can publish and what they should self-censor.

You know, you should probably write a memo stating what can be published and what is "a weird niche publishers should be embarrassed to be associated with". For example, we now know that the Batgirl cover is not acceptable because she is crying, while if she had an aggressive expression it would be OK. Just so we know and can cater to your wishes, you should also state whether it would be acceptable if the person being threatened were male. And what about if the criminal is female?

[Doctor Know]

Here is the thing. I like the cover. I can see why people like it. On the other hand, I see the problems with the cover and why other people would object to it. Their objections override my interest in the cover. That's just how society works and should work and I accept it as a necessary cost of a free and fair society. I think we need to learn to be more aware of other people's pain and more responsive in avoiding it. DC did the right thing here, but a lot of people in our society have not gotten the memo on how to act and react to people in these kinds of situations. You just don't tell people in pain and distress, emotional or physical, to just deal with it.

I agree.

Well that's the thing though. This is a variant cover not the standard one. Variants normally come with a higher price tag. Unless someone is planning on doubling dipping and buy two copies of the same issued (which most people don't) and only certain distributors carry variants. Why is this such a big issue? I think by drawing attention to it, Stewart has made this a bigger deal than it would have been if he said nothing or made less of a stink about it.

I've been reading more posts over twitter and tumblr and I feel the arguments and stances are becoming overly convoluted. Why isn't it; "if you don't like this cover, just don't buy it"? The tone in the book will overly not reflect what the cover art is, so why does it matter?

[SpiderWing20]

Personally I see nothing wrong with the cover. There was nothing to imply rape, the only thing about it was she's powerless... SO WHAT!! It's just a cover celebrating a villainous, despicable character doing what he does best, TERRIFY. No need to call for threats to the artist for a simple cover

[George Caltsoudas]

So basically it's being pulled not because of the visual its self but because of the threats that the visual inadvertently incited.

So what happens in a scenario where, say, the cover has a visual that evokes female empowerment?
And lets say said female empowerment cover annoys the same types of bullies and they spread the same kinds of threats to the fans who love said female empowerment cover? Should the cover still be pulled because it happened to incite a lot of internet harassment and threats?

[randomengine]

I agree.

Well that's the thing though. This is a variant cover not the standard one. Variants normally come with a higher price tag. Unless someone is planning on doubling dipping and buy two copies of the same issued (which most people don't) and only certain distributors carry variants. Why is this such a big issue? I think by drawing attention to it, Stewart has made this a bigger deal than it would have been if he said nothing or made less of a stink about it.

I've been reading more posts over twitter and tumblr and I feel the arguments and stances are becoming overly convoluted. Why isn't it; "if you don't like this cover, just don't buy it"? The tone in the book will overly not reflect what the cover art is, so why does it matter?

The big issue is that DC has the power to publish or not publish something. By publishing something that's an endorsement, no matter how rare that thing may be, the very act of publishing something knowingly offensive is not a good practice to be in.

[square]

I have a healthy relationship with women, have had the same GF for 13 years, i was raised by a single mother who enforced respect for women in me,respect that my father didn't give her, i was raised by a strong and by some definition Feminist woman, but if you see rape in this drawing, then sorry that's on you, if you think because i appreciate a piece of art i think women as victims is "kewl" then that's your misunderstanding.
This is a piece of comic art, art that reveals the Joker for who he really is, a vile disgusting sadistic monster, this is to celebrate if you will his 75 years in existence, he is supposed to be the "hero" in these variants. This is not the main cover, Joker is supposed to be the star in these. Is she a victim? Yes of course she is, is it creepy? Yeah, but for me personally, the line is drawn there,i do not see anything sexual in there, and it actually disturbs me that anyone would see anything sexual in there, I do not see rape, and again it's pretty disturbing that people see that there.

You just see it as violence against a woman. Not a strong woman, a crying one. Not rape. Just violence. Because Joker is the star.

Personally, I don't find the image offensive, but I don't question what might be offensive about it. Pretending that it's simply about violence, and that any sexual politics of it is merely the eye of the beholder is a kind of denial. And it doesn't make you anti-feminist to have your opinion, it just might suggest you need to be more sympathetic of someone else's perspective rather than be defensive of your own. (and I'm trying to be sympathetic of your perspective by stating that I'm not offended by the image and that I'm not painting you as an anti-feminist, for the record).

[LittlePriest]

Nobody threatened the artist. The people who complained about the cover were threatened.

I'm actually mad that DC so botched the press release that this got so much traction.

[Doctor Know]

The big issue is that DC has the power to publish or not publish something. By publishing something that's an endorsement, no matter how rare that thing may be, the very act of publishing something knowingly offensive is not a good practice to be in.

Yeah but at the same time you have things like Batigrl #37 with the transphobic content. This was written by Stewart and did get published. Which Stewart didn't see a problem with until people were chanting he was a bigot. Despite it's offensive content and will be collected in to a TPB and made available for sale. With the variant cover, it's being killed before ever seeing publication. It's not a toss up which is more offensive/makes paints DC is the worse light.

Quoting myself so others can see.

It was only yesterday (December) that Cameron found himself on the sharp end of internet criticism for being a Transphobe.

Batgirl #37 anyone?



https://twitter.com/cameronMstewart/...631872/photo/1

[ImprobableQuestion]

What kind of change are you looking for? The complete absence of fictional violence?

The other response I saw must have been deleted; he insinuated I wanted every book to appeal to 12 year olds or something.

In any case, neither of those things are suggested in my post. One of my favorite stories is the one where Batman gets trapped in a maze without food for a week while people point and cheer. One of my favorite characters is not content just to throw spears at people, but to throw a spear with extra tiny spears on the sides. That's Aquaman, so we're clear. And my favorite book, Transformers: More than Meets the Eye? Well, let's just say if the crew of the Lost Light were flesh and blood... You thought the Silent Hill movie was gorey? They'd need a higher rating. So no, I do not wish to see the absence of fictional violence. It's the crux of most conflict in action adventure media.

I just think there's places to be less evocative than others. If this were a variant for the last Batgirl or the current Batman it would be fantastic (as I said, the only problem I have with the otherwise powerful cover is that it's Batgirl in her Burnside costume). Those covers were frequently moody, macabre, or just plain metal. But considering the tone of the Stewart-Tarr series, and the overall to e of the other Joker covers, it just doesn't fit.