Harassment in the Superman office

[Dispenser Of Truth]

So this was released yesterday by Alex De Campi, explaining some things about her time at DC and why the main WW title doesn't reflect anything in the just-cancelled Sensation Comics. The whole thing is both appalling and worth reading, but there's some specific things worth noting in reference to the Superman line:

1. Wonder Woman as a title falls under the Superman editorial offices' purview (but hey, it's not as if DC's just playing her up as Superman's arm-candy, right?).

2. Allegedly, no women work directly in the Superman office at DC.

3. Not-so-allegedly given multiple witnesses to multiple incidents, this is one way or another because one of the senior Superman editors - consensus from those talking about this piece universally being Eddie Berganza - is a repeated sexual harasser.

4. Part of the reason this continues despite fear of a lawsuit is that said harasser allegedly has some kind of blackmail material on his own boss.

5. She mentions "there are five known big-name, vindictive harassers in comics, and about three bad drunks. Two harassers are writers employed by DC; one is a DC editor; two are writers employed by Marvel."

Nick Hanover, co-founder of the site Loser City, has elaborated on twitter (and as this isn't straight from the horses' mouth of someone who worked at DC, I guess this is to be taken with slightly more of a pinch of salt, though frankly I believe every word) that this is Berganza, that he's essentially been "quarantined" to the Superman books, and his position is safe because it's scumbags of various varieties all the way to the top of the ladder who don't want to rock the boat and make a scene, which is why harassment allegations rarely name names and is rarely even reported at all: there's little point to fighting back alone and a guarantee of blacklisting if you do because they are, for all intents and purposes, running the table. His own DC editorial source (this is to be taken with the biggest pinch of all given the degrees of separation, but again, I see no reason to doubt at this point) has stated that everything on Berganza is "true or worse".

So what's my reaction? I think I'm done with the Super-titles for the time being. I was hanging on by a thread as is with Truth, Pak's doing the best he can but has been on an uphill battle to tell the stories he wants to since day one (literally nothing he's done on Action hasn't one way or another been a tie-in), and I sure as hell don't intend to support this. Between this, Omega Men and Batman '66 (along, of course, Sensation Comics), I think as things stand I'm in a place where I'm done with DC once Snyder's run on Batman and Seeley/King Grayson wrap up--hell, I might not even wait for the end with Batman, it's dumb fun but hardly must-have comics anymore.

[Baseman]

Yikes.This a soap opea material here.

[Sacred Knight]

If all true hopefully it comes around for those involved eventually. My reaction really isn't any stronger than that. I still enjoy the fiction and I'm not going to drop it just because some people within the company are dicks.

[Slim Shady]

4. Part of the reason this continues despite fear of a lawsuit is that said harasser allegedly has some kind of blackmail material on his own boss.

5. She mentions "there are five known big-name, vindictive harassers in comics, and about three bad drunks. Two harassers are writers employed by DC; one is a DC editor; two are writers employed by Marvel."

Things like these two make me question how much is factual truth and how much is everyday rumor mill crap that goes on in businesses. Harasser has blackmail on his boss. 3 bad drunks. I'm not saying there isn't a problem, and if there is it should get taken care of pronto, but some of this stuff just sounds like everytown USA workplace drama.

[Frontier]

First the thing with Nathan Edmonson, and now this? Wow...

[Tayswift]

So this was released yesterday by Alex De Campi, explaining some things about her time at DC and why the main WW title doesn't reflect anything in the just-cancelled Sensation Comics. The whole thing is both appalling and worth reading, but there's some specific things worth noting in reference to the Superman line:

1. Wonder Woman as a title falls under the Superman editorial offices' purview (but hey, it's not as if DC's just playing her up as Superman's arm-candy, right?).

2. Allegedly, no women work directly in the Superman office at DC.

3. Not-so-allegedly given multiple witnesses to multiple incidents, this is one way or another because one of the senior Superman editors - consensus from those talking about this piece universally being Eddie Berganza - is a repeated sexual harasser.

4. Part of the reason this continues despite fear of a lawsuit is that said harasser allegedly has some kind of blackmail material on his own boss.

5. She mentions "there are five known big-name, vindictive harassers in comics, and about three bad drunks. Two harassers are writers employed by DC; one is a DC editor; two are writers employed by Marvel."

Nick Hanover, co-founder of the site Loser City, has elaborated on twitter (and as this isn't straight from the horses' mouth of someone who worked at DC, I guess this is to be taken with slightly more of a pinch of salt, though frankly I believe every word) that this is Berganza, that he's essentially been "quarantined" to the Superman books, and his position is safe because it's scumbags of various varieties all the way to the top of the ladder who don't want to rock the boat and make a scene, which is why harassment allegations rarely name names and is rarely even reported at all: there's little point to fighting back alone and a guarantee of blacklisting if you do because they are, for all intents and purposes, running the table. His own DC editorial source (this is to be taken with the biggest pinch of all given the degrees of separation, but again, I see no reason to doubt at this point) has stated that everything on Berganza is "true or worse".

So what's my reaction? I think I'm done with the Super-titles for the time being. I was hanging on by a thread as is with Truth, Pak's doing the best he can but has been on an uphill battle to tell the stories he wants to since day one (literally nothing he's done on Action hasn't one way or another been a tie-in), and I sure as hell don't intend to support this. Between this, Omega Men and Batman '66 (along, of course, Sensation Comics), I think as things stand I'm in a place where I'm done with DC once Snyder's run on Batman and Seeley/King Grayson wrap up--hell, I might not even wait for the end with Batman, it's dumb fun but hardly must-have comics anymore.

I always thought it was weird that on superman rarely there was a female writer (only Perkins and the one shot bennet did with rickey purdin that is now working at marvel). Innocent me never thought about sexual harassment, now things start to fit.
Berganza is a bad editor, I always wondered how he still got the job and now things seems to be very fitting.

he also seems to not get feminism, what wonder woman stands for and the bad treatment of feminist icon lois lane over superman books

i don't think something will come out of this, because it is big fishes, involving a higher editorial.

I really sad on the state of wonder woman editorial*I mean a lack of editorial of her own and seems like a senior editor want to close the digital that have feminist books like sensation and bomshells

https://twitter.com/Nick_Hanover/with_replies the thing is so creepy

[manofsteel1979]

If this is true...this explains a LOT about DC and their treatment of Lois Lane and why the Superman titles seem locked into the editorial loop it has for so long.

If this is true....IF...then shame on DC Comics and Warner Bros. for allowing this stuff to go on.

[Kuwagaton]

DoT, I knew you would be the one to make this thread, somehow.

Anyway, I'm not sure what can be believed about anyone, but there always seems to be something brewing at DC. I'm specifically reminded of something that came up once again with a quick Google search:

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/04/...-at-dc-comics/

There are two very separate accounts from DC sources over the events that led to this move. Some suggest a series of indiscretions, with Bob Harras pushing to be rid of Eddie, other sources insisting the two are thick as thieves, and the move freeing up Eddie to be more autonomous.

I mean not to instigate, but it is curious and I do hope that whatever comes to light is with the respect to involved individuals.

[Tayswift]

harassers always get away be it.

DoT, I knew you would be the one to make this thread, somehow.

Anyway, I'm not sure what can be believed about anyone, but there always seems to be something brewing at DC. I'm specifically reminded of something that came up once again with a quick Google search:

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/04/...-at-dc-comics/


I mean not to instigate, but it is curious and I do hope that whatever comes to light is with the respect to involved individuals.

if you read david uzumeri or nick hanover feeds, seems like it is all very known.

searching I come with valerie d'orazio saying dc wanted her to sign a document that she could never say anything bad about DC, inclusive sexual harassment.
comics behind the scenes are dirty

http://www.motherjones.com/media/200...ges-superwomen also this is very interesting

[Sacred Knight]

Why would this explain anything in regards to Lois Lane? I'm just not seeing how one thing relates to the other. Especially considering that stuff we don't know about always goes on behind closed doors and it was probably way way worse in older eras, eras in which Lois was treated quite well. I'm not seeing any correlation.

[Cipher]

Well, now I'm torn. This does explain some of the gaudier elements that seem to have made it into super-books even post-New 52 as well.

Whatever the case, this thread must not die. I'm not ready to boycott yet, especially with most things Superman-related moving in a great direction, but I sure as hell want to know in what way I can express to DC as a reader that this is not okay and that I'd like another editor on the books (and, frankly, that holds true for a number of reasons).

[Sacred Knight]

I've not been a fan of Berganza's editorial work. But that's only from a point of view of comics. On this far more serious issue, I don't know the validity of any of these serious claims, so I can't make an informed opinion about him there. Overall though, hope its looked into so that in the event there is not a proper working environment there for all parties, that its rectified.

[Tayswift]

Why would this explain anything in regards to Lois Lane? I'm just not seeing how one thing relates to the other. Especially considering that stuff we don't know about always goes on behind closed doors and it was probably way way worse in older eras, eras in which Lois was treated quite well. I'm not seeing any correlation.

the article that de campi wrote, said very well the reason wonder woman characterizationa and stories are subpar on main books, but majority of time good on sensation. superman office
anyway berganza never like Lois anyway, idelson didn't liked too

Lobdell harassed a woman on a comic con and keep his job on superman and DC

[Sacred Knight]

Bad in main books but mostly good on Sensation is a completely subjective opinion that frankly has nothing to do with whether or not real people are being harassed in the work place. Its taking a possible real, serious situation and glomming it on to creative decisions with fictional characters. Which I find highly dubious. It leads to a dangerous game of being able to possibly accuse anyone whose not written Wonder Woman in the Sensation mold to have issues with sexism or harassment. And that's just as inappropriate in my eyes.

In any case my only care here is that this is rectified for female employees if this is going on.

[Myskin]

Were there earlier mentions of bad behavior linked to Berganza? This is the first time I heard about it (while I have heard about Wood, Edmonson and Lobdell).

If this is true...this explains a LOT about DC and their treatment of Lois Lane

I think that it doesn't have anything to do with the underdevelopment of Lois Lane's character in Superman comics. First of all, bad behavior doesn't necessarily mirrors in comics (Brian Wood was almost considered a feminist writer, as far as I remember, and he has written many comics focused on strong women); in the second place, while Lois may have been put aside as a character I don't find anything particularly and inherently insulting or revolting about her portrait in recent stories (something which would have resulted in extremely bad PR for DC). Controversial, maybe, but not insulting.