I gave at the office, AND I give online.
The internet is usually a quiet place where people are calm and don’t overreact to things. But this week, the comic fans on the web are up in arms about not getting something they want. Since that never happens, I had no choice but to roll up my sleeves and pitch in…
It’s not missionary work, but it’s just as satisfying.
Ty the Guy OUT!
For your fabulous Bonus, I give you the LAST time Batwoman was heading for the altar (and didn’t make it).
Of course, the homosexual subtext was completely different back in the fifties. I suppose we can blame Eisenhower.
—————————————————————————————————
For last week’s equally SEXUALLY charged Bun Toons, click above
For the Bun Toon archive, a hotbed of inter-gender activity, click the smutty rabbit above.
Ty Templeton's ART LAND!! 
Come now, how could Eisenhower possibly stop “Boy Wonder”…?
Dang, there are so many ways to read that last sentence…
You’re the one who said “Dang!”. Don’t blame your smut on me.
How about that Harley Quinn scene?
http://jezebel.com/dc-comics-contest-draw-a-naked-woman-committing-suicid-1265537616
I hate to break it to you, but in the time it took you to draw this, DC stepped in it again with Harley Quinn. Maybe you’re on the wrong side here. Trying to defend that company’s incessant message that women are not welcome in the fandom is like trying to bring your black friends home to dinner when your father is a racist.
Coral, Coral, Coral…. I’m not sure where you thought I was on a “side” in this Bun Toon. That’s reading into my work with a fairly wide interpretation of the joke. If you see me defending DC’s treatment of women in the ‘Toon, I’d like you to point it out to me, because I don’t see the connection from one subject to another, and I certainly didn’t put one there. Secondly, while we may agree that DC Comics has been less than emancipated in their treatment of their female characters lately, I do sincerely hope you don’t believe this “controversy” over the Harley Quinn contest has anything to do with it. I’m going to assume you’re one of those folks who has read an article about this Harley script being sexist, without having read the actual script, right? Did you read the script, or one of the slanted, biased, ill-researched and completely incompetent bits of journalism that takes a SINGLE panel grossly out of context, and tries to create a ginned-up story? I’m not sure why, but I suspect you haven’t read the script (I’ll even take the entire contest page, rather than the whole twenty pages of the full script to give it context…but even at that have you read the whole contest page, or just the excerpted single panel?). Media does its best to distort to create a story where one doesn’t exist. Please be smart enough to see through the embarrassing half-journalism that sites like Jezebel.com employ to create controversy, and read the actual script. When you finish reading the whole script, you’re welcome to come back here and discuss it, and I’ll happily accept an apology when you figure out how utterly wrong Jezebel.com got the story.
Well, I think it would have been perfect if you’d had the wedding being officiated by Orson Scott Card.
Robert: I thought about that, but wasn’t sure enough people would have known what his face looked like. I did, in fact, use Orson’s face in a Bun Toon from about three months ago….
https://tytempletonart.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/i-can-read-it-by-myself-bun-toons-yay/
But that was a Bun Toon specifically about the Orson Controversy.
I ended up choosing a mildly subversive image, if you’ll notice the person officiating the marriage is female, but wearing a Roman Priest’s collar…something the Catholics don’t allow. (I suppose she’s Anglican, then….). It was the closest I could come to subtle subversion without interrupting the rhythm of the gag.
As a completely disinterested party I must say that I feel a sneaking sympathy for DC’s editors. When has a comic strip ever not been ruined by the characters getting married?
Actually, that was my first thought when I read about this controversy. One could hardly accuse the DC editors of being anti-gay in this comic. It’s vehemently PRO-gay, but they still have a duty to make the characters work in an ongoing series. Spider-Man, Superman, Aquaman, the Flash, The Atom, Elongated Man, the Wasp, have all had marriages that the editors took back later. (Reed Richards and Sue Storm is about the only lasting marriage in comics). The backlash against this decision is really about editor controlled comics and the way the decision was made, not the decision itself. I think the writer and artist were miffed about the timing, and the way they were told after months of building to something they thought they were going to do. It was probably a decision a step above the actual editors, and the poor editors are actually caught in the middle.
I don’t know that this is a controversy at all, really. Each party seems to be acting within its rights. DC engages creative people as workers for hire on properties DC owns. The workers, who evidently work on an at-will basis on both ends, decide that the working constraints imposed upon them are unacceptable and terminate their employment. I would have assumed never having read the comic that the purpose of a lesbian Batwoman would be to titillate male readers, but not having read the comic is not a very informed position on the matter.
I admit I don’t follow Batwoman comics (I don’t follow character who, no matter what a nice different new background they give them, are just “X superhero, with boobs”).
But I always assumed the whole lesbian subplot was just for easy fanservice, and if it wasn’t handled with fanservice, then it’s possibly even worse: it was the safe way to pretend to be controversial. Because really, I’ve never seen people criticizing or shaming or hate-criming lesbian women.
Colour me impressed when we get a main male superhero who turns out gay.
I’m not sure that lesbian women have been as exempt from shame and hate-crime as you think. Perhaps male-fantasy lesbians are exempt, but not real-world ones. And though I haven’t read a Batwoman in about six or eight months, when last I read the series her lesbianism wasn’t a sub-plot, it was part of her character. The lesbian characters aren’t even particularly controversial, at least I’ve not come across any negative reactions to the portrayal of Ms. Kane, or any of her supporting cast from either the lesbian or straight community. Have you?
I haven’t, either – which was pretty much my point.
It’s just my opinion, but I think making a lesbian character is only playing it safe. There surely are people out there who have something against lesbian, just as you can always find people there who have something against pretty much anything.
But let’s face it, lesbians are much, much, much, much, muuuuuuuuch more socially accepted than male homosexuals. I call “meh” on when a comic book makes a woman character lesbian. It happens from time to time (Montoya, Harley, the list goes on and on), and nobody really cares, because it’s just not controversial. Men aren’t afraid of gay women, they’re afraid of gay men. (As for women, they usually don’t have homophobia.)
Then again, before worrying about a correct mainstream representation of male homosexuals in media, I should worry about a correct mainstream representation of females, heterosexual or not. I absolutely love comics books, but I am jaded about the way they portray female characters. Name me one mainstream superheroine who is NOT “X superhero with boobs”. But that’s certainly a different can of worms to open…
I’m still going to strongly disagree that lesbians have it easier than male homosexuals in this life. Male-fantasy lesbians (always wear make-up and heels, friendly and open with men, really bisexual at heart, sexually tittilating to the male characters in fiction, etc.) getting attention in male-fantasy fiction is hardly the same thing as real life lesbians (who don’t conform to that stereotype) being accepted by the general public. It’s simply not the same. I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that lesbians are muuuuuuuch more socially accepted, other than a gut feeling because naughty magazines had a lesbian photoshoot every issue. Take it from first-hand experience, it ain’t that way for lesbian kids in school, or for lesbians in the workplace, or for lesbians growing up.
And as for ONE super-heroine who is not X-With-Boobs…how about Storm from the X-Men? (You’re right, she’s about the only one, but we do at least have one…)
Well, I have to admit: I was being kinda hyperbolic when I said that lesbians have it so easy.
But while I admit that on second thought my comment was excessive, I still think that at least males don’t usually go on hate crimes against lesbians (as they don’t feel “threatened” by lesbians), so two lesbians usually don’t have to worry about that if they walk hand in hand. But what do I know? I can’t say I have first hand experience on this, so really, I’m making wild assumptions. Perhaps I’d better shut up and admit I’m not entitled to say I know how things are for lesbians, because I can’t prove my points.
But while I can’t honestly say much about real lesbians, I can, however, speak about fictional comic book lesbians. And even if they -are- depicted in a convincing manner and not as some silly unrealistic fanservice, lesbians and bisexual women characters have it easy in comic books. You can’t deny that when Harley flirts with Ivy, no one bats and eye, but if Batman started flirting with Robin, everyone would just freak out and it will become a big event.
So, seeing this from a comic book point of view, I always thought making a female character lesbian is just… nothing much, really.
As for the superheroines who are their own character instead of a chaper gender-bent version of another superhero…. Personally, I am a fan of Squirrel Girl for the good guys and Lucia Von Bardas for the bad guys. I think those two characters have lots of unused potential.
A very interesting conversation, Ty. It was a pleasure. 🙂
Pingback: Hey, Look! Comics! (9/11/13)