Journalism and bias in the gaming industry.

[Zoraptor]

That's really disingenuous. 

 

You're not obligated to agree with it, but it certainly isn't disingenuous. Plus you've been rather unfair in your implications, too.

 

Sure, he says he did it 'voluntarily' having decided it was inappropriate, but that rather begs the question of why he made it in the first place if it didn't fit and was inappropriate- at some time his view must have changed, logically. That he has apparently been systematically blocking anyone who disagrees with his (new) view is relevant as it does not support that it's a decision he has come to by himself, but one he* has come to after listening to and being influenced by one side.

 

Most significantly though, if it's disingenuous to post those tweets it was also disingenuous to imply it was a purely logical decision made by the artist alone devoid of external influences when it was certainly not*, and to imply that information had been left out when not only did the linked article mention it but so did the URL included in the initial post, to whit: '..comics-cancel-batgirl-variant-at-artists-request'. Can't blame the poster if people don't read the linked article, or even look at the url; that's the fault of the reader.

 

*it's also basically impossible that it was solely his decision, covers are very heavily vetted by PR departments as they are usually the most prominent promotional material for a comic issue.

[Elerond]

DC really went down the drain.

 

When they didn't used cover after artist of said cover request that they would not use it?

[Meshugger]

 

 

That's really disingenuous.  It's hard to take GGers seriously when they try to make mountains out of molehills like this.  

 

 

I am old enough to recognize the same pattern as i've seen before. I do not believe the artist is genuine for one second in this. He drew originally what he wanted, got flak from "the right crowd" and decided to remove it with a half-assed reason. When the "wrong crowd" tries to argue about it, they are simply shut out as the screenshots above shows. 

 

Self-censorship is fear, and fear is the mind killer. 

 

 

I take it you aren't familiar with Dr. Suess.  Yooks are not Zooks!

 

 

Correct, I thought it was a random screenshot

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Most of the outrage about the cover came from people who don't even read comics, as they didn't know what a variant cover was. As we saw from the spider ass thing before this, most of them don't know male characters were put in similar positions on covers. I hope the precedence of raising a stink on twitter until an artist sees the light and decides to self-censor continues until all ungood thoughts are purged.

 

Still wondering where the outrage was for the variant of Batman 37, featuring Jason Todd being beaten to death. I suppose killing teenagers isn't as bad though.

 

 

[Blarghagh]

Relevant information - the hashtag that was used to spearhead the movement to have the cover changed, obviously #CHANGETHECOVER, is actually recycled from an earlier attempt by feminist movements to get not DC but Marvel to change a "sexist" variant cover. It didn't work then, it seems to have worked now.

 

Maddox made a great video takedown on that particular issue which can be viewed at

. Language warning.

 

Looks like KaineParker beat me to the punch with some of that information. Eh? Eh?

Edited March 17, 2015 by TrueNeutral

[Hurlshort]

 

Correct, I thought it was a random screenshot

 

 

The Butter Battle Book should be required reading for anyone engaged in this type of low stakes crusading.

[Keyrock]

I'm confused as to what the "sexual undertones" of the Batgirl variant cover are?  I don't see anything the least bit sexual about it.

[Elerond]

 

That's really disingenuous. 

 

You're not obligated to agree with it, but it certainly isn't disingenuous. Plus you've been rather unfair in your implications, too.

 

Sure, he says he did it 'voluntarily' having decided it was inappropriate, but that rather begs the question of why he made it in the first place if it didn't fit and was inappropriate- at some time his view must have changed, logically. That he has apparently been systematically blocking anyone who disagrees with his (new) view is relevant as it does not support that it's a decision he has come to by himself, but one he* has come to after listening to and being influenced by one side.

 

Most significantly though, if it's disingenuous to post those tweets it was also disingenuous to imply it was a purely logical decision made by the artist alone devoid of external influences when it was certainly not*, and to imply that information had been left out when not only did the linked article mention it but so did the URL included in the initial post, to whit: '..comics-cancel-batgirl-variant-at-artists-request'. Can't blame the poster if people don't read the linked article, or even look at the url; that's the fault of the reader.

 

*it's also basically impossible that it was solely his decision, covers are very heavily vetted by PR departments as they are usually the most prominent promotional material for a comic issue.

 

 

Artist of said cover said that reason behind cover was to portray Batgirl's troubled history with Joker (The Killing Joke by Allan Moore), which isn't part of current Batgirl story arc, but from time when Batgirl was still mere secondary sidekick in Batman stories, which references towards it are probably something that don't fit well with Batgirl's current audience as it is mainly targeted to younger (teen age) crowd.

[Blarghagh]

So essentially the variant cover was a tribute to an older story that led to a disabled superhero character (Batgirl became Oracle) and was essentially a triumph for diversity, and that's inappropriate because the current audience is ridiculously idiotic?

 

I'm confused as to what the "sexual undertones" of the Batgirl variant cover are?  I don't see anything the least bit sexual about it.

 

I'm not seeing it either. It's the least sexual thing I've ever seen. I consider the people who do see sexual undertones in it to be the problem - they're the ones who need mental help.

Edited March 17, 2015 by TrueNeutral

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I'm confused as to what the "sexual undertones" of the Batgirl variant cover are?  I don't see anything the least bit sexual about it.

The story it is influenced by has Barbara stripped and photographed. Doesn't have anything to do with the content of this cover, but if I had to guess I'd say that's where it comes from.

 

The cover itself just shows Batgirl acting how most people in the DCU would react if held at the mercy of The Joker, who DC has pretty much depicted as the most sadistic villain evah in his modern incarnations.

[Zoraptor]

To be fair, I can easily see that having a woman crying while being menaced by a (bad) guy with a gun in that manner has certain implications respective or irrespective of previous events- and that it would be unlikely that Batman or Superman or most other male superheroes would be shown crying in a similar situation.

 

That might be because they're primary superheroes though, I don't know enough about the subject  as to whether, say, Wonder Woman has been shown crying in similar circumstances or if she behaves more stoically as Bats or Supes would.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Zoraptor

[Meshugger]

Most of the outrage about the cover came from people who don't even read comics, as they didn't know what a variant cover was. As we saw from the spider ass thing before this, most of them don't know male characters were put in similar positions on covers. I hope the precedence of raising a stink on twitter until an artist sees the light and decides to self-censor continues until all ungood thoughts are purged.

 

Still wondering where the outrage was for the variant of Batman 37, featuring Jason Todd being beaten to death. I suppose killing teenagers isn't as bad though.

 

 

 

White, cis-het men (thanks alumni for the definition!) just have to take it. Fighting upward in the power+prejudice scale is to be celebrated while fighting downwards is something-phobic on the same scale.

 

Just listen & believe what i just said.

[Elerond]

 

 

Wonder Woman has long and proud? history to be DC's most tied up character in their comic covers

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

White, cis-het men (thanks alumni for the definition!) just have to take it. Fighting upward in the power+prejudice scale is to be celebrated while fighting downwards is something-phobic on the same scale.

 

Just listen & believe what i just said.

So an insane person killing a teenager is actually heroic because it's punching up!

 

But that brings us to a conundrum: is Joker attacking Batgirl punching up because he's differently abled or punching down because she's a woman?

[Zoraptor]

Wonder Woman has long and proud? history to be DC's most tied up character in their comic covers

 

Not really what I was looking for. Batman got tied up/ captured pretty much every (bat) episode of the (bat) tv series, for example.

 

The question was more about the reaction to being captured. Of those I would say that only the fourth one down comes close to being what I was looking for, which is something a bit beyond simply looking worried, the comparison would be more towards looking panicked or frightened as per the batgirl cover, and whether that tends to happen only* to secondary heroes, or women, or secondary hero women, or if it's more generally distributed.

 

*I'd exclude examples like, say, Scarecrow from this, as their raison d'être is being able to panic even normally stoic characters.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Here is her twitter: https://twitter.com/AshPnX

Edited March 17, 2015 by KaineParker

[Elerond]

 

Wonder Woman has long and proud? history to be DC's most tied up character in their comic covers

 

Not really what I was looking for. Batman got tied up/ captured pretty much every (bat) episode of the (bat) tv series, for example.

 

The question was more about the reaction to being captured. Of those I would say that only the fourth one down comes close to being what I was looking for, which is something a bit beyond simply looking worried, the comparison would be more towards looking panicked or frightened as per the batgirl cover, and whether that tends to happen only* to secondary heroes, or women, or secondary hero women, or if it's more generally distributed.

 

*I'd exclude examples like, say, Scarecrow from this, as their raison d'être is being able to panic even normally stoic characters.

 

Superdickery has probably image of every comic book cover where Wonder Woman is tied up or some other way trapped, so you could look there if there is any (there is just too many for me to do so)

http://www.superdickery.com/tag/wonder-woman/page/2/

 

EDIT: After looking it more it looks that they don't have nearly as many covers in this their new site than what they had in their old, which is quite sad.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Elerond

[Keyrock]

Looking frightened and panicked when captured by someone who is well known to be a sadist, psychopath, and murderer seems like a rather natural expression, it doesn't imply rape to me.  Sure, that could have happened and it could be why Batgirl is crying, or she could be panicked because "Oh my god, this psycho is going to kill me!"  Are characters, particularly women, not allowed to show fear and distress any more?  Are anger and determination the only feelings allowed to by shown when in danger?

[Nonek]

Why is the Joker still alive? I admit that i've not read many American comics (well any) but by now some of the less ethical masked vigilantes must have grown tired of his behaviour: Why hasn't the Hulk ripped him up and used him as toilet paper? Or the Punisher simply put a high velocity sniper round through his cranium? Dredd would not hesitate to do so, Slaine would probably warp spasm and eat the chap, the Stronty's would erase him from time or something equally weird. Seems a little strange.

[licketysplit]

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Why is the Joker still alive? I admit that i've not read many American comics (well any) but by now some of the less ethical masked vigilantes must have grown tired of his behaviour: Why hasn't the Hulk ripped him up and used him as toilet paper? Or the Punisher simply put a high velocity sniper round through his cranium? Dredd would not hesitate to do so, Slaine would probably warp spasm and eat the chap, the Stronty's would erase him from time or something equally weird. Seems a little strange.

Money. For some reason he's a popular character and throwing that away would not be good financially for DC. IMO it's a part of the problem with capes comics and their stagnant universes.

[HoonDing]

The Joker is killed by Magog in Kingdom Come.

[Meshugger]

Heh,

 

And this is why it’s so frustrating there is a war on the currently existing franchises and genres, instead of focusing on broadening the palette. And both sides are here to blame: thick-skulled ludofundamentalists’ hatred for games like Gone Home, and radical feminists’ hatred for male fantasies that dominate the core market. As if the growth of walking simulators somehow made Call of Duty or GTA cease to exist (when data points to the opposite conclusion), or as if Call of Duty or GTA ruined humankind (when data points to the opposite conclusion).

 

On top of that, some people try to pressure businesses to drop everything and risk dozens of millions of dollars to make a game that must exist “because women” — as if somehow these businesses would not do it themselves if only they knew how.

 

 

https://medium.com/@adrianchm/women-and-video-games-f0eb7a7d75fa

[Fighter]

So the artist caved in to a small minority of snowflakes because of a cover they deem people who are not even them should not be able to have at all because of how insecure and overcompensating they are about the character.

 

What's the problem? That's the problem.

 

Coming to your favorite comics/movies/games soon too that are going to require to become snowflake friendly to exist regardless of whether the snowflakes even buy it for themselves.

[Barothmuk]

Are characters, particularly women, not allowed to show fear and distress any more?  Are anger and determination the only feelings allowed to by shown when in danger?

With literally no investigation into this topic I'm going to guess its the fact that if it was a male superhero on the cover they'd be portrayed more defiantly. Plus the rapeyness of it all.

 

But I'm guessing you know that.