June 01, 2006

Why Is This Necessary?

Must every form of entertainment Make A Statement?

Years after she first emerged from the Batcave, Batwoman is coming out of the closet. DC Comics is resurrecting the classic comic book character as a lesbian, unveiling the new Batwoman in July as part of an ongoing weekly series that began this year.

The 5-foot-10 superhero comes with flowing red hair, knee-high red boots with spiked heels, and a form-fitting black outfit.

"We decided to give her a different point of view," explained Dan DiDio, vice president and executive editor at DC. "We wanted to make her a more unique personality than others in the Bat-family. That's one of the reasons we went in this direction."

The original Batwoman was started in 1956, and killed off in 1979. The new character will share the same name as her original alter ego, Kathy Kane. And the new Batwoman arrives with ties to others in the Gotham City world.

"She's a socialite from Gotham high society," DiDio said. "She has some past connection with Bruce Wayne. And she's also had a past love affair with one of our lead characters, Renee Montoya."

Is this really necessary? And I ask not because of bias against homosexuals, but because this appears to be introducing an extraneous political statement where it does not need to be. Is there no place safe from PCism?

Posted by: Greg at 05:12 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Maybe they thought it would make the character interesting. Must the mere existence of a lesbian character be seen as a statement?

Posted by: John at Thu Jun 1 05:33:12 2006 (i0t/7)

2 Hmmmm...

You have a charcter with a quarter-century of back-story -- none of hich includes homosexuality.

Suddenly, you recreate her as a lesbian.

Gee, wasn't she interesting before?

And wouldn't she be interesting as a heterosexual, as she was for that previous quarter century?

And does her sexual orientation really have anything to do with crime-fighting, which is what the interesting part of the story is really supposed to be about?

And if it isn't a statement, why highlight it in your publicity?

I know, maybe it is a ploy to boost sales -- you know, the hint of "hot girl-on-girl action" might just drive up the circulation numbers!

But that would be a real cynical view, as contrasted to your (fake) naive suggestion.

I'll stick with my original premise -- this is A Statement.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 1 06:19:09 2006 (bvbce)

3 Not all of us think of our sexuality as a political statement.

You ask why is it necessary for Batwoman to be a lesbian, and claim it have nothing to do with your anti-gay hatred. The question isn't why is it necessary, the question is why SHOULDN'T she be a lesbian? Why is it necessary for Batman's alter ego to be "Bruce Wayne?" It's not other than that was the character arbitrarily chosen by the creators.

Secondly, this Batwoman doesn't have "a quarter-century of back-story." Since you didn't read your own post, I'll fill you in. 1956's Batwoman died in 1979. This is a new woman taking on the persona of the previous Batwoman.

As for what her sexual orientation has to do with crime-fighting, I'd little to nothing, but stories rarely revolve entirely around one thing. I guess I'll have to flip back through your archives to read about your outrage over Batman's fling with Catwoman, after all, what does his sexual orientation have to do with crime-fighting?

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 1 06:49:06 2006 (45B3C)

4 Unlike you, Carsen, I won't delete the comments of someone who dares to question my position on an issue.

Nor will I ban you because of your personal attack -- my ego is not bruised nearly so easily as yours. You accuse me of bigotry -- I merely questioned the consistency of your positions, and it got me banned over at your place.

That said, I will point out that they are remaking the character -- same name, same identity -- by changing the orientation. Why make the change on this key character point -- unless it is to make A Statement.

And Carsen, let me note one thing I've noticed over the last 2 years -- you ofteno make your sexual orientation into a political statement/issue. You also go out of your way to label anyone who disagrees with you on sexuality issues a bigot who does not believe you are a human being. You have decided that my political disagreements with you are based upon a hatred of you as a homosexual, which could not be further from the truth. Rather than discuss, you then play the "queer card" (the pink & lavender equivalent of the "race card") to cut off discussion. Again, that is making your orientation into a political statement -- and a bludgeon to silence those who disagree with you.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 1 07:07:34 2006 (bvbce)

5 Alright Greg (since we're on a first name basis), last I checked you weren't banned over at my site, and I'm about tired of your laughable slander that I delete comments that disagree with me when A simple glimpse at my site shows that many, many, many people disagree with me and yet there their comments sit.

Secondly, I made no personal attack on you. I simply pointed out that developing a character involves creating many aspects of a character's life and romantic interests are hardly new to the comic book industry. I simply pointed out that you are demonstrating a double standard in what you think is acceptable and what is not. If Bruce Wayne can have a fling with Selina Kyle (catwoman), why can't Kathy Kane have a fling with Renee Montoya. I simply pointed out that the only reason you have any problem at all with the latter is because you don't like gay people.

Lastly Greg, I do not make my sexual orienation an political issue, but rather I discuss political issues related to my sexual orientation. That's why justice will prevail on issues related to sexual orientation. To the right-wing, same-sex sexual orientation is simply a political issue. For us, it's our lives. We are fighting for our lives and to the right-wing it's simply a game, they either don't know or don't care that they are actually hurting PEOPLE.

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 1 08:31:07 2006 (45B3C)

6 1) Last time I tried to comment, my comment was deleted. And before you ask, it was in the last two weeks. I assumed I was banned, given that you told me I was.

2) The deleted comment pointed out a double standard you have on the relevance of votes of the people and strict construction of constitutional provisions when depending on which helps your agenda on homosexual marriage.

3) You would be surprised -- for most of us on the right this is not a game. It is about preserving the basis of Western society, and, ultimately, the right to freely exercise our religions free from government compulsion or oppression if we refuse to accept homosexual activity as normal and moral.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 1 08:46:02 2006 (bvbce)

7 Comic book characters get reworked and reinvented all the time when they're brought back to life for new projects. No big surprise there.

Why mention it in the publicity? Because you have an audience of fans that wants every detail.

I still think it's interesting that the very existence of a lesbian qualifies as a "statement" in your estimation.

Posted by: John at Thu Jun 1 08:54:08 2006 (i0t/7)

8 Had a long talk about this over dinner, and have been convinced that perhaps this isn't a political statement after all.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 1 14:51:39 2006 (H/pHs)

9 You loser! You're willing to think about your beliefs and reexamine them, rather than hold on to them no matter what?!?! You'll never fit into the world of blogging with an attitude like that!!

Posted by: Dan at Fri Jun 2 04:07:13 2006 (YL8fx)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
13kb generated in CPU 0.0041, elapsed 0.0121 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0086 seconds, 38 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]