Friday, June 11, 2010

Where stuff that gets made public reveals a nasty side

Having joined up on twitter recently I have been following various people.  Some are famous, for example Gail Simone.

Following Gail Simone has increased my respect for her a thousandfold.  Her tweets are funny, and she's so far exhibited only decent-person ideas.  Today (Tuesday 8th June) she has been talking about The Killing Joke, y'know, that comic where Barbara Gordon, then Batgirl, got shot in the spine by the Joker and paralysed.

When editorial approval was sought for this particular plot, the editor (Len Wein) reportedly yelled down the hall:

'Cripple the bitch'

Isn't that hateful?  Isn't it venemous?  Granted, I do not know the tone in which it was said, but the words are ugly.  What struck me after asborbing this bit of (old) news, was the way in which feminist are accused of treating characters like real people.  Isn't that just what this editor is doing?  Why ascribe the word 'bitch' to a fictional character, in that context, if they are not in some way real to you?

And if Barbara Gordon is indeed real to you what does this say about your attitude to real flesh and blood women and wheelchair users?

Which is why I find the statement 'Cripple the Bitch' quite disturbing.  It's along the same lines as Bill Wilingham saying:

"I wanted to gun down those girls who kept asking about the memorial case"

at the recent heroes con (reported on here).

I am someone who believes words are important.  I think those sort of casual throwaway line regarding violence usually betrays some feeling of anger, hate or violence within a person.  Or at the very least some sort of detachment towards others.  You certainly can't fully appreciate and support the full meaning of those phrases without being a very malevolent person.*

So this leaves me kind of sickened.  And this is exactly the sort of thing that says women (and people with disabilities) are not welcome.  It's the same mentality that puts rape scenes into comics (or any popular culture medium).  It's the sort of shit that makes me very wary about the types of internet sites I inhabit and makes me distrustful of any new people I meet (men and women, because these views permeate all genders).

*I am not in any way stating that using a wheelchair is a negative thing.  But I believe that the editor who uttered those words thinks that it is a punishment of some sort.

8 comments:

Sea-of-Green said...

Sometimes it is hard to decipher a person's intent based on the words -- but, yeah, you have to wonder where those precise words are coming from in the first place.

I'm reminded of listening to my brother's running monologues when he's playing video games. In my humble opinion, watching someone else play video games is one of the most boring pastimes on the planet -- except when my brother is the one doing the gaming. I think he's one of the funniest human beings who's ever walked the earth. Yet, sadly, some of the things that come out of his mouth could be VERY easily misinterpreted by anyone "who wasn't there at the time."

Saranga said...

even if said editor's words were said as jokey, humourous and throwaway, it's still a nasty thing to say. and when that kind of stuff is said so casually, i think it means that either people aren't really connected to or thinking about what they're saying, or they are actually nasty pieces of work.

96% of the time I think people aren't thinking about what they're saying. But i still don't like it, and it still leaves me feeling twitchy. I have been called oversensitive for reacting in this way...

Anonymous said...

He very well might have not ment any harm an this might of even been his way of dealing with a hard decision. God knows if all the dumb stuff I have ever said came back to haunt me I would be screwed.

On the other hand maybe it is what it sounds like. I don't like passing judgment on others so I am not going to guess what his intention was and instead just say that him saying "Cripple the bitch" bothered me.

"I wanted to gun down those girls who kept asking about the memorial case"
This on the other hand dose not bother me in the lest. I am more interested in the why he was so unhappy with the people that asked about the memorial case.

Saranga said...

Whether the editor meant any harm or not, is not, I think, really the point. It's still hateful language.

As for Willingham's comment, yeah, i am also interested in why he was so hacked off with women asking about Steph's memorial case.

Anonymous said...

It might be hurtful words but it is not really out of the ordinary.
I am not going to get to worked up over his words unless I have a need.

As for the Steph's memorial case. I have the answer!

http://shortpacked.com/comic/book-7/01-dr-jan-itor/spoilerlives/

I think it can be safely said they never gave her a case becouse they never really thought of her as Robin. Two answers as to why not come to mind.
1: The story sucked so bad they wanted to pretend it never happened.
I do this time to time with my past stories, and my friends just love to bring them up when I am showing off my work. I would love to just beat them with a 2x4 sometimes! :grin:

The other option is because she was a Girl and that is "less" or something. I think this is the one most people think happened but I am not so sure really. If they thought so little of her why would they make her a robin in the first place? Maybe executive meddling?

Saranga said...

@ the second (or the same?) anon:

At no point did I say that the editors words were out of the ordinary. That isn't really the point.

"If they thought so little of her why would they make her a robin in the first place?"

I don't believe for a minute that the only reason chars take up legacy mantles is because the char is highly thought of...

Anonymous said...

"At no point did I say that the editors words were out of the ordinary. That isn't really the point."

Sorry my point was that I don't agree that "those sort of casual throwaway line regarding violence usually betrays some feeling of anger, hate or violence within a person. Or at the very least some sort of detachment towards others."

Is really a statesmen I would be comfortable making.

"I don't believe for a minute that the only reason chars take up legacy mantles is because the char is highly thought of...
I don't as well but I would have to have some confidence in a char to be good before I risked sales.

Saranga said...

Oh I see. OK that makes more sense. We disagree, but it makes more sense.

The thing about Steph as Robin, is that she was only Robin for a really short period, and she became Robin (plotwise) to instigate War Games, and cause a ruckus in the Bat family.

I don't think Steph's treatment as Robin was as sexist as other's do, I've written posts on this before, but I do think if you are creating a char to be a short term legacy cotume, you don't have to like them or be worried about sales, as you are planning a big event anyway.