Batgirl Cover: Too Far?

[vnv7272]

I think it fits for the subject matter in context with the comic.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102520004

[Disciple]

I knew this would hit this site sooner or later.

While I'm ideologically against censorship, I think that The Killing Joke gets way too much goddamn press from DC as it is (resulting in the Joker being turned into another generic slasher film villain as a result), so I won't be rushing to the pro-cover folks' defense anytime soon.

[KnightsofGotham.com]

This is actually old news.
Evangeline and i have both been going back and forth with people on the internet over this since the day it happened.

I am all for equal rights for women, that means that women can be treated exactly like men.
and in comics batman has been beaten, back broken, assaulted by both men and women by the way, and robin was raped by a woman. there is nothing wrong with this cover.

One of the more desperate arguments is that the cover doesn't jive with children.
the real problem with that is that the image by itself is harmless. its when you realize that this is the same Batgirl that the joker shot, stripped naked and took pictures of that you understand the look on her face.

but if Children already knew about the killing joke then people should be upset with that, bnot a harmless picture.

And it wasn't even a comic cover...it was a variant. it was supposed to celebrate the Jokers 75th anniversary.
the joker....you know...the lovable, child friendly price of happiness....oh wait...thats not bhim. its the joker that killed jason todd by assaulting him with a crowbar and then blowing up the building he was in.
where is the outrage over the male/male abuse?
there isn't any.

this whole cover is a joke

[swampy170]

Too far? - well yea.

It'd be fine with Gail's Batgirl previously - a more mature crimefighter. The new batgirl doesn't have that same grittiness, the same graded character IMO - so the cover doesn't fit at all. Not to mention the lack of a Joker.

It pointlessly ties back to a past Batgirl, and the character that could have pushed past the adversity instead of being rebooted.

It's just a publicity stunt - meh.

[ksire_99]

The Joker is a rampaging maniac He is only happy when creating chaos, pain and fear in others. So, no the cover does not go too far. It is dead on for the character

[HarlequinStudios]

I frankly love the cover, I love that it's an ode to the characters past however I absolutely agree that it doesn't work within the context of the current run of Batgirl. I think had it been the cover during Gail's rebirth and original 52 run of the character it would have fit, it would have been something worth reading about Babs having to endure and face....but that's not the case with the current title.

[LeeCarl]

This has actually been a hot button topic with me and my friends. I'm of the belief people overreacting to this cover. DC has done WAY more violent things to male heroes, and female heroes, in the past. Hell, it was only 2 years ago that there was a cover of Joker standing over Batgirl with a bloody knife. And the month before, the cover was Batgirl bleeding profusely while leaning against a headstone.

Our fetish aside, I'm all for comics treating the sexes equally, whether it be comic covers, stories, content, costumes...whatever. Batman has been bound, beaten, bleeding, assaulted, more times than I can count. And his costume, despite looking skin tight, is armored. However, in the past year, Batgirl's maturity has been dwindled to teenage levels despite supposedly still being in her 20's Her costume has lost any and all sex appeal AND lost it's armor look. I'm honestly enraged by comics nowadays.

Batman/Batgirl is just one example. There was a complete FIT about a Spider-Woman cover last year, just because it shows the form of her body, including the curves of her ass. However, Spider-MAN has been depicted in similar poses consistently for the last 20 years or more! And they've just changed Spider-Woman's costume away from what it's been for 40 years to be more. The commotion over last year's cover is no doubt a driving force behind that decision.

Here is that Spider-Woman pic, just for reference.

http://www.blastr.com/sites/blastr/file ... k=6Q_t6jZG

I think DC and Marvel are losing their damn minds. They want us to see female heroines as equal, but treat like porcelain dolls in the comics.

And to wrap it all up, Wonder Woman's new costume, starting in June, won't show any skin other than her hands and face. Here THAT is for reference.

http://www.sweetpaul.com/wp-content/upl ... ostume.jpg


There is a pattern right now, specifically with the big 2, Marvel and DC, and things are going to get worse before they get better.

I just hope the indie publishers stick to their guns and don't conform to this nonsense.

[swampy170]

Not sure i agree that there's a conservative movement looking to cover up heroines and treat them like porcelain dolls.

For DC certainly, they're prepping for the real introduction of heroines into their movie and tv universes. If you look at Arrow, and the scenes focusing on Canary - porcelain doll is hardly how i'd describe her (more their, since there's 2) treatment.

Gail is still writing and producing comics - there's still plenty of voilence in female focused comics. The whole thing is little more than a publicity stunt.

No need for conspiracy theories

[RedMountain]

Not sure what the big deal is, before DC took this kiddy/hipster run with Batgirl she was basically a punching bag in every issue of her comic and there was a lot of blood/violence. She was constantly getting her ass kicked, bleeding everywhere, and getting defeated almost every issue of new 52, they even had Batwoman beat the crap out of her in one issue. Now they have a little cover like this and everyone throws a fit. Honestly the new Batgirl could use something like this, its like a comic for 12 year olds now. Really don't like the direction they took her after establishing her darker history/past then they just do a 180 and make her a selfie taking immature teenager.

[Ezekiel]

Wait, this unleashed the hounds of social justice as well? Aren't you guys across the Atlantic supposed to be living in the freest country in the world? Keep the picture exactly how it is but replace Batgirl with a Batman having the same terrorized look on his face and nobody could care less about it. People making an uproar over such things start to feel creepy to me.

[KnightsofGotham.com]

Wait, this unleashed the hounds of social justice as well? Aren't you guys across the Atlantic supposed to be living in the freest country in the world? Keep the picture exactly how it is but replace Batgirl with a Batman having the same terrorized look on his face and nobody could care less about it. People making an uproar over such things start to feel creepy to me.

Unfortunately no country is safe from people who have agendas they hide in the clothing of "justice" or whatever the holy crusade of the week is. this has nothing to do with a country but of allowances of the small few to dictate change because they yell the loudest, no matter if they yell the truth or not.
I can't wait for this current fad to be over.

[Heroine Addict]

One of the more desperate arguments is that the cover doesn't jive with children.
the real problem with that is that the image by itself is harmless. its when you realize that this is the same Batgirl that the joker shot, stripped naked and took pictures of that you understand the look on her face.

but if Children already knew about the killing joke then people should be upset with that, bnot a harmless picture.

Indeed. The reason for Batgirl's distress is only relevant if you know the context.

Yet DC won't be withdrawing The Killing Joke as it's one of their best-selling graphic novels, remaining in print for 27 years. The most offensive thing about the "banned" cover is that it's shamelessly trying to associate a poor quality run with a past glory.

DC really need to put their kiddie-friendly stuff in a separate universe. That way, they won't have to address the history which has been carried over into the New 52. Let the selfie-taking Batgirl go off on adventures with impish twat Batmite and a talking Bathound.

[KnightsofGotham.com]

DC really need to put their kiddie-friendly stuff in a separate universe. That way, they won't have to address the history which has been carried over into the New 52. Let the selfie-taking Batgirl go off on adventures with impish twat Batmite and a talking Bathound.

This is actually a really great idea! that way the easy offended or the young can stick to kiddie DC and leave the hard hitting story lines for the rest of us

[SHL]

I think it fits for the subject matter in context with the comic.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102520004

Having this conversation on a forum where most of the community comes to find videos of super heroines being defeated seems at odds with itself. Im pretty sure you can expect to see the same answer on repeat.

I think there is a simpler formula when it comes to talking about this cover:

1. Do you still read comic books? (If 'Yes, go to next question: if 'No', don't)
2. Were you currently reading the new Batgirl series? (If 'Yes, go to next question: if 'No', don't)
3. Congratulations, you are allowed to have an opinion. Please submit it into the inbox of 'who gives a shit'.

The Batgirl in Burnside series has an specific kind of audience, that audience probably isn't pro-rape in comic books.

I for one have been reading the series and while I enjoy my super heroines-in-peril-likelotsofsexualperil, I don't need sexual violence in everything I consume. Personally, I kind of get sick of it to be honest. And if I ever have a daughter I would hope there were a few comic books she could read where rape culture wasn't in-between the lines in the story, or literally plastered on the cover.

You don't see anything wrong with the cover? Go find me a children's book or young adult novel where the main character gets shot in the spine, stripped and sexually humiliated in front of her father.

Seriously.

[Heroine Addict]

I think it fits for the subject matter in context with the comic.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102520004

Having this conversation on a forum where most of the community comes to find videos of super heroines being defeated seems at odds with itself. Im pretty sure you can expect to see the same answer on repeat.

I think there is a simpler formula when it comes to talking about this cover:

1. Do you still read comic books? (If 'Yes, go to next question: if 'No', don't)
2. Were you currently reading the new Batgirl series? (If 'Yes, go to next question: if 'No', don't)
3. Congratulations, you are allowed to have an opinion. Please submit it into the inbox of 'who gives a shit'.

The Batgirl in Burnside series has an specific kind of audience, that audience probably isn't pro-rape in comic books.

I for one have been reading the series and while I enjoy my super heroines-in-peril-likelotsofsexualperil, I don't need sexual violence in everything I consume. Personally, I kind of get sick of it to be honest. And if I ever have a daughter I would hope there were a few comic books she could read where rape culture wasn't in-between the lines in the story, or literally plastered on the cover.

That's fair enough. But it raises the issue of whether the Burnside Batgirl should exist in the same universe as The Killing Joke?

You don't see anything wrong with the cover? Go find me a children's book or young adult novel where the main character gets shot in the spine, stripped and sexually humiliated in front of her father.

Seriously.

As KnightsofGotham said, you only get that reference if you know The Killing Joke. The cover itself merely depicts Batgirl in a state of distress.

[KnightsofGotham.com]

You don't see anything wrong with the cover? Go find me a children's book or young adult novel where the main character gets shot in the spine, stripped and sexually humiliated in front of her father.

You had a half way decent argument until this part, in my opinion.
The variant cover was a tribute to an iconic event that was never meant for children.
Children viewing this cover wouldn't know what it meant unless they had read the comic that inspired it.

That history is what gives the image the punch thats so visceral to some.

A child viewing that image would have no reaction because the history that makes it so powerful is missing.

And....
its a variant cover.
you don't have to buy it.
its not forced on you, and also not meant for children.
Its also meant to celebrate the jokers 75th.
the joker isn't a child friendly character
(with the exception of his time when the comic book code was installed and DC was forced to change his antics to be able to get cleared by the code)
but for the most part he has always been an iconic embodiment of evil.

Let me ask you a serious question......
Knowing that Joker killed Jason Todd (a male)
If this was a picture of Jason Todd standing next to the joker and instead of a gun he was holding a crowbar and Jason had that exact same face on.....
would this have been an issue?
or are we here because the militants who demand equality for women but demand that women be treated differently than men made this into an issue?

[KnightsofGotham.com]

But it raises the issue of whether the Burnside Batgirl should exist in the same universe as The Killing Joke?

If this was the main cover for the comic I would agree.... if this was the only cover chosen you would have a valid and strong point. But it was a variant and just like Gamergate those who wish to disturb for their own agenda have derailed the train off its original tracks and forced it into something it wasn't supposed to nbe.

this was supposed to be a variant cover that has nothing to do with the current bargirls story, but a celebration of the joker.

[KnightsofGotham.com]

And before we forget about it with the emotion on both sides....the artist himself asked for it not to run after harassment and threats. DC didn't pull it, the artist himself got trolled so hard that he asked to have it pulled.

[SHL]

Let me ask you a serious question......
Knowing that Joker killed Jason Todd (a male)
If this was a picture of Jason Todd standing next to the joker and instead of a gun he was holding a crowbar and Jason had that exact same face on.....
would this have been an issue?
or are we here because the militants who demand equality for women but demand that women be treated differently than men made this into an issue?

I am pretty sure if the Joker raped Jason Todd it would be a bigger controversy than this comic cover has been.

But I seriously doubt thats going to happen, anytime soon anyway. And if it did, I highly doubt they would put references too it all over comic book covers that didn't include said scene.

This isn't about equality, its about people wanting to control things that weren't made for them.

It isn't even a good drawing.

[KnightsofGotham.com]

I am pretty sure if the Joker raped Jason Todd it would be a bigger controversy than this comic cover has been.

funny it didn't even cause a stir when he was raped by Tarantula
in Nightwing #93

or does that not count because he was raped by a woman?

[KnightsofGotham.com]

And before we forget about it with the emotion on both sides....the artist himself asked for it not to run after harassment and threats. DC didn't pull it, the artist himself got trolled so hard that he asked to have it pulled.

I have to take back this post. After I posted it I learned the artist said he was never threatened.
I got that wrong and in all fairness I should point out my own mistakes if Im going to post others mistakes.

[Mr. X]

I am pretty sure if the Joker raped Jason Todd it would be a bigger controversy than this comic cover has been.

funny it didn't even cause a stir when he was raped by Tarantula
in Nightwing #93

or does that not count because he was raped by a woman?

Plus Batman was drugged and raped by Talia. Again does it not matter cause its a hot woman? In fact she had a kid and now he's stuck with a kid.

[Disciple]

Now, to be fair, pretty much anyone's art looks like shit next to Brian Bolland's. And by all accounts, The Killing Joke was the one project he worked hardest on.



Look at this sonuvabitch. No artist before or since can do the Joker like Bolland can.

Also, just my two cents: I'd probably be much harder on any cover referencing "A Death in the Family" (that story where Jason Todd died), since "A Death in the Family" is such hideously written Reagan-era propaganda that just thinking about it makes me want to vomit.

[Heroine Addict]

Also, just my two cents: I'd probably be much harder on any cover referencing "A Death in the Family" (that story where Jason Todd died), since "A Death in the Family" is such hideously written Reagan-era propaganda that just thinking about it makes me want to vomit.

You mean stuff like this?:

[Disciple]

Yup. That's the one.

[SHL]

funny it didn't even cause a stir when he was raped by Tarantula
in Nightwing #93

or does that not count because he was raped by a woman?

At this point I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. People in the US don't take men being raped by women seriously, everyone always wants to high five the middle school/high school boy who has sex with a female teacher.

So no, unless it was the Joker shoving his dick inside Jason Todd I don't think most people would even care.

[Mr. X]

What exactly is wrong with the cover?
1. No nudity.
2. No overtly sexual content.
3. No blatant violence.
4. No swearing.
5. No ideological stuff.
6. No words


Everyone is clothed, no violence, no nudity or sex stuff.

So what exactly is wrong with it?

[Ezekiel]

What exactly is wrong with the cover?

It shows a woman put in a horrible situation by a man and everyone knows that throughout the centuries women have been put in horrible situations by men so we can't have anything like that in any sort of FICTION because if you dare to make it or even like it, then it means you are a perverted little fucker who eats children in real life and sees women at best as useful accessories for his everyday needs.

That would be my assumption, at least. I'm also guessing this thing got more Internet coverage than a real case of abuse against women because nobody really cares if you slap her around a few times to make sure she understands who the boss is, but a drawing like that? That's completely unacceptable.

[4havokk]

No such thing as BAD press...when one considers the falling sales of comicbooks or graphic novels. I bet the cover will still be available for special print price.

To serve man!...ITS A COOK BOOK AHHHHHHHH

[KnightsofGotham.com]

At this point I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Then I will do us Both a favor and stop trying to explain it.
It seems plenty of people didn't have a problem understanding.

[dantoon]

Why is it even considered sexist? Don't these reactionary blowhards know that Joker's a VILLAIN? He's been shown murdering innocent people for decades but apparently showing imagined rape overtones is too much.

[Heroine Addict]

Why is it even considered sexist? Don't these reactionary blowhards know that Joker's a VILLAIN? He's been shown murdering innocent people for decades but apparently showing imagined rape overtones is too much.

Well, sexual violence against women is always treated more sensitively than mass murder. The suspicion being that men might get off on seeing Batgirl in that situation. While violence against any hero or heroine is supposed to be exciting, the issue is whether a section of the market will find sexual violence arousing.

Part of the issue here is the conflation of the cute and sassy "Batgirl of Burnside" with the dark and gritty "The Killing Joke". The modern Batgirl is drawn in a stylized cartoony way with cute oversized eyes like a Disney princess. This cover is drawn in a more realistic style with the modern batsuit worn by the 1988 Barbara Gordon. She doesn't look remotely cute or sassy as the tears well up in her normal-sized eyes.

I guess the biggest problem is that it's a "celebration of the Joker". Some people may read it as a glorification of a character who can reduce a feisty doe-eyed heroine to a whimpering wreck with the reminder that he's the man who crippled and sexually assaulted her. Placing him almost in the position of an anti-hero, bringing down "girl power" with brutality.

It may have been easier for DC to justify the cover if it wasn't a variant and the actual story dealt with Batgirl's history with the Joker. As it stands, we just have a single image of Batgirl in deep distress while the issue itself is likely to be more selfie-taking fun and games.

[Dogfish]

The artists and writers of the comic didn't want it, so they didn't go with it. Ultimately it is their call to make and it ought to be respected. As a freedom of speech or censorship issue nobody should be forced to have an image on the cover of their comic that they don't want there, it doesn't matter how many 'fans' want the thing to be there (willing to bet the vast majority are not actually buying this particular series at all). I would trust the opinions of the authors to know the audience and tone of their comic especially when they are doing such a successful job with it.

If the creators of the comic wanted it, I'd respect it. Since they have unequivocally said they didn't want it, I can respect that too.

It's pretty telling that when it comes to whether or not they want an image of a victimised woman on their cover, the opinions of random internet folks apparently trump the artists wishes in the balance of free speech versus censorship. It's like people are fine with creative freedom, except when it might rob them of a crying Batgirl cover, then you have to put the image that you are told to on the cover.

[Mr. X]

I think it was the original artist that was pressured to remove it. Point is this thing shouldn't be some issue. It breaks no comic code. And there has been worst stuff done to men on covers. Superman beaten to death by Doomsday for example.

[Dogfish]

Why is it even considered sexist? Don't these reactionary blowhards know that Joker's a VILLAIN? He's been shown murdering innocent people for decades but apparently showing imagined rape overtones is too much.

Well, sexual violence against women is always treated more sensitively than mass murder.

Apologies for nicking this bit out of context, but I think it's an important detail. One thing I have often seen people say when they are talking about villains in movies and stories talking about the horrible things characters do, they say, "Well why are you upset about rape, when this character has done all these other things?"

The reason is that a hell of a lot of women get raped. Enough women get raped that rape is something that women are often realistically scared of. What real fears do the big comics bring into play for their male characters? Monster kills you during a gigantic battle? Drugged up supervillain breaks your spine? Not sure I see that as something I might have to deal with.

Sexual assault is a common enough real fear that it probably shouldn't be the stuff of comics that traditionally present fantastical situations for a younger audience. Throw some giant space monsters in there. Maybe a robot that shoots lasers out its nose. Everybody can enjoy that.

Also, as an addendum, it is worth remembering that even Alan Moore doesn't like The Killing Joke, and that it was never intended to be canon (because it is heavily implied that the Joker is killed at the end, which of course he isn't if it is canon). It is also one of the worst examples of fridging you'll ever find, barring the one with the actual fridge. If DC wants to celebrate 75 years of Joker, probably would be well advised to step around that particular story.

[Dogfish]

I think it was the original artist that was pressured to remove it. Point is this thing shouldn't be some issue. It breaks no comic code. And there has been worst stuff done to men on covers. Superman beaten to death by Doomsday for example.

No, the artists who create the comic were not consulted, when they were consulted, they said no. If you look at what the Batgirl comic is now, it's not hard to see why they wouldn't want it on there, even as a variant. They know their audience pretty well.

[Mr. X]

Why is it even considered sexist? Don't these reactionary blowhards know that Joker's a VILLAIN? He's been shown murdering innocent people for decades but apparently showing imagined rape overtones is too much.

Well, sexual violence against women is always treated more sensitively than mass murder.

Apologies for nicking this bit out of context, but I think it's an important detail. One thing I have often seen people say when they are talking about villains in movies and stories talking about the horrible things characters do, they say, "Well why are you upset about rape, when this character has done all these other things?"

The reason is that a hell of a lot of women get raped. Enough women get raped that rape is something that women are often realistically scared of. What real fears do the big comics bring into play for their male characters? Monster kills you during a gigantic battle? Drugged up supervillain breaks your spine? Not sure I see that as something I might have to deal with.

Sexual assault is a common enough real fear that it probably shouldn't be the stuff of comics that traditionally present fantastical situations for a younger audience. Throw some giant space monsters in there. Maybe a robot that shoots lasers out its nose. Everybody can enjoy that.

Also, as an addendum, it is worth remembering that even Alan Moore doesn't like The Killing Joke, and that it was never intended to be canon (because it is heavily implied that the Joker is killed at the end, which of course he isn't if it is canon). It is also one of the worst examples of fridging you'll ever find, barring the one with the actual fridge. If DC wants to celebrate 75 years of Joker, probably would be well advised to step around that particular story.

People also get murdered, assaulted, robbed, threatened. In fact men are more likely to be the victim of all violent crime other than rape and DV and with DV women commit about 45% of DV. Men are 5 times more likely to die on the job, die more from chronic illness and die much more from war and combat. So if anyone should be scared its men. The cover in no way implies rape.

"What real fears do the big comics bring into play for their male characters? Monster kills you during a gigantic battle? Drugged up supervillain breaks your spine? Not sure I see that as something I might have to deal with."

Women are not commonly raped in comics and comparing real world events to comic book violence is a fallacy. And who by far is beaten and killed in comics? Men.

[Dogfish]

People also get murdered, assaulted, robbed, threatened. In fact men are more likely to be the victim of all violent crime other than rape and DV and with DV women commit about 45% of DV. Men are 5 times more likely to die on the job, die more from chronic illness and die much more from war and combat. So if anyone should be scared its men. The cover in no way implies rape.

"What real fears do the big comics bring into play for their male characters? Monster kills you during a gigantic battle? Drugged up supervillain breaks your spine? Not sure I see that as something I might have to deal with."

Women are not commonly raped in comics and comparing real world events to comic book violence is a fallacy. And who by far is beaten and killed in comics? Men.

Of course the cover implies rape. Not sure they could fit much more phallic imagery in there if they tried. Maybe have the silhouette of a hot dog van off in the background? If there's (somehow) no rape implied it's just the Joker with a gun, so why would Batgirl be crying? She doesn't have any fear of armed men by the normal run of things. It's clear there's something else going on in the picture.

Bear in mind, we're talking about art here. When you say something in art, you don't write it down in big fat letters. Everything is implied to a greater or lesser extent. And the extent to which rape is implicit in that image is just, well, damn.

As to comparing the problems of men to those of women, that stuff is complicated, and there's a lot to it, I'm going to have to err on the side of agreeing to disagree. You're going to have to figure out the problems of women in a patriarchal society for yourself because I don't have time to explain it all.

[Mr. X]

People also get murdered, assaulted, robbed, threatened. In fact men are more likely to be the victim of all violent crime other than rape and DV and with DV women commit about 45% of DV. Men are 5 times more likely to die on the job, die more from chronic illness and die much more from war and combat. So if anyone should be scared its men. The cover in no way implies rape.

"What real fears do the big comics bring into play for their male characters? Monster kills you during a gigantic battle? Drugged up supervillain breaks your spine? Not sure I see that as something I might have to deal with."

Women are not commonly raped in comics and comparing real world events to comic book violence is a fallacy. And who by far is beaten and killed in comics? Men.

Of course the cover implies rape. Not sure they could fit much more phallic imagery in there if they tried. Maybe have the silhouette of a hot dog van off in the background? If there's (somehow) no rape implied it's just the Joker with a gun, so why would Batgirl be crying? She doesn't have any fear of armed men by the normal run of things. It's clear there's something else going on in the picture.

Bear in mind, we're talking about art here. When you say something in art, you don't write it down in big fat letters. Everything is implied to a greater or lesser extent. And the extent to which rape is implicit in that image is just, well, damn.

As to comparing the problems of men to those of women, that stuff is complicated, and there's a lot to it, I'm going to have to err on the side of agreeing to disagree. You're going to have to figure out the problems of women in a patriarchal society for yourself because I don't have time to explain it all.

No it does not imply rape. How? It implies threat. If that were Robin instead of Batgirl would that imply rape? Its the Joker. Anyone would be scared.

Blocking this is the sexism of lowered expectations. Someone said the title is a fluffy kid's title. Ok I can see blocking this because of that but to say this somehow implies rape is absurd.

[Dogfish]

No it does not imply rape. How? It implies threat. If that were Robin instead of Batgirl would that imply rape? Its the Joker. Anyone would be scared.

Blocking this is the sexism of lowered expectations. Someone said the title is a fluffy kid's title. Ok I can see blocking this because of that but to say this somehow implies rape is absurd.

I think if it was exactly the same kind of pose, with Robin in it, crying, yeah it'd still imply something more than simple fear. Don't forget this is also a reference to a story where Batgirl is sexually assaulted by Joker. So if Robin was bent over and fucked up the arse by the Joker in a story, and then this cover appeared, then yeah, I'd say the rape implication would be as strong as it is here.

Also, and perhaps most importantly, it's an image from a Batman story where Batgirl is just thrown in as an aside. It's the low point of the entire characters existence, not in the story so much as in the creative journey for the character. There's a famous conversation between Alan Moore and Len Wein (editor at DC for the project) where Moore asked about whether it was okay to have Joker do permanent damage to Batgirl, and the response was, "Yeah, okay, cripple the bitch"

So this is not just a call-back to a story that ended badly for the character, but an era when even the creators of the character couldn't give a lesser fuck about her. Moore's story threw her under the bus to add weight and shock value because he couldn't find a way to create these things on his own (and he freely admits himself to such flaws with the work).

The fact that Batgirl is now a thriving title in its own right is a very eloquent 'Fuck you' to that era, and I don't think the current writers and artists ought to feel compelled to pay homage to that it. It was bad enough the character had to be disabled for as long as she was. Batman walked off a broken spine in about five minutes and Superman was dead for what three months?

[Disciple]

"Fun" fact: I think that Frank Miller originally meant for Jason Todd to have been raped by the Joker in The Dark Knight Returns, only for DC to nix that at the last minute.

[4havokk]

If true, I be guessing if DC ran with that idea and it was a rebooted Jason Todd in the pic there would be no out cry. (Sad to say)

[theScribbler]

Interesting Rorshach test.

I see Joker smearing ketchup on batgirl's face and she's white with fear cause she's allergic. Also might be some onion in the ketchup. She kind of looks like Scully in the batsuit, but that could be cause I've been catching up on X-Files on Netflix.

I don't see the implied rape bit. I do see the implied...wait, is that Mulder dressed up as Joker. Are they at a costume party?!

[Mr. X]

No it does not imply rape. How? It implies threat. If that were Robin instead of Batgirl would that imply rape? Its the Joker. Anyone would be scared.

Blocking this is the sexism of lowered expectations. Someone said the title is a fluffy kid's title. Ok I can see blocking this because of that but to say this somehow implies rape is absurd.

I think if it was exactly the same kind of pose, with Robin in it, crying, yeah it'd still imply something more than simple fear. Don't forget this is also a reference to a story where Batgirl is sexually assaulted by Joker. So if Robin was bent over and fucked up the arse by the Joker in a story, and then this cover appeared, then yeah, I'd say the rape implication would be as strong as it is here.

Also, and perhaps most importantly, it's an image from a Batman story where Batgirl is just thrown in as an aside. It's the low point of the entire characters existence, not in the story so much as in the creative journey for the character. There's a famous conversation between Alan Moore and Len Wein (editor at DC for the project) where Moore asked about whether it was okay to have Joker do permanent damage to Batgirl, and the response was, "Yeah, okay, cripple the bitch"

So this is not just a call-back to a story that ended badly for the character, but an era when even the creators of the character couldn't give a lesser fuck about her. Moore's story threw her under the bus to add weight and shock value because he couldn't find a way to create these things on his own (and he freely admits himself to such flaws with the work).

The fact that Batgirl is now a thriving title in its own right is a very eloquent 'Fuck you' to that era, and I don't think the current writers and artists ought to feel compelled to pay homage to that it. It was bad enough the character had to be disabled for as long as she was. Batman walked off a broken spine in about five minutes and Superman was dead for what three months?

You read WAY too much into that cover.

[superheroinebabes]

I think it fits for the subject matter in context with the comic.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102520004

HERE YOU GO! THE REAL THING!

[Mr. X]

Pie!

[Heroine Addict]

It will be interesting to see how the "Batgirl of Burnside" comics tackle the issue of the Joker and what he did? It's got to happen eventually.

[Disciple]

Forget it. Writer Cameron Stewart even said he had no plans for the Joker to appear. Ever.

[Heroine Addict]

Forget it. Writer Cameron Stewart even said he had no plans for the Joker to appear. Ever.

Which kind of relegates Batgirl to a separate kiddieverse, having safe little adventures with incompetent comedy villains who can be defeated by a smartphone app.

Some of the issues are quite funny, though. Such as the sexualized and ultra feminine imposter Batgirl who turned out to be transgender. That attempt at trolling the fanboys backfired spectacularly when the creators were accused of transphobia.

This book really needs to strike a balance. We've gone from an angstfest with Batgirl bruised and bleeding in every issue to some sort of funny book about an invincible party girl.

[Disciple]

Can we just split the difference here and say that both Simone's and Stewart's runs were equally terrible in different ways?

Look, I usually get very mixed results with Gail Simone's work anyhow, but her Batgirl run approached the nadir. The dialogue was off-key, the Joker callbacks got tedious (and I disliked her retcon that one of the Joker's men had called in the attack), and the entire thing was so drenched in misery and hopelessness that I was honestly wondering what woman in her right mind would keep on being Batgirl.

And Simone's new take on the Ventriloquist was aggressively stupid.