Batwoman Revealed! *spoilers*

[Paploo the Ewok]

DC slipped her into the last few pages of Infinite Crisis.
Who is this Batwoman?

http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71980

Newsarama lets us know :) The costume, designed by Alex Ross, is nice, a mix of Batgirl's costume, the Mystery of Batwoman movie costume, and Batman Beyond's costume, with a mask modeled after the original Batwoman's.
http://www.newsarama.com/dcnew/52/Batwoman.htm

[Huzzah!]

I dont get the big deal with her being gay.

With Wonderwoman and batman doesnt DC have enough Gay pillars :D . They should make her a polygamist. Thats real hot right now

[Azrael52]

The real story here is the Chinese chick that can give birth to an army every few days. Wouldn't you want that on our side?

[Night Swordsman]

Actually,if you read further down the article,in the reader posts,you will see that LITG actually got it RIGHT,back in Dec 2005 about Batwoman.

The NYT just released it as a fact,thou,not a rumor...


And frankly,i could care less. I have friends who are gay,straight,bi and chaste,and to think who a person has sex with is a reason to buy this comic is missing the point. Its not a PORN comic. Its NOT about sex. The CHARACTER has to be interesting,and from the horrible discription,this Batwoman is fighting a uphil battle already.

On the other hand,i am glad i have given Blue Beetle a chance. Its kinda interesting,and not a total waste of paper. At the very least,it has its moments and entertains.

On the bright side,i did like the costume.

[Huzzah!]

We need a polygamist superhero


Gail. Get on that

[TCJohnson]

You mean besides Aresnal and Nightwing?

[Corrina]

"Batwoman is a wealthy, buxom lipstick lesbian who has a history with Renee Montoya, an ex-police detective."

Know why I hate this description? It tells me *nothing* about her personality.

It tells me her gender preference, that being a lipstick lesbian means she's pretty, and she has big knockers.

How the hell am I supposed to know anything about the character with that? The only hint is that she's wealthy, which tells me she has the means to do the superhero thing. It tells me next to nothing about motivation or background or nothing.

:sigh:

Somehow I don't remember the new Blue Beetle being introduced as "he's a studly guy with a big penis who has a history with X character." I seem to recall some discussion about how he finds the scarab and has to learn to accept it...etc. You know, stuff that told me what his personality might be like.

But I guess all I need to know is that she dresses nice, is wealthy and has big books and loves to kiss girls. Aside from being a lesbian, which probably hints to troubles with discrimination but not necessarily because maybe Kathy's just fine with being a lesbian. I suppose I could extrapolate a hint that Renee inspires her...but that's reaching for straws.

Gail, I'm not dissing your involvement in this. What I'm annoyed with is that an official DC spokesman thinks this description is how to get people interested in the character. "Look fanboys! A hot big-breasted lesbian who will probably have sex in these pages!!"

Now I love Renee, and Holly & Karon in "Catwoman" but their gender preferences are part of who they are, not the whole person. I'd object if a description of Nightwing started out with "an active heterosexual with the most awesome abs and he's wealthy." That's true but the character is so much more than his sex life.

[Magneto_X]

Not suprised.

Kathy Kane was revealed to be Batwoman in the future via "Titans Tomorrow" arc in Teen Titans last year.

The only changes are that she's in a different costume and now she's a lesbian.

[TCJohnson]

"Batwoman is a wealthy, buxom lipstick lesbian who has a history with Renee Montoya, an ex-police detective."

Know why I hate this description? It tells me *nothing* about her personality.

It tells me her gender preference, that being a lipstick lesbian means she's pretty, and she has big knockers.

To be fair, though, the point of the article was that comic book characters were becoming more diversified. The article was not interested in the characters or the stories but that there were more hyspanic and gay characters in comics. Describing who Batwoman is is outside of the scope of the NYT article which is aimed at non-comic book readers.

[TCJohnson]

Not suprised.

Kathy Kane was revealed to be Batwoman in the future via "Titans Tomorrow" arc in Teen Titans last year.

The only changes are that she's in a different costume and now she's a lesbian.


Actually, that was Bette Kane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamebird#Bette_Kane)that was Batwoman in the Titans Tomorrow book. Kathy Kane has not appeared in the DCU since COIE except in elsewhere Elseworld bookse.

[Charles RB]

How the hell am I supposed to know anything about the character with that?

You already know the most important thing about her - she's Batwoman and Renee isn't, which is Wrong.

What I'm annoyed with is that an official DC spokesman thinks this description is how to get people interested in the character. "Look fanboys! A hot big-breasted lesbian who will probably have sex in these pages!!"

But I already have the Internet...

[TCJohnson]

You already know the most important thing about her - she's Batwoman and Renee isn't, which is Wrong.


Actually, I am happy about this. If Ronee becomes any type of super hero I will be disappointed.

[ElvisGuy]

who cares if shes a Lesbian or not,what I want to know is..is she related to Bette?!! Imagine how pissed Bette would be after years tryin to get respect as a super hero when a realitive gets to suddenly take the "Bat" name and she doesnt !

[stealthwise]

Actually, I am happy about this. If Ronee becomes any type of super hero I will be disappointed.

Well... aren't they going to keep it a secret who dies at the end of 52? Having Renee become Batwoman would probably ruin that, at least partially.

[Lester C.]

As a minority I appreciate the fact that DC is giving their characters more diversity. However as noble as their intentions are they are promoting the character the wrong way. Shiva isn't long enduring character because she is Asian but rather because of how that character has been developed. Also fan's tend to reject minorities in place of traditionally white characters and I think John Stewart is a great example of this. Finally creating a token minority character doesn't work in the bat books as I'm probably the only one that remembers Galvin King.

[kingdom2000]

With the Superboy punch changes, I seriousily doubt the future teen titans is canon, and even if it was, 10 years in DC time would be long after any of us and our children have passed from this earth (assuming comics last that long which I am doubting).

[kingdom2000]

As a minority I appreciate the fact that DC is giving their characters more diversity. However as noble as their intentions are they are promoting the character the wrong way. Shiva isn't long enduring character because she is Asian but rather because of how that character has been developed. Also fan's tend to reject minorities in place of traditionally white characters and I think John Stewart is a great example of this. Finally creating a token minority character doesn't work in the bat books as I'm probably the only one that remembers Galvin King.

Whats wrong with John Stewart? I liked how he was done in JLU. In mainstream DCU though, frankly he is the least likable GL personality wise, I don't think white has anything to do with it. Personally, I can't stand Gardner and was really really hoping that he was going to bite it in Infinite Crisis but gave up on that once realized IC was about clearing out z-tier characters and character whose copyright is in dispute.

[Huzzah!]

Hal doesnt care about the black skins. Screw him.



Anyway i was thinking...polygamist superhero....lets go the next step

A lesbian polygamist superhero

Excelsior!

[Red Jack]

As long as she's not Barbara, I'm cool.

[Huzzah!]

she could be one of her wives

[Paploo the Ewok]

We need a polygamist superhero


Gail. Get on that


Hasn't Marvel had Cyclops for YEARS? ^_^

[Crowley]

my only dissapoint here is that Cassie Cain isn't Batwoman... or Barbara.

beyond that I dig the name and love the design of the costume.

[Kyuubi]

I was almost sure Renee would be Batwoman.




Oh well, maybe she'll be Batwoman's girlfriend...




With Gail writing the book...




and Joe Bennett drawing it...




Whoa, I'm getting into Sonic territory here, better stop.

[Azrael52]

To be fair, though, the point of the article was that comic book characters were becoming more diversified. The article was not interested in the characters or the stories but that there were more hyspanic and gay characters in comics. Describing who Batwoman is is outside of the scope of the NYT article which is aimed at non-comic book readers.

Good point.

[Azrael52]

Update: Hey! I just reread the article, and I couldn't find any mention of Yogo getting Shot in BoP! I can't freakin' believe the NYT would overlook something like that!


This. is. an. OUTRAGE!

Heh.

[the4thpip]

I wonder if she'll be Flamebird's "Aunt Kathy" whom she mentioned...um... I think in the Beastboy mini from the 90s.

[d newton]

Okay, I read the article and I'm wondering how she came back?

[the4thpip]

Okay, I read the article and I'm wondering how she came back?
From where?

Post-Crisis, there never was a Batwoman who was killed by the League of Assassins.

[TCJohnson]

Actually, post crisis they still talk about Kathy Kane being killed by the Bronze Tiger. It was just that this Kathy Kane was never Batwoman.

Superboy Continuity Punch Ho!!!

[Drumore]

I was almost sure Renee would be Batwoman.

I originally thought so too, but rumor has it she'll be taking on another heroic identity, the question is who...

[PatrickG]

who cares if shes a Lesbian or not,what I want to know is..is she related to Bette?!! Imagine how pissed Bette would be after years tryin to get respect as a super hero when a realitive gets to suddenly take the "Bat" name and she doesnt !

I have a feeling Bette might get her "Bat-Girl" career back on the new earth, given that the trend is discarded continuity being reincorporated.

Heck... Forget about Kathy. I'd be fine if she bites the bullet at the end of 52 but if the Batgirl name is vacant, I'd like Bette to get the next shot at it.

Barbara's moved on. Cassandra is in her own territory, which isn't terribly Bat-centric.

Let Bette reclaim the identity.

[PatrickG]

I originally thought so too, but rumor has it she'll be taking on another heroic identity, the question is who...

So who she's going to be is the Question...?

[the4thpip]

Actually, post crisis they still talk about Kathy Kane being killed by the Bronze Tiger. It was just that this Kathy Kane was never Batwoman.

Superboy Continuity Punch Ho!!!
So if this one isn't Bette's aunt (who was still alive in the Beast Boy mini), then we have three Kathy Kanes?
Any of them related to Bob?

[Huzzah!]

Hasn't Marvel had Cyclops for YEARS? ^_^

Nah. Since Jean and Maddie Pryor are clones, i think one could make an arguement that that was just the one marriage.

Lesbian Polygamist.

Comics needs my brilliance so bad

[the4thpip]

How about Bouncing Boy?

[Sabrinaset]

Well, let's see...the truly iconic super-heroes can easily be described in one sentence, and anything that happens to them logically flows from that same sentence.

"Last survivor of a doomed planet, raised by an ordinary couple to believe in traditional values, fights a never-ending battle for truth, justice, and the American way."

"Parents shot in front of him while still a child, millionaire trains hard to become an avenging angel of the night."

"Bit by a radioactive spider, allowing a criminal to run past him during a moment of greed leads to his beloved uncle getting killed, now fights crime out of a sense of guilt and responsibility."

"Scientist blasted by gamma-rays from his own creation, now on the run from the authorites and fighting his own fractured ego(s) unleashed as the strongest - and most dangerous- man-monster alive."

and now we can add to that...

"She is a wealthy, buxom lipstick lesbian who has a history with Renee Montoya, an ex-police detective."

I'm not sure DC is doing us any favors here.

[Huzzah!]

i wonder if a villain will ever call her a batty broad?

[NickThompson]

What exactly is a lipstick lesbian?

[sk716]

IC was all about eliminating 3rd and 4th tier characters, right?

Then, they bring in Kathy Kane as Batwoman. Hello! Did somebody miss a memo?

I could have bought Selina becoming Batwoman, I could have gone along with Renee Montoya as Batwoman (she does after all have plenty of motivation now), I could have accepted Cass as Batwoman, or Helena, or even Shiva, but Kathy Kane as an all new character? Blah.

[sk716]

What exactly is a lipstick lesbian?

Lipstick refers to the feminity of a lesbian. A lipstick lesbian is a very girly type.





...And the Holy Grail of Lesbians.

[NickThompson]

Ahhhhhh.



One other thing. Heels? Seriously? :)

[TCJohnson]

What exactly is a lipstick lesbian?


A lipstick lesbian is a more feminine looking lesbian who likes other feminine looking lesbians, as opposed to more masculine lesbians or feminine lesbians who prefer masculine lesbians.

[the4thpip]

What exactly is a lipstick lesbian?
The cliché is that lesbians have mullets and wear flannel shirts but no make-up. Those who don't look like that are sometimes called "lipstick lesbians."

[Charles RB]

What exactly is a lipstick lesbian?

Some term invented by crappy magazines, I think.

[JeffreyWKramer]

"She is a wealthy, buxom lipstick lesbian who has a history with Renee Montoya, an ex-police detective."

I'm not sure DC is doing us any favors here.


Maybe she'll use her large breasts to batter or smother opponents into submission. That would give her a unique crime-fighting motif, at least.

[TCJohnson]

A lipstick lesbian is a slang term for a feminine homosexual woman who is attracted to another feminine woman, rather than a lesbian who is attracted to a more masculine woman, such as in a "butch and femme"-type relationship. The term is thought to have emerged in the early 1990s.

In American films, lesbians are often portrayed according to the lipstick lesbian stereotype, to be both politically safer and more sexually attractive to male viewers. A good example is Showtime's television series The L Word, which presents most of its major lesbian characters in this way.

The term has also been reinterpreted as a derogatory reference to feigned lesbianism - as easy as lipstick to add or remove. (It is derogatory because most people who experience same-sex attraction would be offended at the notion that it is "chosen".)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipstick_lesbian

[JeffreyWKramer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipstick_lesbian


Geez, Wiki has entries for everything, doesn't it?

Edit. Apparently it really does. Consider this entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belly_button_lint

[the4thpip]

Ahhhhhh.



One other thing. Heels? Seriously? :)
Remember that Batman keeps little welding torches in his mask's ears that have helped him out of many a tight spot?

It's where she keeps the bat-lipstick.

[Tom]

I'm completely underwhelmed by this announcement. I just don't think we needed to add yet another member to the Batfamily when there are perfectly good existing candidates to fill the high-heeled red boots. I was even coming around to the idea of it being Babs.

And both Batwoman and Catwoman are lesbians? Isn't that a little...I don't know, repetitive?

[Huzzah!]

i thought catwoman was just a former prostitute.

[the4thpip]

Yeah... Didn't Catwoman go on and on about her crush on Tom Cruise?

No wait, that was Rosie O'Donnel!

[JeffreyWKramer]

Remember that Batman keeps little welding torches in his mask's ears that have helped him out of many a tight spot?

It's where she keeps the bat-lipstick.
But where does she keep the bat-dildos?

[JeffreyWKramer]

i thought catwoman was just a former prostitute.

The current, acting Catwoman is not Selina Kyle, but rather her friend, Holly, who is a lesbian.

At least, that's the news I got from those who actually read the book.

[yeoman]

But where does she keep the bat-dildos?


Is it wrong that I thought the same thing? But at least I wasn't gonna say it. :)

[JeffreyWKramer]

Is it wrong that I thought the same thing?

Given how sensationalist this hype is about her being a lesbian - seems the news is generated to titillate - it seems a pretty natural thought.

Or maybe you and me just think too much about lesbians and dildos.

[Red Jack]

I wouldn't describe IC as being about elimination of characters. Not many actually died and a good portion of those who did were in limbo before appearing in IC.

My interpretation of IC is that it was about eliminating the battle lines that had been drawn between Silver Agers and Grownups, allowing more freedom for the creators and less teeth grinding from those who like their Batman psychotic vs those who miss the Batusi. All that really changed was the internal motivations of many (but not all) of the characters involved. Externally very little is different.

(DCU John Stewart is crappy because he's almost always been written to be crappy. DCAU John Stewart is gold because the people writing him actually gave a damn about him. What a difference a day, or in this case, the venue, makes.)

The Batwoman will be as good or as crappy as the writer makes her. Her origin story is essentially meaningless. Man-Thing and Swamp Thing have basically the same origin. One is crap, the other stellar.

Batwoman's lesbianism, lipstick or otherwise, to me, is equally meaningless unless the thrust of the comic is for her to confront a secret global cabal of gaybashers month after month. I wouldn't want to read that any more than I would want the Black Panther to be constantly butting heads witht the KKK.

At the end of the day, it's all in the telling.

[Tom]

People are reacting to the "lipstick lesbian" line as if it's some sort official description from DC. It's not. It's how the writer of the article described her.

[TCJohnson]

People are reacting to the "lipstick lesbian" line as if it's some sort official description from DC. It's not. It's how the writer of the article described her.


That is what I was saying before. The NYT article was aimed at people who like to keep up with popular culture, not at people who actually want to read the stories.

[TCJohnson]

Here is something aimed at Comic Book fans: http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72016


I just had a horrible thought...what if Kathy Kane dies at the end of 52 and Ronee Montoya picks up the mantle. Or what's worth...Ronee Montoya becomes Batgirl?

[sk716]

Here is something aimed at Comic Book fans: http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72016


I just had a horrible thought...what if Kathy Kane dies at the end of 52 and Ronee Montoya picks up the mantle. Or what's worth...Ronee Montoya becomes Batgirl?

Renee is too old to be Batgirl.

[Charles RB]

In American films, lesbians are often portrayed according to the lipstick lesbian stereotype, to be both politically safer and more sexually attractive to male viewers. A good example is Showtime's television series The L Word, which presents most of its major lesbian characters in this way.


I'm still disappointed The L Word wasn't about lampreys.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I'm still disappointed The L Word wasn't about lampreys.


Okay, that one got me laughing out loud. I thank you, Charles. A hearty laugh is always a good thing.

That certainly would have been a much different show.

[Indefatigable]

There's an interview with Didio on Newsrama that says a little more: http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72016

Though I think it pretty much still just says, "Hey guys, she's a lesbian!!!!!"

[sk716]

There's an interview with Didio on Newsrama that says a little more: http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72016

Though I think it pretty much still just says, "Hey guys, she's a lesbian!!!!!"


*sigh

.............

[Sabrinaset]

Maybe she'll use her large breasts to batter or smother opponents into submission. That would give her a unique crime-fighting motif, at least.

Sort of like a Dr. Octopus, except that instead of four mechanical arms, she uses two buxom boobs? Well, I wouldn't put it past DC Nation!

Okay. My g/f and I discussed this, and the consensus is this: I'll buy the first issue, we'll ogle the pretty pictures, find the story completely wretched and pandering to a fanboy audience that loves seeing two women together, and then drop the title faster than Joel Schumacher can slap nipples on a Batsuit.

[Huzzah!]

heres what i would do

nay, will do

when im a comic book scribe,and get a good editor to fix all my spelling and grammatical errors

have a lesbian duo, but, and here is the twist, not show them being intimate in any way and rather focus on the fact that they are two people in a relationship.

I decided the polygamy angle works better with a wife of a guy with multiple wives is a super hero.

And here is the fun bit. He knows its one of his wives who has the powers, but not sure which. Its like those classic superman stories

fun times

[Steel Spider]

Maybe she'll use her large breasts to batter or smother opponents into submission. That would give her a unique crime-fighting motif, at least.

Maybe Batwoman and Power Girl could team up and smother opponents together. Hey, I'd buy it :D

[Brack360]

The current, acting Catwoman is not Selina Kyle, but rather her friend, Holly, who is a lesbian.

At least, that's the news I got from those who actually read the book.

The current Catwoman is almost certainly just a temporary replacement. I expect Selina to be back as Catwoman in a matter of months. With that in mind, I don't think the new Batwoman is redundant.

[Huzzah!]

not redundant at least in lesbian standards


far too many bat orphans around for my taste

[Corrina]

What I'm disappointed in is that Gail isn't writing the new Batwoman. (She said so on the Dixonverse board.)

That's depressing. I was interested in the new character, simply because I have a weak sentimental spot for Kathy Kane and wanted to see what an update of her would be like. But given Batwoman's connection to Renee Montoya, I suspect the writer will be Greg Rucka and I don't tend to like most of his work since "No Man's Land," though I liked some of his stories with Brubaker on Gotham Central. He tends to take a very dark view of humanity and life and I find his work intensely depressing and without any sort of real cartharsis. Also, I have trouble with his plotting.

:sigh:

[JeffreyWKramer]

There's an interview with Didio on Newsrama that says a little more: http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72016

Though I think it pretty much still just says, "Hey guys, she's a lesbian!!!!!"


Pretty much. He goes on about how she will have a strong personality and a different take on things, but doesn't provide even a hint about what she will actually be like, other than rich and a lesbian. So, it does seem that once again the gay character will be defined by his or her sexual orientation. Nobody every characterized Superman as "this hetero guy from another planet with amazing powers who fights for truth, justice and the American way", or Spider-Man as "the everyman heterosexual who embodies the concept that with great power comes great responsibility."

I'll give the character a chance, but the fact that this is a) just yet another Bat-spinoff and b) the hype is focused around her sexual orientation, I'm not really expecting a lot.

[malephoenix]

I'm still disappointed The L Word wasn't about lampreys.

:confused:
What have I been watching?

[Cam63]

I think a beer drinking, non political, all swearing Australian should be the new Batwoman.

Or she could be nice.

[geordiesteve]

Oh dear, I read Didio's interview as well. Oh dear, is all I can say.

It mentioned Bruce and Kathy knew each other from previous socialite encounters, I swear if this turns into Chasing Amy, and Bruce turns her from gay to straight with his manly powers and muscular Bat-suit, it truly will be fantasy and I will scream.

Lipstick Lesbian. I feel this is like the whole Marvel gay cowboy book (name escapes me) all over again, where they made it a mature book because he was gay. Joe Q came in for a lot of flack over that one.

Why couldn't we just be told a bit about her personality, her motives and drives, and find out in due course she was gay?

[Nate Grey]

I'm really finding no reason to care about this character based on those links. Those stories better be damn good when they come out.

[The Xenos]

I just relaized something reading a certain book today. There already is a lesbian headlining a popular Bat-book. Hollie took over the reigns of Catwoman for Selina. Yet I don't see any press or New York Times articles on that? No, DC had to go an invent something new instead of promoting what they already have. Ugh.

Of course, I didn't realize it sooner because I rather didn't label Holly and her partner Karon with a giant honking L word. I just thought of them as the characters they are.

Also, why the &*%$ not just have Montoya get back on her feet and headline a new version of Gotham Central, maybe focusing on her. You not only have a lesbian headlining a book, which DC seems to want, but you also have a non-superhero comic. There, taking on two stigmas at once. Gotham Central was a damn good book and I think it could have done wonders for the entire industry if DC pushed if like they're pushing this new Batwoman.

No, DC had to invent a new freaking character and shove her into the universe with a crapload of fanfare, screwing over (or at least majorly ignoring the protantial of) a bunch of excelelnt characters who were already there.

[Yoda]

Also, why the &*%$ not just have Montoya get back on her feet and headline a new version of Gotham Central, maybe focusing on her. You not only have a lesbian headlining a book, which DC seems to want, but you also have a non-superhero comic. There, taking on two stigmas at once. Gotham Central was a damn good book and I think it could have done wonders for the entire industry if DC pushed if like they're pushing this new Batwoman.

No, DC had to invent a new freaking character and shove her into the universe with a crapload of fanfare, screwing over (or at least majorly ignoring the protantial of) a bunch of excelelnt characters who were already there.

Gotham Central was (rightfully) considered to be the baby of Rucka and Brubaker. And with Bru exclusive to Marvel, DC asked Rucka if he wanted to keep it going and Rucka felt that they shouldn't once he wrapped up the storylines of his "shift" which he did in the last arc.

All in all, it went out on a high note, and i don't know of anyone else besides those two who could have put out that book with anywhere near the quality it had. Sometimes it's better to have it end too soon. So it wasn't a matter of pushing something else in place of GC.

[Forsaken_One]

Yeah, I too have absolutely no interest in reading Batwoman after reading all that on her. Maybe something else about her can catch my interest but I have no real interest in supporting a book simply because it has a gay main character. Yes yes, it's all well and good that comics are becoming more diverse I suppose. But I don't feel obligated to buy them. I get the new BB because it's a good book, not because the main character's latino.

But what the hell do I know, I also don't like the artwork of Jim Lee or Rob Liefeld and am not particuarly enamored of Loeb's writings. Not exactly majority opinions. :p

[geordiesteve]

Yeah, I too have absolutely no interest in reading Batwoman after reading all that on her. Maybe something else about her can catch my interest but I have no real interest in supporting a book simply because it has a gay main character. Yes yes, it's all well and good that comics are becoming more diverse I suppose. But I don't feel obligated to buy them. I get the new BB because it's a good book, not because the main character's latino.

But what the hell do I know, I also don't like the artwork of Jim Lee or Rob Liefeld and am not particuarly enamored of Loeb's writings. Not exactly majority opinions. :p

You're right, apart from the Lee and Loeb thing!!! :) Although after Loeb's recent activity on Supergirl and the latter part of Superman/Batman, I might be more inclined to agree with you. What a total and utter waste. When does he come off Supergirl book and Rucka come on it??

[the4thpip]

You're right, apart from the Lee and Loeb thing!!! :) Although after Loeb's recent activity on Supergirl and the latter part of Superman/Batman, I might be more inclined to agree with you. What a total and utter waste. When does he come off Supergirl book and Rucka come on it??
Rucka didn't have time to do the book, so it's gonna be Joe Kelly now. And I think the recently solicited issue already had him as the writer.

[Crowley]

i really wish it was simply One Year Later: Cassandra Cain is 18... time for a new costume and to become Batwoman.

That's all that needed to be done.

Love the costume... meh to everything else.

[Nate Grey]

i really wish it was simply One Year Later: Cassandra Cain is 18... time for a new costume and to become Batwoman.

That's all that needed to be done.

Love the costume... meh to everything else.

Agree with this 100%.

[The Xenos]

Hell, I could almost see Cassandra experimenting with a lesbian relationship if DC really wanted that.

Though, again, there already are interesting lesbians and lesbian couples in the Batbooks, why not focus on those? I just don't get it.

[geordiesteve]

Look up there, on the roof, it's Bat-Lesbian!!!!

I'm sorry, but its being politically correct for the sake of it, just like making Pete Ross black in Smallville, when the character was white, and they're in the middle of Kansas.

What would have been more interesting would have been a grown up Cassandra as people mentioned OR, the road to redemption, a former drunk police officer quits the force, dissatisfied with how things are run, gets herself back on her feet, goes in for some training with some of the right people, and then puts her detective skills to work as Batwoman. The temptation of the bottle would always be there, we get a real look at what it means to be an alcoholic and how it is a sickness, and how seriously it affects someone, oh and by the by, the former police officer also happened to be a lesbian, but that's the least important part of her character.

[the4thpip]

http://www.newsarama.com/dcnew/52/Batwoman/batwoman2.jpg

http://www.newsarama.com/dcnew/52/Batwoman/batwoman.jpg

http://www.newsarama.com/dcnew/52/Batwoman/preview.html

[Red Jack]

There is no such thing as "a" lesbian.

Here's a thought: Let the book actually come out, read it, and THEN pass whatever judgements come to mind based on the experience. A novel approach, I agree, but worth a try, no? Just for a lark.

The art looks good. Isn't it at all possible that the writing will also sing? Why line up to dislike the meal before you've even had a bite?

[the4thpip]

It's definitely getting a lot of exposure.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_en_ot/batwoman_uncloseted;_ylt=Am.4KX0uiBNy8CJ4sh_wHy8Et bAF;_ylu=X3oDMTBhZDJjOXUyBHNlYwNtdm5ld3M-

AP article among the most viewed on yahoo.

[Forsaken_One]

Here's a thought: Let the book actually come out, read it, and THEN pass whatever judgements come to mind based on the experience. A novel approach, I agree, but worth a try, no? Just for a lark.
I don't read what people are saying, both here and elsewhere, as "Oh no, it's a gay character. I'm not reading it, it'll obviously just be cheesecake." I read it as "This particular media blitz hasn't made me any more interested in the character than before. If anything it's made me less interested as it's a brand new character rather than a redux of [i]and they seem to be focusing on the homosexual aspect a bit too heavily."

See the difference? They aren't passing judgement on the concept as a whole, they (and I) are judging the silly press releases screaming "big breasted lesbian!" and pointing out how that's not really going to make us start foaming at the mouth for this character to show up.

Besides which, if "read then decide" was actually the way of things I'd have no time to do anything but read sample chapters of books, watch TV all the time, and occasionally pick up a comic or two. If someone doesn't like superheros then they probably shouldn't pick up a Batman comic, there's no "read then decide" there. If someone didn't like Friends I wouldn't want them to go watch some spinoff. So if someone did, somewhere, actually look at the concept as we know it, see it's a new character, and look at the costume with disinterest I'd say they can quite easily skip it without reading it. That's kinda the point of previews and sneak peaks, to let you know what the character's like (and, from the publisher's point of view, hopefully get you interested rather than disinterested).

[geordiesteve]

There is no such thing as "a" lesbian.



What do you mean by that?

[geordiesteve]

I don't read what people are saying, both here and elsewhere, as "Oh no, it's a gay character. I'm not reading it, it'll obviously just be cheesecake." I read it as "This particular media blitz hasn't made me any more interested in the character than before. If anything it's made me less interested as it's a brand new character rather than a redux of [i]and they seem to be focusing on the homosexual aspect a bit too heavily."

See the difference? They aren't passing judgement on the concept as a whole, they (and I) are judging the silly press releases screaming "big breasted lesbian!" and pointing out how that's not really going to make us start foaming at the mouth for this character to show up.

Besides which, if "read then decide" was actually the way of things I'd have no time to do anything but read sample chapters of books, watch TV all the time, and occasionally pick up a comic or two. If someone doesn't like superheros then they probably shouldn't pick up a Batman comic, there's no "read then decide" there. If someone didn't like Friends I wouldn't want them to go watch some spinoff. So if someone did, somewhere, actually look at the concept as we know it, see it's a new character, and look at the costume with disinterest I'd say they can quite easily skip it without reading it. That's kinda the point of previews and sneak peaks, to let you know what the character's like (and, from the publisher's point of view, hopefully get you interested rather than disinterested).

I agree completely. She does look good, and the concept of a Batwoman to fill the void in his absence is a good one, but the artwork and great costume are not enough to make me want to go out and buy it, otherwise I would be reading the dire All Star Batman and Robin simply to look at the lovely pictures. It may be that the writing is fantastic, but so far all of the hype/ previews/ interviews etc have put me off rather than made me more interested, which was the purpose of them all in the first place, to attract new readers. The focus of all their marketing is on all the wrong things.

[the4thpip]

See the difference? They aren't passing judgement on the concept as a whole, they (and I) are judging the silly press releases screaming "big breasted lesbian!" and pointing out how that's not really going to make us start foaming at the mouth for this character to show up.


I think that "silly press release" has gotten a lot of mainstream media attention and will be good for the industry as a whole.

DiDio spent most of the morning fielding phone calls from media intrigued by the Batwoman reinvention.

"It's kind of weird," he said. "We had a feeling it would attract some attention, but we're a little surprised it did this much."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_en_ot/batwoman_uncloseted;_ylt=AsbcAluvkgT7J5oP2Zyv5BwDW 7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBhZDhxNDFzBHNlYwNtZW5ld3M-

And check how many stories a google news search for Batwoman (http://news.google.de/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=batwoman&btnG=Search+News) yields.

[Jmacq1]

Bullhockey.

Didio and Company knew -exactly- how much attention this was going to garner, and they're eating it up. It's free publicity and a virtual guarantee that the character's first appearance(s) will sell through quickly.

It's a win-win situation for DC comics: They recognize that they have a sizeable population of gay and lesbian readers, and also recognize that the stereotypical male sees the world "lesbian" and immediately equates it with "hot girl-on-girl action". They're playing to both segments of the fanbase.

As for helping the industry? It won't do diddly to help the industry. It'll do a lot to help Batwoman's first appearance sell out quickly, but after that it'll be a complete non-event. Just like the death of Robin II, or Superman. Or Mia Dearden having HIV (I recall that got a bit of media hoopla, too). I can't think of a single instance where comics got mainstream media attention that improved the health of the industry as a whole in the long run. Comics are still marginalized as "kids' stuff" no matter what, or worse yet, the province of the stereotypical "fanboy nerd" or the "sweaty 35 year old guy that lives in his mom's basement". It's a "geek niche" and quite frankly, even with mainstream movies, television shows, and the like, the comics themselves are likely never to transcend that.

All this will probably accomplish in the long run is a bunch of non-comic-readers believing that Barbara Gordon is a lesbian (because they won't know the difference between "Batgirl" and "Batwoman"), just like many of them still think Dick Grayson was the Robin that was killed. The fact that they decided to give Kathy reddish hair probably doesn't help much, either.

[the4thpip]

Sheesh, aren't you just a ray of sunshine?

[Red Jack]

What do you mean by that?


I mean that there's no such thing as "a" lesbian. Humans beings, therefore the fictional characters created by human beings, come in all shapes and sizes. The media are focusing on the lesbian aspect because it is UNUSUAL for comics and therefore interesting. Just as Superman's death was interesting and the various comic book marriages that have garnered non-geek attention.

This is a version of Kathy Kane so she's not "new." She's less new than Barry Allen was when he took over as the Flash. The only difference between her and the original that anyone here knows about for sure is that she's gay. That tells you NOTHING about her character. Only about who shares her bed.

By the criteria in use here, Tony Stark, Bruce Wayne, Forge, Reed Richards, Kyle Richmond and Ted Kord are all the same guy.

Nearly all female superheroes are drawn to be hypersexualized and to appeal to boys. Just as nearly all the heroes are drawn to be crazily muscled gonad-less steroid cases (though what boys that's supposed to appeal to I've never known).

That's not new info. Therefore not news. Therefore nothing to get one's nose out of joint over.

You can't make a teenaged girl into Batwoman anymore than you can make Tim Drake into Batman.

Wait for the book to actually show up. All I'm saying is, "Take a look at it. Then judge." Because then you'll have something on which to base that judgement.

If DC is promoting their new interest in diversity, I'm all for it.

It's about damned time.

[hellokittykat]

If DC really wanted to prove how 'politically sensitive' they've become, they would actually hire Lesbian writers (or even more women period) instead of having a straight man's interrpretation of what will titilate the immature reader into buying the title.

I was asked if I was miffed because I subconsciously wanted to relate to Kathy and I can't because she's gay. I told him no because my best friend is gay and I have one straight friend for every three gay/lesbian ones I have. I'm actually more miffed because I do relate to gay/lesbian people and if I was a lesbian I would be pissed that DC feels that being a lesbian is so radical that they have to announce it from the highest mountain instead of it being just a part of who she is.

And isn't it interesting that they chose a gay woman and not a gay man to announce as a new title. Because you know how long a gay man title would last? About zero seconds because Heaven forbid a guy pick up a book about a gay man! People might think he's...you know, gay too! :eek:

When DC announces the new Batman as a 'wealthy, well-endowed gay man who fights crime in tights' then I'll be impressed.

For the people like Gail, who's hearts are in the right place, please know that I'm not slamming you. I believe that there really are writers and artists who do want to change the homogenous DC universe for the right reasons. I'm irritated at the people who are attempting to generate sales under the guise of being 'progressive'.

And now I'm going to attempt to become unpissy.:o

[The Xenos]

I think Jmacq1 hit the nail on the head. Then again, I am a similar ray of sunshine too. (He said typing in a darkened room with cardboard blacking out sinlight from coming in the windows.)

I'm rather sic of comic companies, pretty much Marvel and DC, trying to get quick fixes of sales instead of honestly trying to spread the medium.

[Red Jack]

While I've long been a proponent of hiring somebody other than white males to write comics, I would never go so far as to say that BEING a white male precludes an ability to write human beings effectively, whatever their gender, skin color or sexual orientation.

Good writers write beleivable humans. Even in comics. You don't need to be a black man to write a good one and you don't need to be a gay woman to write a good one.

It was Chuck Dixon who gave us BOP, remember. Last I checked he was all man. And both his legs work. And he doesn't fight crime in his spare time (although he could be doing that. How would I know?).

Lesbians (hot ones) are more socially acceptable in modern America. Of course they will always be the first in the pool when a company hopes to expand prouct in that direction. Social change is done incrimentally (supposing that DC is interested in social change rather than sales, which I don't). The best way to "sell" homosexuality as a normal practice to the straight community is to show it as normal, even sexy. Straight men tend to be socialized not to ffind two males clinched up sexy. I've never met a woman who enjoys male/male displays of sex either. What is MOST acceptable to most is the sexualized FEMALE form. I'm not saying this is right or wrong. I'm saying that's the way it actually is.

So, of course, the first trumpeted gay hero in DC comics will be female. It's a no-brainer. The point is, if she's written and drawn well, she may stick around long enough to become part of the tapestry.

Logically, if a bunch of people buy this comic simply because of the "gay factor" the audience will expand because, just as logically, SOME of those people will stick around to read more. How many people HATED comics until they read SANDMAN? How many of them stuck around after?

This whole announcement is like clapping ones hands really loud next to a crowd and yelling "HEY! Look over here!"

Now, let's hope those handling Ms. Kane actually have something to show.

[yeoman]

I've never met a woman who enjoys male/male displays of sex either.

Admittedly far less common, but there are the Yaoi fangirls.

[Corrina]

And isn't it interesting that they chose a gay woman and not a gay man to announce as a new title. Because you know how long a gay man title would last? About zero seconds because Heaven forbid a guy pick up a book about a gay man! People might think he's...you know, gay too! :eek:


I've always maintained that a strong, straight woman is far more threatening to immature men or teenage boys than a lesbian, who tends to appeal to their baser instincts. And, unfortunately, a good chunk of the comic reading audience is like this.

I mean, look at all the appeals for the female characters of the mainstream superhero universe to get it on. Very, very rarely has any female character been developed on her own rather than as a girlfriend or adjunct of a guy. Black Canary is a very big exception from the Golden Age--and then she was shunted aside in the Silver Age as Green Arrow's girlfriend for a long time. When Green Lantern shared a book with GA, the book was GL/GA. When Canary did, it was GA.

Obviously, there are other exceptions. Marvel has done a nice job with Sue Storm and various members of the X-Men, Wolfman did a decent job on Teen Titans, and there's Manhunter and She-Hulk and Spider-Girl. But even the last two are developed off of male characters.

I think there's a damn good reason we're seeing a lot more lesbians in comics before we see more gay male characters. I bet lesbians are a far easier sell in the marketing department--there's basically little risk and lots of chances for sex appeal to an immature target audience.

edited to add:
Red Jack, if you're never met a woman who enjoys male/male sexual displays, you haven't met enough women. There's a HUGE female slash community on-line writing male/male stuff and the manga has already been mentioned. And I could also mention the joking comments from women on another list about Brokeback Mountain, comments which were incredibly pleased with the idea of the two cowboys getting it on.

[TCJohnson]

And isn't it interesting that they chose a gay woman and not a gay man to announce as a new title. Because you know how long a gay man title would last? About zero seconds because Heaven forbid a guy pick up a book about a gay man! People might think he's...you know, gay too! :eek:

At some point they will put out a limited series with Hulkling and Wiccan and I bet it would do moderately well.

[hellokittykat]

While I've long been a proponent of hiring somebody other than white males to write comics, I would never go so far as to say that BEING a white male precludes an ability to write human beings effectively, whatever their gender, skin color or sexual orientation.

Good writers write beleivable humans. Even in comics. You don't need to be a black man to write a good one and you don't need to be a gay woman to write a good one.



I'm not saying that only a Lesbian could write a convincing Lesbian character. I mean, I'm peeing my pants that Gail will be writing the new Atom and she's not an Asian man. I'm just pointing out that comics are still a predominently male business and it would be more impressive if they hired incredible women instead of just writing about them.

[Red Jack]

edited to add:
Red Jack, if you're never met a woman who enjoys male/male sexual displays, you haven't met enough woman. There's a HUGE female slash community on-line writing male/male stuff and the manga has already been mentioned. And I could also mention the joking comments from women on another list about Brokeback Mountain, comments which were incredibly pleased with the idea of the two cowboys getting it on.

I didn't say they didn't exist. Only that I'd never met any. As for getting out more...

Well. I had my fun for a long, long time, tricked/coerced/drugged/blackmailed the woman who consented to marry me into the crazed delirium that has become her life and haven't looked back.

By definition no slash community online can be described as huge. From a marketing standpoint I imagine such groups to be essentially non-existent.

Like the furry contingent.

[yeoman]

heres what i would do

nay, will do

when im a comic book scribe,and get a good editor to fix all my spelling and grammatical errors

have a lesbian duo, but, and here is the twist, not show them being intimate in any way and rather focus on the fact that they are two people in a relationship.


Had a similar idea myself recently. Just show the characters in a relationship. Just let it exist. Kinda how Shrinking Violet and Lightning Lass were handled in the post five year gap Legion.

[Jmacq1]

Heh, I didn't mean my post up there to sound as vitriolic as it came across upon later viewing.

But seriously, there have already been gay/lesbian characters in comics. Have been for quite a while now. It's just that because a character gets a "bat" in front of their name, it's suddenly CNN-worthy. Furthermore, the fact that people are talking about Batwoman like she's a huge part of the DC mythos only goes to show that most of these folks can't tell the difference between "girl" and "woman" when it comes to the Bats. Is Kathy Kane an old character? Yes, certainly she is. But there's a post I saw somewhere that basically breaks down every single appearance she had....and it amounts to "not many" in the grand scheme of things. Basically she was obscure enough (and had been absent enough in recent years) to many modern readers that DC felt they could safely take the chance of making her a lesbian.

There's nothing wrong with a lesbian or homosexual headlining a title from a major publisher. I might even buy the title if I like the writer/artist team on it (and wasn't ginormously ticked at DC for some of their -other- decisions), but this isn't the "huge leap forward" that DC is touting it as. All it seems to be managing to do is make non-comic readers realize that "OMG, there are GAY PEOPLE in COMIC BOOKS! ALERT THE MEDIA!"

Heck, I dare some of you (if you haven't already) look at some of the crud that's being posted on the *shudder* DC Message Boards. There are people (who clearly don't read comics) that have literally signed up for the boards just so they can rant against how "wrong" and "horrible" it is that DC would even -think- to do something like this (ie "pushing the gay agenda on our innocent, impressionable youths")...then the get all sorts of shocked when presented with the fact that gay characters have been in comics for a good 10-15 years now. And doubly shocked when told that the vast majority of comics these days don't sell to preteens anyway.

I do however, retain my cynical viewpoint that this whole thing was a marketing stunt that was orchestrated by DC/Warner from the get-go.

[Red Jack]

I do however, retain my cynical viewpoint that this whole thing was a marketing stunt that was orchestrated by DC/Warner from the get-go.

What's cynical about recognising the marketing? Their job is to sell the books.

[geordiesteve]

It's gone worldwide now, it's all over the place.

http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/books/news/article621772.ece

Count the number of times they use the word lesbian.

[the4thpip]

Admittedly far less common, but there are the Yaoi fangirls.
Margaret Cho loves gay porn.

[Tom]

So, what I'm getting from the reactions so far is:

DC did something that gained them worldwide press attention and that's...bad.

It's okay to have a lesbian character, but she shouldn't be attractive and the stories should never mention that she's a lesbian.

[Jmacq1]

So, what I'm getting from the reactions so far is:

DC did something that gained them worldwide press attention and that's...bad.

It's okay to have a lesbian character, but she shouldn't be attractive and the stories should never mention that she's a lesbian.

Worldwide press attention isn't bad.

Lesbian characters aren't bad, nor is mentioning their sexuality or even portraying it in the story.

What I think people are annoyed by is that the character's sexuality is the primary "selling point" as far as most of the world is concerned. Let's face it: If she wasn't a lesbian and didn't have "bat" in front of her codename, this wouldn't even warrant a 15th page "blurb". Many of the adult would-be readers prefer to be sold on good art and good writing. Not simply "OMG LESBIAN".

Basically, all this attention seems to be more like "lowest common denominator" marketing than any genuine attempt to push the boundaries of the medium (as some articles would have us believe). Heck, they've had a lesbian Catwoman for the last two or three months, yet there wasn't a huge media hoopla over that, was there?

[the4thpip]

Worldwide press attention isn't bad.

Lesbian characters aren't bad, nor is mentioning their sexuality or even portraying it in the story.

What I think people are annoyed by is that the character's sexuality is the primary "selling point" as far as most of the world is concerned. Let's face it: If she wasn't a lesbian and didn't have "bat" in front of her codename, this wouldn't even warrant a 15th page "blurb". Many of the adult would-be readers prefer to be sold on good art and good writing. Not simply "OMG LESBIAN".

Basically, all this attention seems to be more like "lowest common denominator" marketing than any genuine attempt to push the boundaries of the medium (as some articles would have us believe). Heck, they've had a lesbian Catwoman for the last two or three months, yet there wasn't a huge media hoopla over that, was there?

No, because this is the first time that a gay character at the big two isn't a token team member, third stringer or villain (although I need to give an honorable mention to Josiah Power, whose team should not have been third-stringers, but they were). Here we have a lesbian character who is actually being marketed as a bright new star among DC's heroes. And the news media decided that this is a big deal, and I kind of see their point.

[Tom]

Too many people in this and other threads are confusing marketing with media attention. The only thing DC is marketing is the fact they are making their line more diverse. The NYT article mentioned Batwoman, Blue Beetle, Firestorm, The Atom and The Great Ten. The world wide press (and most of the comics forums) ignored everything to focus on the lesbian angle, confusing the NYT writer's description of her as a "buxom lipstick lesbian" for an actual marketing angle on DC's part.

The only word from DC regarding the character is Dan Didio's Newsarama interview in which he specifically mentions that it's not the sole defining point of the character.

[sk716]

While I've long been a proponent of hiring somebody other than white males to write comics, I would never go so far as to say that BEING a white male precludes an ability to write human beings effectively, whatever their gender, skin color or sexual orientation.

Good writers write beleivable humans. Even in comics. You don't need to be a black man to write a good one and you don't need to be a gay woman to write a good one.

It was Chuck Dixon who gave us BOP, remember. Last I checked he was all man. And both his legs work. And he doesn't fight crime in his spare time (although he could be doing that. How would I know?).

Lesbians (hot ones) are more socially acceptable in modern America. Of course they will always be the first in the pool when a company hopes to expand prouct in that direction. Social change is done incrimentally (supposing that DC is interested in social change rather than sales, which I don't). The best way to "sell" homosexuality as a normal practice to the straight community is to show it as normal, even sexy. Straight men tend to be socialized not to ffind two males clinched up sexy. I've never met a woman who enjoys male/male displays of sex either. What is MOST acceptable to most is the sexualized FEMALE form. I'm not saying this is right or wrong. I'm saying that's the way it actually is.

So, of course, the first trumpeted gay hero in DC comics will be female. It's a no-brainer. The point is, if she's written and drawn well, she may stick around long enough to become part of the tapestry.

Logically, if a bunch of people buy this comic simply because of the "gay factor" the audience will expand because, just as logically, SOME of those people will stick around to read more. How many people HATED comics until they read SANDMAN? How many of them stuck around after?

This whole announcement is like clapping ones hands really loud next to a crowd and yelling "HEY! Look over here!"

Now, let's hope those handling Ms. Kane actually have something to show.


What would a display of male/male sex be doing in a comic book anyway?

I tend to get a little irritated if I see Montoya in bed with a scantily clad woman, I got throughly irritated over that panel in 52. It's pandering. How many people do you know who actually sleep in "sexy" lingere? hmmm... a new thread idea is born...

[Corrina]

Tom,

I agree and disagree with you.

As you separated the media interest from the marketing, I think comic readers are approaching it from a different angle from the general public.

The comic reader is: will it be a good story I can buy? The big publicity tells nothing about that.

The general public reaction is: hey! That's interesting!

Okay, I didn't think the general public reaction was all that important because they're not likely to buy the comic. But your post reminded me (and thank you for that) how iconic superheroes are--something I shouldn't have forgotten, considering how upset I was at the use of iconic superheroes who should symbolize the best parts of our nature in a story where rape essentially has no meaning. (Identity Crisis.)

From that standpoint, having a lesbian Batwoman is a big deal and a very good thing, and it does make a very big statement that a lesbian is now going to be someone representing this iconic image. Considering the prejudice still in this country, that's big.

And I agree, the public instantly recognizes Batwoman as top tier, as opposed to Scandal and Knockout, for instance. Though I'd think Holly's stint at Catwoman could have been useful in the same manner, though Catwoman is an anti-hero and not a hero, so maybe I've just argued myself out of that. <g>

I will point out the people on the View kept calling her "Batgirl" so I think the perception is that Barbara Gordon is now gay, the same way the public thinks Dick Grayson was in the Robin suit when Robin was killed.

[Tom]

Do people honestly think Holly is going to be in the cat ears permanently? I would think that's why there hasn't been any press about her.

[Red Jack]

Do people honestly think Holly is going to be in the cat ears permanently? I would think that's why there hasn't been any press about her.


God bless you, Tom.

[Forsaken_One]

I think that "silly press release" has gotten a lot of mainstream media attention and will be good for the industry as a whole.
Um, okay. Good for them? Something being rehashed by newspapers, talk shows and 24-hour news networks doesn't stop something from being silly.

So, what I'm getting from the reactions so far is:

DC did something that gained them worldwide press attention and that's...bad.

It's okay to have a lesbian character, but she shouldn't be attractive and the stories should never mention that she's a lesbian.
I read it as DC did something to get worldwide press attention and that... doesn't matter in the least when it comes to individual reactions to the press release and/or various artcles on it.

It's fine to have a lesbian character but they should really focus on something other than that and the fact that if they want people like me to actually read it and continue reading. I'm not sold on buying a comic because its main character is "ethnic" or whatnot.

Then again I'm probably not the target audience. Nonetheless, the only opinion I have is my own. :)

[yeoman]

No, because this is the first time that a gay character at the big two isn't a token team member, third stringer or villain (although I need to give an honorable mention to Josiah Power, whose team should not have been third-stringers, but they were). Here we have a lesbian character who is actually being marketed as a bright new star among DC's heroes. And the news media decided that this is a big deal, and I kind of see their point.

Catwoman's a third stringer? Cause Holly's been filling in for Selina the past few months.

And, really, major attention for something like this in comics? I've seen it before. The media tells maybe one serious story, Late Night tells a couple jokes and then everyone files the story it in the trash.

[yeoman]

Do people honestly think Holly is going to be in the cat ears permanently? I would think that's why there hasn't been any press about her.

No, I don't. Do you honestly believe that Random person on the street picking up an issue cares? Or will they latch onto the idea that Catwoman is a lesbian?

Seriously, DC has tried making major news stories out of stories that had less impact and took less time to tell. Death of Superman anyone?

[Jmacq1]

I will point out the people on the View kept calling her "Batgirl" so I think the perception is that Barbara Gordon is now gay, the same way the public thinks Dick Grayson was in the Robin suit when Robin was killed.

Yep, that was my first thought when I heard this and saw the preview art of Kathy with -Red- hair.

5 years from now, most (of the non-comic reading) people will still be thinking that Barbara Gordon, the "Batgirl" of their youth, is a lesbian. Because as Corrina noted: Most non-comic readers don't know the difference between "Batgirl" and "Batwoman". Any more than they know the difference between Jason Todd and Dick Grayson.

[Crowley]

wait... the mask doesn't connect to rest of the costume?

I don't dig that... on an otherwise great costume design...

[Gilda Dent]

wait... the mask doesn't connect to rest of the costume?

I don't dig that... on an otherwise great costume design...

I'm not fond of the high heels, but it's not a bad design otherwise. I like contrasting colors on the interior/exterior surface of the cape. It makes for a nice visual.

As for the publicity and focus on the lesbian angle, I'm not really bothered by it. Focus is often on whatever sets a character apart, such as the new BB being Hispanic or the All New Atom Asian. It's a characteristic getting focus in the advertising. It doesn't mean that it's the characteristic that will get the most focus in the book.

There's really nothing wrong with featuring a character's romantic life in a comic. That's been a staple of Spider-Man and Superman comics for years. I wouldn't buy it solely because of the lesbian angle, but neither would I not buy it because of that.

Gilda

[Tom]

Yep, that was my first thought when I heard this and saw the preview art of Kathy with -Red- hair.

5 years from now, most (of the non-comic reading) people will still be thinking that Barbara Gordon, the "Batgirl" of their youth, is a lesbian. Because as Corrina noted: Most non-comic readers don't know the difference between "Batgirl" and "Batwoman". Any more than they know the difference between Jason Todd and Dick Grayson.
...and?

What difference does this make?

[Tom]

Tom,

I agree and disagree with you.

As you separated the media interest from the marketing, I think comic readers are approaching it from a different angle from the general public.

The comic reader is: will it be a good story I can buy? The big publicity tells nothing about that.

The "big publicity" as you call it, wasn't aimed at comics readers. It was aimed at the general public. And while I have my doubts that this story will directly lead to increased sales, it does provide DC with good press in the long run and drives home the point to the public once more that comcs today are more sophisticated than the general public gives them credit for.

[Tom]

No, I don't. Do you honestly believe that Random person on the street picking up an issue cares? Or will they latch onto the idea that Catwoman is a lesbian?
The point was, the reason Holly hasn't gotten any mainstream press the way Batwoman has is because more than likely, Holly is only a temporary Catwoman.

[Cam63]

Lesbians in comics = good thing.

[geordiesteve]

The "big publicity" as you call it, wasn't aimed at comics readers. It was aimed at the general public. And while I have my doubts that this story will directly lead to increased sales, it does provide DC with good press in the long run and drives home the point to the public once more that comcs today are more sophisticated than the general public gives them credit for.

The sales will spike initially and then taper off quickly due to all this attention.

The introduction of this particular lesbian character doesn't signal that DC is producing more sophisticated comics. It does show they have diverse characters now, but it's pandering to be politically correct simply for the sake of it. She is a 'lipstick lesbian' because it's more socially acceptable to those people who are scared by gay people, or those who believe it is a sin before God etc. I doubt you would ever see the character in a gay bar, where, heaven forbid, we would see in the background two men kissing!!! That would send the Harry Potter burners into a frenzy and they'd be marching on DC's office before you know it.

This has gained a lot of media attention, worldwide now it seems, simply because the character has Bat before it, and because her sexuality has been highlighted in every single article I've now read on the subject, despite them trying to say it is not the main focus. Also I don't buy what Didio said about them wanting to make her very different and go in a new direction. A rich socialite who is an outsider who puts on a mask and fights crime. Now, am I talking about Bruce Wayne or the new Batwoman? A former female police detective, who is also an alcoholic, who realises she can do more good working outside of the law in a mask than with her badge. That is interesting, that appeals to me. Her sexuality doesn't even come into it, but it would probably be referenced in a story somewhere.

As Yeoman said the Death of Superman, or even Knightfall, for that matter, never gained such worldwide media attention.

Something else interesting, kind of related from not long ago - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4167032.stm

[the4thpip]

Catwoman's a third stringer? Cause Holly's been filling in for Selina the past few months.


Selina is a first- or secon-stringer. Holly is at best a 5th stringer, with or without the cat suit.

[Tom]

The sales will spike initially and then taper off quickly due to all this attention.What sales? She's not getting her own book.
The introduction of this particular lesbian character doesn't signal that DC is producing more sophisticated comics. It does show they have diverse characters now,Which is a form of sophistication.
but it's pandering to be politically correct simply for the sake of it. She is a 'lipstick lesbian' because it's more socially acceptable to those people who are scared by gay people, or those who believe it is a sin before God etc. No, she's an attractive, feminine woman, because every woman - and for that matter, almost every man - in superhero comics is attractive and fit.
I doubt you would ever see the character in a gay bar, where, heaven forbid, we would see in the background two men kissing!!! I don't know why you'd doubt that. DC already has shown two men kissing: Obsidian and his boyfriend over in Manhunter. And why would she need to be depicted in a bar?
That would send the Harry Potter burners into a frenzy and they'd be marching on DC's office before you know it.So...DC is pandering to the PC crowd but you're also criticizing them for not going far enough to piss off the "Harry Potter burners?" Now why do I think some people are looking for things to criticize here?

This has gained a lot of media attention, worldwide now it seems, simply because the character has Bat before it, and because her sexuality has been highlighted in every single article I've now read on the subject, despite them trying to say it is not the main focus. DC can't force journalists to write about what they want them to write about.

[geordiesteve]

What sales? She's not getting her own book.

The sales of 52. The book she is featured in.

Which is a form of sophistication.

I disagree.

No, she's an attractive, feminine woman, because every woman - and for that matter, almost every man - in superhero comics is attractive and fit.

This is true, and as Erik Larson has mentioned in his most recent column on this website, it's something that should be addressed, to a certain degree.

I don't know why you'd doubt that. DC already has shown two men kissing: Obsidian and his boyfriend over in Manhunter. And why would she need to be depicted in a bar?

I wasn't aware of that. I don't read Manhunter. I suggested a gay bar as an example of one possible location.

So...DC is pandering to the PC crowd but you're also criticizing them for not going far enough to piss off the "Harry Potter burners?"

The people who do such things are religious extremists and I don't support their activities. If they had been made aware of the scene you mentioned with Obsidian, and any other ones from recent times, it might incite them enough to take action. I think DC are 'playing the game' as it's called, keeping quiet about some aspects and raising awareness of more socially acceptable aspects of being gay to garner interest in their books.

[Jmacq1]

...and?

What difference does this make?

It makes a bigger difference than you think.

Barbara Gordon is the "recognized" Batgirl. She's the one everyone remembers from the old 60's show, and the one that gets used in all the cartoons, etc... She's been DC's "commercial" Batgirl ever since her creation, even long after she was crippled and transformed herself to another identity entirely in the comics (and even through the seven or so years there was an entirely different character acting as Batgirl within the DC Universe).

As stupid as it may be, there are parents out there that will now not let their kids watch "Batman" cartoons with Barbara Gordon in it, because "She's a dirty lesbian". There are people that will wonder why she's flirting with boys in said cartoon if she's "supposed to be a lesbian."

Basically, it's a misrepresentation of one of DC's more recognizable commercial properties. All because the average joe off the street doesn't know there's any difference between "Woman" and "Girl" with a "Bat" before it.

Yes, the media hoopla for all this will die down (and probably fairly soon, as far as the rest of the world is concerned), but people -do- remember these things long after they're past. You'll still see plenty of people that, upon seeing Robin in a cartoon show or in some other media that say, "Didn't Robin get killed?" or "Didn't Superman die or something?" etc... etc... Now we can add, "Wait, isn't Batgirl a lesbian?" to that list.

[Tom]

The people who do such things are religious extremists and I don't support their activities. If they had been made aware of the scene you mentioned with Obsidian, and any other ones from recent times, it might incite them enough to take action. I think DC are 'playing the game' as it's called, keeping quiet about some aspects and raising awareness of more socially acceptable aspects of being gay to garner interest in their books.
And this is another complaint I don't understand. DC is promoting diversity in their books in such a manner as to gain them P.R. and minimize controversy. This is bad? I just don't see it. I'm gay and even I can respect and understand the need to introduce concepts like this in a manner that's more palatable to the public. It's good business.

[Tom]

It makes a bigger difference than you think.

Barbara Gordon is the "recognized" Batgirl. She's the one everyone remembers from the old 60's show, and the one that gets used in all the cartoons, etc... She's been DC's "commercial" Batgirl ever since her creation, even long after she was crippled and transformed herself to another identity entirely in the comics (and even through the seven or so years there was an entirely different character acting as Batgirl within the DC Universe).

As stupid as it may be, there are parents out there that will now not let their kids watch "Batman" cartoons with Barbara Gordon in it, because "She's a dirty lesbian". There are people that will wonder why she's flirting with boys in said cartoon if she's "supposed to be a lesbian."

Basically, it's a misrepresentation of one of DC's more recognizable commercial properties. All because the average joe off the street doesn't know there's any difference between "Woman" and "Girl" with a "Bat" before it.

Yes, the media hoopla for all this will die down (and probably fairly soon, as far as the rest of the world is concerned), but people -do- remember these things long after they're past. You'll still see plenty of people that, upon seeing Robin in a cartoon show or in some other media that say, "Didn't Robin get killed?" or "Didn't Superman die or something?" etc... etc... Now we can add, "Wait, isn't Batgirl a lesbian?" to that list.
Robin was killed, Superman was killed, Wonder Woman was killed. The press made a huge deal about all three, the public had a moment of interest and they moved on and largely forgot about it. I have no reason to believe it'll be any different this time. You're talking about people who don't buy comics anyway, so I have no idea why this should be a complaint or a consideration.

[yeoman]

Robin was killed, Superman was killed, Wonder Woman was killed. The press made a huge deal about all three, the public had a moment of interest and they moved on and largely forgot about it. I have no reason to believe it'll be any different this time. You're talking about people who don't buy comics anyway, so I have no idea why this should be a complaint or a consideration.

No, some people that don't read comics still think Superman is dead. I have talked to people that are not comic readers and if Superman gets brought up they'll ask "Didn't he die?" At which point I'm forced to explain that he got better.

The media attention dies down after a day. But people remember stuff like that.

However, the idea that people remember that Babs was Batgirl is likely wrong. I can count on one had the number of Superhero real names that the general public knows. And still have fingers left over.

[TCJohnson]

Robin was killed, Superman was killed, Wonder Woman was killed. The press made a huge deal about all three, the public had a moment of interest and they moved on and largely forgot about it. I have no reason to believe it'll be any different this time. You're talking about people who don't buy comics anyway, so I have no idea why this should be a complaint or a consideration.


There is one possible exception to that...if protests start about childrens characters being gay.

[Jmacq1]

Boy, if they start protesting about Batwoman being a lesbian as "children's characters being gay" I'd really hate to see what happens if "Lost Girls" makes it out of the comic-niche media and into the mainstream in any significant way.

[Indefatigable]

It makes a bigger difference than you think.

Barbara Gordon is the "recognized" Batgirl. She's the one everyone remembers from the old 60's show, and the one that gets used in all the cartoons, etc... She's been DC's "commercial" Batgirl ever since her creation, even long after she was crippled and transformed herself to another identity entirely in the comics (and even through the seven or so years there was an entirely different character acting as Batgirl within the DC Universe).

As stupid as it may be, there are parents out there that will now not let their kids watch "Batman" cartoons with Barbara Gordon in it, because "She's a dirty lesbian". There are people that will wonder why she's flirting with boys in said cartoon if she's "supposed to be a lesbian."

Basically, it's a misrepresentation of one of DC's more recognizable commercial properties. All because the average joe off the street doesn't know there's any difference between "Woman" and "Girl" with a "Bat" before it.

Yes, the media hoopla for all this will die down (and probably fairly soon, as far as the rest of the world is concerned), but people -do- remember these things long after they're past. You'll still see plenty of people that, upon seeing Robin in a cartoon show or in some other media that say, "Didn't Robin get killed?" or "Didn't Superman die or something?" etc... etc... Now we can add, "Wait, isn't Batgirl a lesbian?" to that list.It's true that non-comics fans will forget about this very soon, but I have already seen multiple instances of non-comics fans mistaking this new Batwoman for Batgirl/Barbara Gordon, and that's not good.

[Red Jack]

It's true that non-comics fans will forget about this very soon, but I have already seen multiple instances of non-comics fans mistaking this new Batwoman for Batgirl/Barbara Gordon, and that's not good.

Why? Who cares? The second anyone who DOES read the comics reads the story, they'll see she's not Barbara. If the people who AREN'T reading them have he wrong idea, so what?

I honestly don't get the teeth-gnashing over this. The book isn't even out yet.

Go to your shops. Skim it. If it sucks, don't buy it. It sings, buy. How hard is that?

[the4thpip]

In talking about the new Batwoman, Didio said that for now, DC is working to make her a supporting member of the Bat-Family, but if fans want to see her in her own series or miniseries, they’ll make it happen.

http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72571

[SensorBoy]

Superheroes unveiled:

http://www.libertymeadows.com/images/ComicFightClub.jpg

[Huzzah!]

wizard changed that image if i recall because batman cant be "gay" for sidekicks


yeah right

Wonder twin powers, activate


Gail, write a wonder twins series

[Crowley]

they had to replace the one dude with Robin right?