Bill Willingham and the girls of girl-wonder.org

[benicio127]

Cross-posted to No Scans_Daily.


First of all, apologies to nevermore999 for posting this from her LJ without asking first.

However, I really thought it was important enough to post.


Bill Willingham came in the panel, and ohmygod this really stupid guy bought up Steph, saying her death was poignant and he didn't think they should have bought her back because it was so important Batman kicked her to the curb and Leslie Thompkins (yes, he apparently liked THAT too) and Mom got all uncomfortable next to me...to Willingham's credit, he shut the guy down, saying the death was never his plan and he actually argued for Steph to live. Sattler said he wasn't around for it, and that the fans are really into Steph, and that he thinks it's important they redeemed Leslie Thompkins. Then Willingham had to ruin everything and say, and I swear to God this is a direct quote "I wanted to gun down those girls who kept asking about the (Steph's) memorial case."

My jaw just dropped open. I knew from interviews and shit that Willingham was an asshole- and I'm sorry, he is, for mocking people at panels, and mocking men for daring to cry over a comic book death- but that is just a creepy as fuck thing to say. I raised my hand and I wanted to say "Willingham, you're an asshole" but instead I just told him a) I hated Stephanie's death and b) You shouldn't want to gun people down for being passionate about a character.

Backpedaling time! No, see, those silly girls were just distracting from important issues at panels by asking the same question over and over again, andandand they just don't understanf how the comics industry works and then, I swear to god, he word for word said the "being hated is almost as good" quote. He DID. He and Sattler telled me that when fans hate a story, it's almost as good as if they love it, because at least they care.




So let me just lift the Internet veil for a minute. I am/was a journalist and I used to be a crime/court reporter. In my four years working for three different Canadian newspapers, I reported on a lot of incidents of violence against women. One of those was a four-part series on the high rate of domestic violence in a small community, for which I was nominated for a National Newspaper Award. So trust me when I say I have seen what violence against women does and how important a topic like this is to me.
So yeah, this comment disturbs me on many levels. It is truly an indefensible comment and the fact that it was made in a public venue with little discourse is disturbing. Serious props to nevermore999 for standing up to Willingham and pointing out his incredibly horrific and misogynistic comment. Young impressionable boys buy these comics and that writers who write them actually think these things and then say them outloud in a public venue is shocking to say the very least.





 

Comments

[kijikun]

And because he's an asshole he should be excused for making such a horrible comment? He should be called out on it. Wishing violence on woman for demanding Steph being given the same dignity as Jason Todd?

[stolisomancer.insanejournal.com]

I don't believe that saying that I am not surprised by him saying that is the same thing as attempting to excuse what he said.

Allow me to rephrase so that I may remove all doubt:

Yeah, Willingham's always been kind of a douchebag.

[nefrekeptah]

I don't think he was saying that. I think he was saying he was tired of being asked that.

[skalja]

Then that's what he should have said. Because what he did say was a fantasy of violence towards women who were speaking up about the treatment of a character who was murdered in a violent and sexualized fashion.

[kingrockwell]

Except that is exactly what he did say. If it isn't what he meant, he shouldn't have said it.

he shouldn't have said that

[nefrekeptah]

No argument there - he definitely shouldn't have said it like this.

Re: he shouldn't have said that

[kingrockwell]

If you agree with that then why do you keep defending the comment?

Re: he shouldn't have said that

[nefrekeptah]

I don't - i simply think some people are blowing it out of proportion.

This is, at most, a badly worded comment, not a personal attack on the fans.

Re: he shouldn't have said that

[kingrockwell]

Sorry, but no. You don't get to decide what kind of reaction is appropriate here. The guy made comments glorifying violence against women, and a lot of those specific women it was referring to are in fact members of this comm. Their reaction is justified and your comments are nothing but an attempt to silence them.

Re: he shouldn't have said that

[nefrekeptah]

Sorry, but yes. The guy made a comment that was completely inappropriate, and yes, it is perfectly understandable that people were offended by it, I never said that they shouldn't be. But he did NOT glorify violence against woman, he wasn't referring to anyone specific at all, and I couldn't "silence" anyone if I wanted to, which I don't.

Re: he shouldn't have said that

[kingrockwell]

He's fantasizing about killing women, women are a group systematically oppressed and done violence against, in comics and in real life. It's kind of a big deal. His comment contributes to this culture. And he was specifically referring to the women who made noise about Steph's death, and many of those women are part of this community.

And whether it is your intent to invalidate or silence the reactions to this, your comments here carry that very connotation. Just because your oblivious to silencing tactics and the wider effect they have elsewhere doesn't mean you're not employing them.

Re: he shouldn't have said that

[nefrekeptah]

Fair enough. I'm sick of arguing this anyway.

Re: he shouldn't have said that

[kingrockwell]

That makes two of us.

Re: he shouldn't have said that

[steve_dash_o]

Their reaction is justified and your comments are nothing but an attempt to silence them.

FYI, this is exactly the sort of comment that leads some members of the comm to feel that it's forbidden to disagree with any oppression-related statement in s_d. (Especially when it's made by a mod, even though your comment wasn't made in that capacity.) Essentially, the message that often comes across is that all accusations of oppression are unimpeachable and any form of dissent, no matter how mild, is grounds for public shaming (often resulting in an official warning if the dissenter tries to defend themself).

Nefrekeptah made a straightforward statement suggesting a figurative interpretation of Willingham's comment, then was immediately contradicted by people insisting on taking it 100% literally AND also told that sharing his/her reaction is the same thing as silencing others' reactions.

If nefrekeptah had left out "I simply think some people are blowing it out of proportion," would his/her comments still be considered a silencing tactic? I can see that sentence as being a bit accusatory. But without it, there's just a clarification in response to your question.

Re: he shouldn't have said that

[kingrockwell]

Sharing a dissenting opinion is one thing, but when that opinion is that another is overreacting or just looking for things to complain about, especially towards the people directly effected by the situation, that isn't acceptable. Policing another's reaction and telling them what is or isn't appropriate in a situation like this is a silencing tactic.

Without the "I simply think some people are blowing it out of proportion," the clarification would still be necessary that many girl-wonder members and Steph supporters are in this community and very understandably take this comment personally.

And it may also be worth taking Nefrekeptah's earlier comments, further down into context. This may be the towards the top of the post, but it's towards the end of the conversation.

Re: he shouldn't have said that

[steve_dash_o]

Thanks for pointing to the other part of the thread -- that context does make a difference to my interpretation of this sub-thread.

That said, when you state:

Sharing a dissenting opinion is one thing, but when that opinion is that another is overreacting or just looking for things to complain about, especially towards the people directly effected by the situation, that isn't acceptable. Policing another's reaction and telling them what is or isn't appropriate in a situation like this is a silencing tactic.

I feel like you're saying, "Yes, it is always unacceptable to suggest that somebody's perception of oppression is an overreaction or misinterpretation." Or alternatively, "It is impossible for somebody's perception of oppression to be unfounded."

I guess that's what bothers me, personally, about a lot of the oppression discussions I've seen in s_d. If the message were tweaked even a little bit I'd be totally down with it. Something more like: "Even if you think somebody's perception of oppression is unfounded, you are discouraged from saying so because we want oppressed people to feel comfortable talking about their experiences." I could really get behind that idea.

Re: he shouldn't have said that

[kingrockwell]

I mean, is it really so hard to share your opinion without invalidating the feelings of others? Why should the initial reaction be that their perceptions are unfounded?

Re: he shouldn't have said that

[steve_dash_o]

Sometimes, I think it *can* be hard to share your opinion without potentially invalidating somebody's feelings. Especially when it comes to emotionally charged subjects. That's one of the reasons they're so difficult and scary to talk about.

And, I'm trying to speak more broadly now rather than referring to the question I asked in my first post about this particular debate. But... isn't it possible to carefully consider somebody's feelings and still think that they're unfounded? People often shoot off the first thing that pops into their head, you're right. There are a lot of "initial reactions" on the Internet phrased in very certain tones. But, sometimes even after sleeping on it and reading up on background... people can still disagree.

To pick a deliberately extreme case -- I have a couple friends who have some social paranoia. It's important that they feel safe talking about their fears ("She hates me, doesn't she?"), but it's also okay to tell them, "You know, what you're seeing isn't really there. I think they just meant [X] by that, you don't need to feel bad about it."

(Note: I called that a deliberately extreme case. By no means am I saying that feelings of oppression are akin to delusion or the result of mental illness. I just wanted to point out that, in principle, it's possible for such feelings to be unjustified.)

Anyway, I've already made more comments in this thread than I really intended to, so I will leave it be. Thanks for listening to my concerns, even you disagree with me.

Re: he shouldn't have said that

[skalja]

He said that he fantasized about killing women who asked about Steph at cons. Quite a few of those women are scans_daily members, former scans_daily members, and friends and acquaintances of scans_daily members. I would say the reaction here -- and at girl-wonder.org -- is pretty restrained, all things considered.

Re: he shouldn't have said that

[nefrekeptah]

Fair enough.

Re: he shouldn't have said that

[nevermore999]

One of those women was in the room too! So much fun.

Re: he shouldn't have said that

[skalja]

I honestly think that the women who asked about the memorials -- and maybe even the rest of the Project Girl Wonder fans who sent in letters and postcards -- should make a point of politely introducing themselves to Bill Willingham as one of the women he fantasized about murdering.

Petty? Very possibly. Epic? Most certainly.

Re: he shouldn't have said that

[bluejaybirdie]

Heh, I was just talking to Nev and said something similar, albeit less polite and more confrontational XD

Re: he shouldn't have said that

[skalja]

I think it's important to be polite in this hypothetical scenario for two reasons:

1) The moral high ground.
2) The point of the exercise, to my mind, would be to force Bill Willingham to acknowledge the reality and humanity of the women he says he fantasized about killing - to make him realize that his off-the-cuff remarks weren't targeted towards an amorphous blob but real individuals. It's harder to dismiss people when they're being nice to you.

Re: he shouldn't have said that

[bluejaybirdie]

I would go that route IRL, I was pretty much just joking around. Honestly, authority figures tend to make me nervous so I'd probably fall back on calling him "sir" and be almost over-polite (unless I was well and truly angry, and it takes a lot to get me there).