Batwoman #17

[sailorlibra]

I was sort of surprised that this scene hadn't been posted to SD yet. (Or if it was, I missed it even though I looked twice.)



But I guess this isn't a particularly popular of a couple. I personally prefer Kate/Renee and Maggie/Toby.





The art is definitely very pretty.

I had previously stopped reading this title, until I found out about this scene from TheMarySue. Their Susana Polo had this to say:

"But it all does leave me wondering why Kate Kane proposing marriage to her girlfriend hasn’t been front page news at DC Comics this week. After all, we live in an age when comic companies show absolutely no hesitance to spoil major plot events like deaths and marriages the day before the book is released to an outlet like USA Today.

"Certainly there’s a definite possibility that wedding bells won’t be ringing any time soon. Even aside from the fact that the (sometimes awfully tired) genre conventions of superhero stories mean that significant others often don’t fare very well, we didn’t get to see Maggie’s response to Kate’s question this issue. [...]

"But we’ve seen DC make a big deal out of a gay relationship that was doomed in its second issue before with Alan Scott, the gay Green Lantern of Earth 2. While they didn’t quite manage to get him on The View, they seemed very proud of making one of the New 52′s six Green Lanterns of Earth (the one in the alternate universe) a gay man in a committed relationship. In the second issue of Earth 2, however, Alan Scott’s boyfriend was killed mere moments before the arrival of his Green Lantern ring, leaving him single and traumatized.

"It would even have been nice for DC to use this Batwoman issue to say something like: “Hey we know we hired Orson Scott Card to write a Superman story, but we’re committed to the characters that are actually improving the diversity of our lineup. Exhibit A: Batwoman #17.” It wouldn’t absolve them from the questionable decision, certainly, but it would be better than their only other response so far, a single sentence of boiler plate about artists personal views not representing the company’s. [...]

"DC has been hands off about Batwoman for pretty much the title’s entire existence. [...] DC could go a long way with promoting Batwoman’s proposal and, if it happens, marriage. So if they haven’t yet, let me: Maggie Sawyer, who transferred to the Gotham police force after being a prominent recurring character in Superman stories, was one of the first out gay characters in the DC universe in the late eighties. Batwoman is the first gay member of the Bat-family and the first lesbian superhero to headline her own title in history. Their relationship embodies the fact that while DC might not have a perfect track record on these matters, minority characters have been an important part of its universe for decades, and they will be for decades to come."

Thoughts?

Comments

[magusfool]

Indeed! DC should be promoting the hell out of Kate Kane! With one of the best artists to ever grace the comics medium, they should have been promoting her for some time now.

“Hey we know we hired Orson Scott Card... It wouldn’t absolve them from the questionable decision, certainly,...

Really? I am seriously baffled by the amount of venom this decision has drummed up. Yes, Orson Scott Card is a known bigot, and he certainly wouldn't approve of my "lifestyle choices" by any means. But, let's face the facts. The man wrote what is almost inarguably one of the greatest sci-fi/fantasy series of all time. It's rivaled only by things like Lord of the Rings and Foundation. If an author of his caliber and acclaim (critically and popularly), regardless of personal politics, asks to write a story for your company, you say yes. And it's not like his Mormon agenda even works its way into his writing. I've read the Ender series, as well as his short story collection "Maps in a Mirror", and actually I find I experience a degree of cognitive dissonance, because he's clearly brilliant. He has extremely empathic insight into the human condition, and I don't understand how that reconciles with his religious beliefs. But, I feel we ought to judge art by the quality of the art, rather than the artist.

[twomasks]

A-freaking-men.

[northstarfan]

Considering that said artist uses the proceeds of his art in aid of an organization that is directly aimed at keeping me and people like me in second-class citizenry, I'm just fine with keeping the artist and his works at arm's length.

Also, where did it pop up that OSC approached DC instead of the other way around?

[mrstatham]

This. I've not touched anything of Card's work because I don't want to contribute to enabling him, frankly. I think that's what quite a few people missed out on - yes, it's incredibly likely that Card won't turn Superman into an approximation of himself, someone prepared to declare war on the government if they dare change the law to allow people with different orientations than him the same freedoms, but in paying for something he writes, it's enabling him and allowing him to further fund efforts that perpetuate his completely bigoted and antiquated perspective.

[silverhammerman]

Not to mention that it makes DC's use of gay characters for publicity and profit, like they did with Alan Scott, seem two-faced and duplicitous. I comes of like DC will gladly take your money, but if something better comes along they'll gladly sell out their morals and treat people like cattle.
They say they're progressive and forward thinking, but then hire a dude like Card, and those two things just don't match up.

[onceaskrull]

Agreed. If someone else is comfortable with divorcing the artist from the work, then I'm not going to try to convince them to feel differently. But my desire to NOT partake in someone's work because I find their personal views deplorable is equally valid, and we as consumers have the right to not consume products EVEN IF the reasons for not doing so is purely political.

It's like, I find chick-fil-a sandwiches delicious, but I can't divorce the product from the producers, knowing what they do with a portion of their profits. But at the same time, I don't judge anyone for eating chick-fil-a, because what products we consume are dependent on a number of variables (availability of alternatives, resources, awareness, attachment, level of importance, to name but a few).

I will judge OSC just like I judge Chick-fil-a. What people don't understand is that "calling for a boycott" is not the same as "calling for a government ban". It's a call to arms for like-minded people to demonstrate their net buying power. If it's not important to someone to use that method to make that statement for that situation, then it isn't. But for some of us, it is.