Scans_Daily

I...
er...
Because nothing says Pride quite like a mass-murdering psychopathic clown with a bat fixation?

From:

Harley’s a mass murdering psychopathic clown and she appeared on multiple covers for Pride Month.

Edited Date: 2021-03-26 02:35 am (UTC)

From:

I'd say that the general evolution of Harley over the past few years has turned her in the public consciousness into more of an anarchistic anti-hero. Between her own animated series, her stint in the Suicide Squad and Birds of Prey movies, and assorted other outings, her image is much less mass murderer than you might otherwise think; any depictions of her as a Joker-lite are the exception rather than the rule. She's managed to headline her own series for quite a while now, and that's also managed to soften her image. She's basically DC's answer to Deadpool: violent, unpredictable, but more often inclined towards helping than hurting.

Furthermore, there's been such a determined effort to portray her as an erstwhile Bat-ally -and- as a queer woman in love with, if not always in a relationship with, another woman, something which has superceded and transcended her original tie to the Joker. If public perception shapes and defines characters, Harley has long-since grown out of her role as Joker sidekick and casual killer. (In short, please don't bring up that "exploding games killing children" story, because it's an anomaly compared to the majority of her existence...)

So it's not hard to see where she justifies Pride covers.

Meanwhile, the closest thing to queer that the Joker ever gets is his all-consuming obsession with Batman, and whatever gay/homoerotic subtext the creative teams filter into him as he slaughters, murders, and poisons his way across Gotham. There's not a single redeeming quality to be found in the Joker under any but the most farfetched and singular circumstances. Handing him a Pride flag is like inviting the Red Skull to a Black Lives Matter march.

From:

bluapapilio

This.

From:

tcampbell1000

Fun's fun and all, and I apologize in advance if everyone else understands this and I'm just (ahem) not getting the joke. But...

There are a few very good reasons not to bring Joker up as LGBTQ representation: you could populate a small town with the people he's killed, he has amply demonstrated that he is not a good romantic partner, and while he certainly has an obsession with Batman and presents it in romantic and sexual terms, I'm not convinced he'd actually go through with anything if Batman in any way reciprocated. He seems to prefer their "relationship" how it is.

Don't get me wrong: as a bit of non-canon camp, this piece is fun and funny and fine. But I actually think leaving the Joker out of Pride was an enormously smart decision on everybody's part.

From:

I get that but if we can have sexual predators like Poison Ivy or Daken as LGBT icons for Pride Month I don’t see why Joker can’t be.

From:

Your problem is that you cherrypick from a character's -earlier- appearances and stories, which don't necessarily reflect where they are today. Poison Ivy may have had a long history of mind-controlling and manipulating men for her own purposes, but how long as it been since that was a defining trait? Writers have been determined to move her into a more sympathetic position for a while, like in Harley's animated series. I suspect that modern sensibilities are at play here as more of the newer generation of writers are much less likely to use her as "sexual predator" (femme fatale if you're being kind) as they try to leave the problematic bits in the past.

Daken, while a much more recent creation, has likewise been reconfigured to be a bit more sympathetic, more of the edgy bad boy than the dangerous bisexual killer. (See especially his use in X-Factor, where he's practically warm and cuddly...)

The White Knight stories aside, Joker isn't acceptable as anything other than the 100% villain that he is, and honestly, trying to plug him into a queer framework has always felt... icky. Icky because this is the -Joker- and to me, he's always felt above and beyond all casual and formal definition. Honestly, saying he's queer would humanize him way too much.

From:

If they can soften Poison Ivy from a depraved serial killer who’s basically only a few steps above the Purple Man (see what she did to Count Vertigo) to Harley’s ‘soulmate’ and Daken from a manipulative rapist to a teddy bear I don’t see why doing something similar to Joker is out of the question beyond marketing. Even if it was making him more like Hannibal on the show (referring to how he was pansexual and in love with Will Graham).

Also Joker has had numerous humanizing moments in regards to his feelings for Batman (see his conversation with Catwoman in #49). And they’ve been ramping it up more in recent AUs like the Telltale game.

https://youtu.be/5rJMVRm_QPw

Edited Date: 2021-03-26 04:00 am (UTC)

From:

crinos

The thing is that moments like that are exceptions, not a sign of an intentional attempt to steer the character in a new direction.

Like comics are full of characters who started off as irredeemable assholes and complete monsters, but later appearances began steering them away from that. Quentin Quire. Damain Wayne, Poison Ivy and Harley, and Daken. Hell, Ivy is barely even a villain at all anymore, to the point they're bringing in a new plant based villain to Gotham (And I made the joke on Tumblr that in ten years the plant villain and Punchline will be dating, and Harley and Ivy will be in the Justice League together).

But Joker having a touching moment once in a while, or having characterization in a non canon video game, is not the same as that. There has been no indication that they intend to push Joker in a direction.

And, I wasn't going to say anything but since the topic has been broached, whenever I see people go "The Joker is gay for Batman." I just have to groan. First of all, obsessions do not have to involve romantic attraction or any sort of attraction. Joke is obsessed with Batman because Joker is a comedian and he considers Batman his straight man, he see's him as half of his comedy duo. Secondly, characterizing Joker as a gay man feeds into the negative sterotype of the aggressive Gay man who pursues a straight man against their wishes, which is just gross. Thirdly....Its the fucking Joker. The Mass murdering super terrorist, best buds with Ayatollah Khomeni, cut his face off and taped it back on, spent years emotionally and physically abusing Harley Quinn Joker. And that's the guy you want for your LGTBQ rep. Really.

Its like when the first It movie came out and people on Tumblr wanted to spin Pennywise as a gay Icon. No Pennywise is not a Gay Icon. Pennywise was literally revived by a hate crime against a gay couple and then ate one of them.

Like, representation matters, and I'm all for having more LGTBQ rep in fiction but.... can we just not with the Joker?

From:

I agree. I just feel like trying to categorize the Joker as any form of queer-gay, bi, pan, omni, -whatever-- isn't just bad, it's actively harmful because he's just so thoroughly, unrepentently, unredeemably evil. I mean, he passed through the event horizon of evil and found whatever exists beyond it, in one of the few cases of absolute awful.

There are a lot of comic book villains who can theoretically be redeemed with the right story and right level of finessing. Whether or not the writer -should- is a matter of taste and discretion. (See attempts to reframe Sabretooth, Apocalypse, Doctor Doom, Lex Luthor, Thanos, Doctor Octopus as less villainous over the years and how long those directions lasted and how well the changes took.) Joker's in the special class of OH HELL NO.

And while he has his fans--a few too many if you ask me--and he has his admirers who write the JokerBats slashfics--(same folks probably write VoldePotter)--that's the sort of thing that can stay firmly in fan territory. :)

From:

deh_tommy

I don’t see why him being LGBT+ has to be harmful. Can’t we be dreaded villains, too? That’s not like he’s awful *because* of his sexuality or gender identity.

From:

Yeah look at what they did with Hannibal Lecter. Everyone loved the gay subtext* they gave him on the show. It doesn’t have to be harmful.

*although by the ending it was hardly subtext

https://youtu.be/XTARpr-Y0bg

Edited Date: 2021-03-26 01:15 pm (UTC)

From:

Yeah. People need to learn to separate the bad character traits from the good/neutral ones. The bad traits don't have to be inferring something about the good/neutral ones. If he was the only representation of an LGBT DC character we'd have a problem, but he isn't.

From:

icon_uk

But is the Joker an LGBT character at all?

He has a dangerous level of obsession with Batman, but it's of the "crazed stalker who won't take no for an answer" variety, not the "looking for a date/life partner" variety, and I definitely feel that's not something to remotely celebrate.

From:

I mean, Superman isn't an LGBT character either, and he has a cover.

Also it's taken my dumb ass this long to realise that this is just fanart. In that case, the overreaction seems even sillier to me; it's just a piece of fanart, no company-sectioned 'celebration' required.

And personally I tend to think of Joker as a sexless character, or if anything, 'Batmansexual'. I don't think there's any sincere desire to have any kind of serious or sexual relationship there. The dynamic they already have it what he's into. But again, it's just fanart, who cares?

From:

icon_uk

If it makes you feel better, I hadn't noticed it was fanart until I read your post!

From:

Lol actually it does make me feel better!

Edited Date: 2021-03-27 08:12 pm (UTC)

From:

“, characterizing Joker as a gay man feeds into the negative sterotype of the aggressive Gay man who pursues a straight man against their wishes, which is just gross. Thirdly....Its the fucking Joker. The Mass murdering super terrorist, best buds with Ayatollah Khomeni, cut his face off and taped it back on, spent years emotionally and physically abusing Harley Quinn Joker. And that's the guy you want for your LGTBQ rep. Really”

A. If he was written as the “aggressive gay man” or if that was the extent of his relationship with Batman that would be one thing. Tom King’s characterization was that he wants Batman to love him but if he did he would no longer be Batman so that’s why he goes in the opposite direction.

B.) you could say the same thing about characters like Mystique (another example). She’s raped Wolverine and Gambit, she kidnapped Dazzler so she could sell bits of her skin for drug addicts, she was willing to kill a baby at one point... and she’s getting a story in the Pride special.

From:

icon_uk

Sorry, but no, the Joker saying he want's Batman to love him doesn't change the fact he's an obsessive psychopathic stalker, not a gay Mr Lonelyheart.

Mystique is an interesting counter-example, she's a genuinely horrible person who has done horrible things, but at the same time she has been shown to be actively, romantically and sexually interested in a woman for decades, a woman, who she consistently loved and regarded as her wife, because Destiny regarded her the same way. She wanted, and had a marriage of equals with a woman who wanted her back.

Should she be seen as anything approaching a moral example? Absolutely not. Should she be recognised as a longstandanding LBTQA+ character (and probably the first lesbian comic book character who was unabashedly queer even it couldn't be said for decades too long), absolutely yes.

From:

Joker commits crimes to get Batman’s attention and the two go back and forth. If there’s stalking Batman is the one doing it.

If having healthy relationships is the criteria then Daken shouldn’t be featured as an LGBT icon given how he was known for using, abusing and discarding men and women (when he wasn’t raping them). He emotionally abused one girlfriend and put sleeping pills in her wine knowing she would drink the whole thing and kill herself to get rid of her. That’s the guy front and center on Marvel’s Pride Special.

From:

icon_uk

Batman is guilty of stalking because he tries to stop a homicidal maniac repeat offender, who should be cut some slack because he's frustrated because Batman doesn't seem to fancy him? Really?

There is no "back and forth" in terms of emotional relationships between the two of them. The Joker's obsession might make him believe there is but that doesn't mean he's right, or that he is even capable of understanding love as a concept, given he has no concept of genuine empathy or sympathy either. And whatever emotions Batman feels towards Joker, I cannot plausibly accept that "romance" or "sexual attraction" are part of them.

As for Daken, personally, no I don't consider him an icon because of the nature of his powers and how he uses them. He's bisexual, but his powers as outlined automatically make consent dubious, I have the same issue with Empath, Starfox, Purple Man and the versions of Gambit who has a creepy "charismatic/charm" power.

Perhaps realising how toxic that is, Marvel have recently attempted to backtrack on this in X-Factor by having Daken explain to Aurora that his powers are misunderstood by people who assume he's a full emotion manipulator when he's not. He can't create new emotions in people, he can only tweak whatever is already there, and not by much. He can't make someone lust after him. If someone is already lusting after him, he can turn that up or down, but he can't create new or remove existing emotions.

To me that remains deeply problematic as it still messes with informed consent and that's too important to overlook.

I have even more issues with the fact that Daken has murdered people, and served on the Dark Avengers, which makes their attempts to reform him... uncomfortable.

I have no idea how he wil be treated in the Pride Special, it might be about him facing the problematic natures of his previous relationships for all I know, we'll just have to wait and see.

From:

“Batman is guilty of stalking because he tries to stop a homicidal maniac repeat offender, who should be cut some slack because he's frustrated because Batman doesn't seem to fancy him? Really?”

I was being facetious but the point is Joker being a clingy stalker isn’t accurate to his character. He likes causing trouble for Batman and riling him up. Or as Snyder had it he’s constantly testing Batman’s mettle. Even if he was gay that wouldn’t make him a stereotypical “gay pest harassing a straight man” any more than it applied to Hannibal and Will Graham.

From:

Okidoke well just as a counterbalance, as an actual bonafide lesbian homosexual (tm), I'm profoundly unoffended by the cover. Are we pretending there's nothing suggestive about Joker's interest in Batman now? Why would we omit him in a huge lineup of Pride covers (which includes characters that aren't even LGBT)? No-one is saying he should be Pride's no1 posterboy or anything.

Anyway, my only qualm with the cover is Batman smiling. I would like it better with his usual grumpy face.

From:

lordultimus

Honestly, if there's any character whose sexuality changes as their mood suits them, it's probably the Joker.

From:

icon_uk

Grant Morrison's description always seems apt "The Joker's sexuaity is whatever freaks out the other person the most", and like much else about him, it's always felt profoundly performative.

From:

lego_joker

For now, all I have to say is: I wonder if this would be nearly as big an issue if BTAS hadn't made the Joker comic-book fandom's go-to reference for domestic abuse. I don't claim it's fair (DCAU Harley is also an abuser, per Return of the Joker) or desirable (nobody hates the stranglehold BTAS has over the general perception of Batman more than I do), but it is what it is.

OTOH, The Lego Batman Movie has somewhat swung the pendulum back over to "okay, the Joker can be kinda sweet at times" - have those guys make a sequel, wait a couple years, and who knows how the landscape will change...

From: