Tag Archives: Lesbian Batwoman

Dear Interwebs, I Can’t Believe You’re Making me do This Again

Because in the comments of this post right damn here I talked about the very sort of thing I’m about to talk about again. By way of Gail Simone’s Twitter feed I was made aware of Comics & Shit. My life would be easier if it wasn’t on a tumblr, which is why you’re reading this here instead of as a comment over there.

The way I begin telling a story is with the characters themselves. I lay the foundation of my protagonists and antagonists by determining individual personality traits. Then I connect characters together with any multitude of relationship types (close friendship, strained association, tentative love interest, mortal enemy, that sort of thing). After those two steps, I decide on the characters’ motivations, and then the story spools out of those three attributes; my stories are never about the event, they are always about the characters. It’s only after I’ve given a character these things do I determine their physical appearance (race, ethnicity, hair and eye color, costume, etc.), religion, and sexual orientation.

I liken beginning the character creation process with things like race, religion, and orientation to filling a quota. I’m just as much a proponent for diversity in comics, literature, and cinema as the next person, but, to me, creating this quota and filling it is disrespectful, not only to the story, but everyone involved: the reader, the writer, and the group which the character was meant to represent. I would even go as far as calling it exploitative.

As you might have guessed, this is a quote from the original post. The first comment that comes to my mind is to say that if this is how the original poster goes about creating characters those characters must be amazingly one-dimensional and uninteresting. Maybe putting this next bit in bold will finally help people get the point: Our personality traits, relationships, motivations etc. are not, by any stretch of the imagination, something that comes before things like our physical appearance, religion, and sexual orientation.

I don’t know anything about the original poster, but I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that he’s writing from a position of relative privilege. The problem is that we are not autonomous beings. Who we are has been shaped from the day we come into the world, and continues to be shaped by our interactions with the world. Our socioeconomic class shapes us. Our sexual orientation shapes us. Our appearance shapes us. The list could go on and on. In each case each of these things affects the way we view the world. I talked about this in the cases of “Muslim Batman” and “Lesbian Batwoman” (Night Runner and Kate Kane, respectively). In both cases the respective religious belief and sexual orientation are not just tacked on as afterthoughts, but have changed the experience they have had of the world, and thus influences who they are along with why and how they do what they do.

If I had grown up rich, or black, or gay, or Jewish, or attractive my personality traits, relationships and motivations would all likely be substantially different than what they are. Obviously I can’t know that beyond any doubt, but I can make a pretty informed guess.

So once again I find myself calling bullshit on people claiming that religion, or sexual orientation etc. are always forced P.C. bullshit or yet another publicity stunt, and have nothing to do with making interesting characters. Once again I call bullshit on the idea that we are autonomous beings complete unto ourselves. Once again and forever I call bullshit on little whiny children everyone afraid to look in the mirror and examine their own privilege.


Posted by on January 25, 2011 in Comics, Philosophy


Tags: , , , ,

One Muslim Batman, One Lesbian Batwoman, and a Shot of Insomnia Driven Self-Reflection

R. K. Milholland, the man behind the webcomic Something*Positive, recently did a guest strip for the comic Shortpacked!. I can’t claim that I’m particularly familiar with the series in question, but Mr. Milholland’s strip deals with the recent brouhaha surrounding the fact that one of the members of Batman, Inc. is going to be a Muslim. Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with this. Despite the fact that Muslim terrorists have become the flavor of the zeitgeist in that since the events of September 11th, 2001 they’ve become the pop culture go-to villains that everyone in the West can hate, I’m pretty sure Muslims are still people.  That means that just like everyone else they may fall broad, socially constructed and determined categories, but just because one Muslim, or a given group of Muslims does something doesn’t automatically mean that all Muslims hate the West, and think it is best brought down with high explosives. You’d think that would be self-apparent, eh?

As frustrating as the kind of bullshit that has cropped up around DC’s ann0uncement, that’s not what I’m here to talk about right now. This is my blog, so I’m going to talk about me, my reaction to Mr. Milholland’s comic, and a DC announcement from a few years ago. Back in the days of the dinosaurs I wrote for a now-defunct website called Comic Avalanche… all right, it was only a few years ago, but there have been several miles of bad road since then, so it feels like longer. Regardless, at the time DC was announcing the imminent arrival of their new “lipstick lesbian” Batwoman.

I admit that within the space of one of my columns I raised something of a fuss about this. My problem wasn’t that they were introducing a lesbian Batwoman, my problem was with DC’s use of the word “lipstick” in their promo announcements. Among the gay community the phrase lipstick lesbian seems like it generally has negative connotations, and outside of that community it seems to be used most frequently as a way to advertise female-on-female porn to an audience of straight men. So this struck me as less of a move toward diversity, and more as a marketing ploy to draw in the undersexed fanboys.

Since then I’ve had a chance to read some of the Batwoman stories. In particular I’ve read the “Elegy” arc by Greg Rucka and J. H. Williams III that ran in Detective Comics. I enjoyed reading it. While I won’t say it was the best comic I ever read, I had no particular objections to the way Kate Kane was portrayed. That said, I still like to think that I had a valid objection to the way in which DC was hyping the character’s introduction. After all, I didn’t have that kind of negative reaction upon hearing about Grant Morrison’s hermaphroditic Negative Man or Danny the Transvestite Street. I wasn’t particularly bothered by Northstar finally coming out of the closet. And yet…

… and ask why it is everytime a hero shows up who isn’t white, male, hetero, or possibly Christian, it’s a P.C. stunt?

On the other hand, when I read quotes like this (taken from the comic by Mr. Milholland that inspired this post), I have to wonder. Was my objection a valid one, or was I simply engaging in the kind of xenophobia and bigotry for which I condemn the people whining about a black actor in the upcoming Thor film, or the nonsense that has cropped up in relation to a Muslim Batman?

I would like to think that the answer is no. However, because I am a staunch believer that living philosophically means to engage in a constant critical and reflective engagement in the world, I can’t let it go at that. Is there a part of me that objected to the new Batwoman simply because the character is a lesbian? Did I really have a valid objection, even if that objection would have perhaps been better focused on DC’s marketing department rather than on editors and creators? Or maybe, just maybe, is there still some baggage I’m carrying around, some social conditioning that is implanted so deep that I’ve never even thought to question it?

I had many of the same questions when I was working through the challenges raised by George Yancy’s* Black Bodies, White Gazes. In both his own words, and the words of others, he articulates the idea of the race traitor as someone who doesn’t behave as a “good” white person “should.” I would like to think I am one of those people, and that it extends beyond race. I would like to think that I do not behave as a good hetero should, or as a good person of my economic class should. Yet at the end of the day, the only honest answer I can give to any of these questions, including the question raised by Mr. Milholland, is “I don’t think I’m that person, but I just don’t know.”

Yes, I would like to think I’m a better person than the unwashed hordes and whores who live uncaring, unreflective lives. I would like to be able to say “Yes, I live every moment of every day in philosophical engagement, and at no point is my thinking influenced by an unconsidered opinion.” I’d like to be able to settle for that, but sometimes saying “I don’t know,” isn’t a bad thing, just so long as we follow it up with, “but I’m not going to stop asking the question.”


Posted by on December 30, 2010 in Comics, Philosophy


Tags: , , , , , ,