Isn't that the coworker dressed as batgirl?

...I guess she would know.

@bareboards2

One of the things that I dislike the most about the Sift are the numerous times that words and intentions are put into my mouth that are utterly absent in what I actually say.
I have repeatedly said "unconscious" sexism. And I have applied that phrase to both men and women.
But suddenly I am being painted as some hysteric who is lashing out at the big bad men who have hurt me so bad by their big bad sexism.

Because you have a history of doing just that. I can think of at least 2 other times when I've seen you, and called you out for, attacking other people and then trying to play the victim. I don't need to wait for the end of the song to say, "That's Yankee-Doodle Dandy"; I can name that tune in 7 notes.

This entire culture is sexist. Anyone who has spent more than five minutes looking around them will agree with that statement. [...] Spend one day -- one day -- listening to how often women are called girls. Substitute the word "woman" if she is more than 18 years old, and see how that shifts your internal landscape. Spend one day -- one day -- substituting the word "boy" every time you hear the word "man" and see if it doesn't squeege you out.

I agree that sexism permeates not only our culture, but probably human nature. It's the sort of thing that we all need to constantly work on, but probably not something that will ever completely go away.

I became aware of the belittling use of "girl" about 20 years ago as a teenage comic book geek. If you go back to the golden and silver age, you see it a lot, but it's present more recently too: Superman and Supergirl, Batman and Batgirl, Invisible Girl, Marvel Girl. A lot of them who are still published have been renamed (Invisible Girl is now Invisible Woman and Marvel Girl goes by her "real" name, Jean Grey).

But that doesn't mean "girl" is always belittling. Neither is "boy". Often, it's just casual. If I go hiking with my friend and his wife says, "Where are you boys headed today?", nobody cares. It's casual conversation with familiar people. If someone calls me a boy the first time we meet, I might find them a little arrogant or obnoxious.

You can call this trolling if you want to. I call it my little attempt at education.

If that's your goal then I might suggest you rethink your approach. You are putting people off with your approach. Unfortunately, you've got a reputation to overcome as well, so you will have to be extra careful with your words around here if you want to get them heard.

In the case of this video, I don't think it particularly matters if "girls" was used in a belittling manner by the speakers (consciously or subconsciously) because the subjects of the story deserve to be belittled for how they behaved. I don't care if they want to call them "dumb bitches", something I normally find very distasteful, because they earned that shit.

Find me a case of someone calling a respectable, responsible, mature woman a girl or a bitch and I've got your back.

This is one of the best/craziest episodes of Batman TAS. With the dream sequence and batgirl...all of it. So awesome!

It's funny, I wasn't even thinking about the yellow-clad Green Lantern when I mentioned that character. I guess that shows how much I like Alan Scott. I was thinking more Guy Gardner, John Stewart, and Kyle Raynor.

Makes you realize that in some ways, Peter Parker is an anomaly. Few major characters that old have had their alter egos left untouched by writers. The most extreme thing that comes close was that costume change in the 80s that fanboys went batshit over.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^longde:
1. This character isn't even in the main continuity. What's the big freakin' deal?
2. @cito Second or third or fourth versions of a hero/villian happen all the time in comics, with another dude or woman inheriting the name and basic costume. E.g., Iron man, flash, batman, green lantern, batgirl, captain america, wonder woman, the list goes on---- hell, there were even 4 or 5 Supermen after they "killed" Superman in the 90s.
3. directed to noone in particular: You fuckin' fanboys who think that every damn major character has to be white, and that it's realistic that in the far future, most people are white, have got to start getting real.

No shit, I doubt if anyone is even alive that liked the original Green Lantern. This stuff is as old as comics.

>> ^longde:

1. This character isn't even in the main continuity. What's the big freakin' deal?
2. @cito Second or third or fourth versions of a hero/villian happen all the time in comics, with another dude or woman inheriting the name and basic costume. E.g., Iron man, flash, batman, green lantern, batgirl, captain america, wonder woman, the list goes on---- hell, there were even 4 or 5 Supermen after they "killed" Superman in the 90s.
3. directed to noone in particular: You fuckin' fanboys who think that every damn major character has to be white, and that it's realistic that in the far future, most people are white, have got to start getting real.


No shit, I doubt if anyone is even alive that liked the original Green Lantern. This stuff is as old as comics.

1. This character isn't even in the main continuity. What's the big freakin' deal?

2. @cito @Sagemind Second or third or fourth versions of a hero/villian happen all the time in comics, with another dude or woman inheriting the name and basic costume. E.g., Iron man, flash, batman, green lantern, batgirl, captain america, wonder woman, the list goes on---- hell, there were even 4 or 5 Supermen after they "killed" Superman in the 90s.

3. directed to noone in particular: You fuckin' fanboys who think that every damn major character has to be white, and that it's realistic that in the far future, most people are white, have got to start getting real.

@kronosposeidon @rebuilder

I've heard from a number of DC fans that would-be good heroes have few or no interesting villains, so I guess I'm not surprised to hear it about WW too. The Flash is one that sticks out, in particular. I don't actually know who any of his villains are, and maybe that's exactly the point.

I'm sure a Joss Whedon movie would be huge, though I personally feel like Joss Whedon destroys everything he touches. I don't care how many awards Astonishing X-Men wins, it was and is a huge stain on the X-Men. Only after several years have they been able to fix or explain some of the character destruction he wrote.

As for the over-sexualization of female characters, I generally feel this isn't the case. Are the women sexy? Absolutely. Aren't the men also? These are all people who are in unrealistically good physical shape and spend nearly all their time in skin-tight clothes. Whether or not they are over-sexualized is a matter of opinion, but I have a hard time believing the women are more sexualized than the men. Is this Batgirl cover really any sexier than this cover for The Web?

Of course I'm generalising; there are certain artists that absolutely tend to go over the top; but I don't feel that comics in general are overdone. I also don't think that a bit of sex-appeal is harmful (either in the "think of the children!" sense or harmful to the characters and story).

Always thought Batgirl was on her own level of hotness. This is practically jerk-worthy for me.

Holy vibrating batgirl

Ah, yeah I get your point. Well, who knows, it's coming out soon and we can always hope to be pleasantly surprised with what they did to him.

In reply to this comment by Kreegath:
I'm not saying either Joker hasn't done bad things, that's really what they do for a living, being comic book badguys and all. However, that a villain has done bad things doesn't necessarily make their persona characteristics dark, emo goth with a sad undertone.
That's where my problem with this trailer lies, just like with most of these hero movies as of late. They don't bother to enhance or subdue the established characteristics and/or personality traits of the villains/heroes, they simply change them altogether to fit in the darker, brooding mold that seems to be so popular nowadays.
What I am saying is that based on that preview, the Joker they portray seems no different from any other villain depicted in major film releases the last couple of years. Basically, and this is again only based on what's seen in that trailer, the two things noticable that sets aside him as the Joker from Mr. Generic is the trademark face paint (although a butchered paint job in this case, as I speculated they were probably forced to add it to make it clearer that it in fact is the Joker) aswell as his name. That in no way means I'm advocating they make the Joker exactly the same in every movie, but if they're going to use the Joker the least they could do is use the Joker and not some (un)original character extremely loosely based on the Joker.

In reply to this comment by Shepppard:
..the dark emo side of the joker? You DO know the joker is a complete homocidal maniac, he blew up one of the Robins AND his mother, and crippled barbara gordon (Batgirl) by showing up to her house, knocking on the door, waiting til she answered and shot her point blank, with a smile on his face the entire time.

There really isn't a villian that GETS more dark then the joker..

>> ^Kreegath:
Don't like the new Joker at all.
Just like with everything else nowadays they just had to make him more emo goth dark, completely detached from all other incarnations of the Joker. Kind of sad to see him reduced to a generic, misunderstood, dark villain with a sad, troubled past. Probably kept the name solely for name recognition's sake, which led to them being forced to add the face paint. By the look of it, however, it's clear the instructions on how to apply said face paint wasn't specific enough.
Then again, this video might not accurately portray the Joker of the new movie. Or, I'm simply not the target audience.


..the dark emo side of the joker? You DO know the joker is a complete homocidal maniac, he blew up one of the Robins AND his mother, and crippled barbara gordon (Batgirl) by showing up to her house, knocking on the door, waiting til she answered and shot her point blank, with a smile on his face the entire time.

There really isn't a villian that GETS more dark then the joker..

Man..I'm incredibly excited about this movie now.

It'll be interesting to see what they're actually going to do with the joker..

to quote IGN:
""I see now what I have to become to stop men like him."

These are the words of Batman in the film's new trailer, and they are the key to the dynamic between the Dark Knight and his arch nemesis, the Joker. In fact, the original Batman film from Burton played up this theme as well (while also taking it far too literally and kind of screwing up both Batman and the Joker's origin stories in the process). The idea is that somehow neither character is fully complete without the other, that neither can exist if his foe is not in place, and that they need each other in order to live. What good, after all, is a Batman when there's no Joker around?

The Joker, though portrayed in the 1950s and '60s as a more harmless sort, is basically a homicidal maniac and a genius who has, depending on what comics continuity you're paying attention to, killed thousands of people (including women and children), a Robin, and crippled Batgirl.

Interestingly, Frank Miller's seminal The Dark Knight Returns has an aged Batman finally taking out the Joker for the better good, which raises the question of why the hero never did that earlier.

So one wonders how the Bat will deal with his enemy in this film, seeing as how villains are traditionally killed off in superhero movies. That, plus the death of actor Heath Ledger - who looks to be giving us the ultimate Joker portrayal in The Dark Knight - makes for an uncertain future for this cackling villain.

...

The point is you don't need to kill your bad guys every time out. Kill the Joker and Two-Face and you kind of render Batman useless. He's supposed to exist to fight guys like this, and besides, if you knock them out of the scene then you're suddenly resorting to second- and third-string villains in your next film."

Tags for this video have been changed from 'alicia silverstone, vegetarianism, ad, commercial, peta, nude, clueless, batgirl' to 'alicia silverstone, vegetarianism, ad, commercial, peta, nude, clueless, batgirl, goveg' - edited by looris

..."But the involuntary contractions in Cat Womans legs, would be much more satisfying....mmmmmmmm Julie Newmar!!!

Did anyone else notice Batgirl's multiple orgasms??

when she was Batgirl she was kinda zaftig -- for Hollywood's standards anyway -- and some reviewers called her Fatgirl