A Batman researcher said 'gay' in a talk to schoolkids. When asked to censor himself, he quit
A Batman researcher said 'gay' in a talk to schoolkids. When asked to censor himself, he quit
An author's clash with a Georgia school district over a brief mention of homosexuality in a presentation highlights the reach of conservatives' push for what what they call parents' rights.
You're viewing a single thread.
This is a weird headline. Ok the guy really is a Batman researcher. I'm not sure why it was so important to mention that the Batman co-creator's son was gay though, unless that was somehow relevant to the creation process or his life experience or something.
It's important from a narrative standpoint in telling his own story of researching this; the point of these talks is much less about teaching kids the history of the co-creator of Batman than it is telling the story of the researcher and writer who put that history together. The point is to hopefully inspire a few kids to go down a similar path themselves.
It was presumed, since Bill Finger's only child was a gay man who died thirty years ago, that no heir to his estate existed. The researcher discovering that Bill had a granddaughter would lose its impact without the knowledge that his only child was gay.
Finger died in obscurity in 1974, with artist Bob Kane credited as Batman’s only creator. Finger’s only child was a son, Fred Finger, who was gay and died in 1992 at age 43 of AIDS complications. Bill Finger was presumed to have no living heirs, meaning there was no one to press DC Comics to acknowledge Finger’s work.
But Nobleman discovered Fred Finger had a daughter, Athena Finger. That, he said, is a showcase moment of the presentation he estimates he has given 1,000 times at schools.
“It’s the biggest twist of the story, and it’s usually when I get the most gasps,” Nobleman said. “It’s just a totally record-scratch moment.”
Nobleman’s research helped push DC Comics into reaching a deal with Athena Finger in 2015 to acknowledge her grandfather and Kane as co-creators. That led to the documentary “Batman & Bill,” featuring Nobleman.
Yeah it's a vital component of the story, and any pushback reaks of 'dont say gay'.
The same reason famous women inventors and inventors of color are often singled out to us in gradeschool.
Because history was written almost exclusively by (or at least authored by if they had others write it) heterosexual Caucasian men who largely wrote themselves as the victors of every war, inventor of anything they could take credit for, etc.
A child in that biased vacuum might come to the incorrect conclusion that straight Caucasian men are the best and the brightest rather than the truth: that they're merely the writers of their own historical press releases.
Gay people have invented, authored, and created for all of human history, largely under the guise of being straight lest they be shunned and cast out of halls of power.
That's why it's important to demonstrate to children that creation comes from people who look like and have similar identities to themselves. Imagine being a 13 year old realizing you're gay and remembering that civilization was created largely by straight people who largely also chose to make gay people's lives living hells, if they let them live at all.
yea, though many cultures around the world don't place a high emphasis on these kind of values
Wtf. There was no gay invention of Batman.
The point is the co-creator only had one son who was gay and had died in the 90s, so has no living heir to fight for his recognition. By surprise twist, his gay son had a daughter! That's the whole thing. That's why it's interesting.
Oh god, the humanity, the children!!
Gay people have invented, authored, and created for all of human history, largely under the guise of being straight lest they be shunned and cast out of halls of power.
No the persons comment was very much lumping the creation of Batman under this. Like, yes, the story is cool and very surprising given the circumstances. But that isn't what the person you're replying to is taking issue with.
What would this be called, gay-washing? I don't know, I also don't really care. I'm just pointing out what I see.
Yes. I am well aware of the Finger family and have been a long supporter of getting his name on the comics.
The above comment directly links the creation of the character to a son who had nothing to do with the creation.
His son would’ve been his only heir eligible to receive compensation if DC ever made things right, but he died young (from AIDS) and never had any children himself (because he was gay).
Edif: He did have a child! Wow!
Wow!
And this reaction is precisely the reason why the son being gay is a key point of the talk (it's the twist of the story, and Finger's gay son having a daughter who could demand restitution was the only reason DC eventually recognised him as co-creator!), and why removing that fact from the talk wouldn't just be homophobic, but also profoundly stupid (not that being homophobic isn't profoundly stupid already, of course, but this makes it stupidity squared).
Permanently Deleted
Ok so they didn't think the son had an heir but he actually did, I still am not sure that the son's sexual orientation is that important in a story about Batman to elementary school kids.
The only reason someone would get offended at the mere mention of gay people existing to elementary school kids is that they don't want gay people to exist. Take a look at yourself and ask why this upsets you.
It’s not a story about Batman. It’s a story about the creation of Batman. That’s why it’s important.
And about DC being arses, and Finger's gay son having against all expectations a daughter being the only reason said arses eventually recognised him as co-creator.
Why are straight white people the only people who don't need a plot justification to exist?
Non-straight here: It would be just as weird to mention heterosexual people being straight when it's irrelevant to the conversation, IMO. If you're making a point to mention the person's sexuality, there should be a reason for it.
In this case, it did have that. He was known to be gay, but turned out to have a daughter that no one knew about.
But we absolutely see backlash of the type of "why does he have to be gay" in response to something as simple as two men holding hands, or other things that would never be seen as "making a point to mention someone's sexuality" if that sexuality is straight. I'm generalizing away from this particular example and addressing the idea that anything that isn't cishet is abnormal and requires justification.
They're agreeing with you by saying that no one's sexuality should be forced to be disclosed, much less should it require justification unless absolutely necessary.
This isn't about forcing people to disclose their sexuality. "Why does he have to be gay?" Is almost always an effort to force people not to disclose their sexuality, but it's only ever used when the sexuality being disclosed is non-straight. You have never seen and will never see any reaction at all to a straight cis male character simply using the phrase "my wife" but a cis female character doing exactly the same will elicit a backlash. They'll dress it up as being against unnecessary sexualization, but the only sexualization that's ever unnecessary is queer sexualization. Straight sexualization is never a problem.
Permanently Deleted
I think the question is why/how the sexual orientation is relevant. The same as skin color etc, that seems irrelevant to me.
Permanently Deleted
Only white, heteronormative, neurotypical experiences influence the creation of artistic works. Duh. /s
Don't forget Christian!
Oh, but that's not even specific enough? On which half of 30 schisms does your religion fall vs someone else's? Oh? 2 schisms off? Time for a crusade I guess!
Permanently Deleted
In this specific case what makes the discovery of a grandaughter of the author a massive surprise and plot twist is that her father and only child of the author was gay. Had he not been so, expectations on the existance of a living descendant of the author might have been different.
That's what makes his sexual orientation be relevant in this case: it explains why nobody expected there would be living descendants of the author and why her discovery was such a massive plot twist.
Had her father been, for example, a catolic priest (quite independently of sexual orientation), that information would've been relevant in just the same way and for the same reasons.
Whilst I agree that people's sexual orientation is irrelevant in most stories that aren't about romance (and no matter which way it goes, by the way), in this specific case it absolutelly is relevant to explain the behaviour and expectations of other participants in the story up to the point when the grandaughter was discovered.
Permanently Deleted
I just came all the way back and you seemed to be accusing me of something I did not say (or meant to imply).
Eventually all the way down our little tète-à-tète you'll see I'm explicitly saying that it makes all sense to mention an artists sexual orientation when that is part of what makes the art she or he makes be what it is.
(However in that thread you seem to be defending unprompted celebration of specific human characteristics because they have contributed to making the art of some people what it is, and that's WAY broader than recognizing them for their specific contribution in specific artist, artworks and art styles).
As for artistic works themselves, everything and nothing are relevant and irrelevant: it's all up to the artist what should go there.
However in this specific case somebody was telling a true story (so, not a work of art) and what was being disputed was if mentioning a specific person's sexual orientation made sense or not here, which IMHO does make all sense (it's actually quit crucial).
Telling a true story is all about conveying information, in which case relevance does make sense as a criteria in including or not something.
I'm culturally very dutch, having lived there for almost a decade at a key point of my life, so from my point of view all sexual orientations are absolutelly normal, same as, for example, eye color - only wierdos would ever treat people differently based on eye color, sexual orientation or any such things.
From my point of view the continued emphasising of the differences but with a different "tone" that some in anglo-saxon cultures think of as "progressive" is actually culturally backwards, as for me the ideal world is one were people don't get classified, put in little boxes and judged and treated differently on things they were born with.
So yeah, when all sexual orientations are normal there is about as much need to point them out when not relevant as there is a need to point out the color of the eyes of somebody when not relevant. Equally, there is no reason whatsoever to refrain from mentioning it when they are relevant: you don't act differently around and about a specific normal something than you would around and about all other normal things - if you do then that is clearly not normal for you.
I can understand that from your cultural environment the visible reflections of my own "only wierdoes emphasise absolutelly normal things" posture might be confused with the kind of thinly disguised "anti-gay" sentiment the types who in your own culture are seen as backwards put out, as you're still in an environment were the fight for equality is done by keeping on classifying people on things they were born with and emphasising whenever you can in a positive way certain classifications to make up for past (and also still very much present from other people in your culture) negative sentiment against them, hence it's only natural to from that worldview perceive those who disagree with such positive emphasising as anti-gay (because in your mind you assume that everybody is doing the classifying part, so those who refuse to recognize certain classifications positivelly must be "anti" them) and the unfortunate widespread belief in the Two-side Falacy in your culture doesn't exactly help with even considering the possibility that there are more takes on such an important subject as Equality that just the 2 you've been led to believe are the only ones possible.
(Still, I was hoping that my logical argumentation approach on my original post hinted at were I was coming from, but I guess it didn't for everybody)
Permanently Deleted
I suggest you review the Logic of the concept that other people not celebrating every single thing associated with somebody else's "experiences" when talking about something else and were those are totally irrelevant, somehow cheapens such "experiences", unless you think that only some very specifical innate characteristics associated with "experiences" deserve reafirmation and celebration at every moment including when not applicable, but not other innate characteristics, in which case you've proven my point about not treating all normal things as normal.
(For example, just because I have blue eyes and I've had experiences thanks to that doesn't mean other people should be going around talking about blue-eyed people and expecting ptherwise would be very very wierd of me)
What an incredibly narcissitic and moralistic take on the world to expect others to constantly celebrate very specific chracteristics you were born with that lead to very specific experiences you find important for yourself - you, your characteristics and your experiences are not inherently important and deserving of constant recognition by everybody else just to prevent you from feeling that they're being cheapenned.
Mind you, such a "I see only me and what's important for me must be treated as important by all" is also a common cultural artifact in the modern anglo world so it makes sense to see that "logic" used as an "argument" by pretty much everybody in the cultural wars over there (even nationalists and religious nutters anchor their "logic" on ""what's important for me should be treated as important by all").
Permanently Deleted
Unequal treatment of people on things they were born with is unfair hence wrong, period.
Logically it applies is all directions, no matter if some people deem specific forms of unequal treatment as positive or not. I mean, the fucking KKK assholes think their own direction of unequal treatment is positive and that they're "protecting their race" which should at least get you started on thinking on just how "logical" it is to keep the classication going and just trying to switch which groups are deemed worthy. The point being that keeping the framework of classification on innate characteristics around and just switching the groups you think good of an those you think badly off, is just changing who is doing the moral judging, not stopping people from being unfairly treated due to the moral judging of others - it moves the unfairness around rather than stop it.
So far, whilst seemingly trying to defend a deeply and very emotionally held interpretation of the world (which is seen as core to the identity of those who feel themselves as members of a specific cultural tribes in your quite culturally backwards corner of the world) you've been firing every other way trying to find a logical foothold to justify your own emotional bond to that highly political (over there) take, and all you've succeed in is getting ever more illogical - for example, when you say that I "bizarrely am against celebrating what makes people unique contributes to all the beautiful art and expression we see world wide" you're making such an illogical broad demand that it would mean that I should celebrate "crushing poverty" and "a preference for Coca-Cola over Pepsi" because some people who had a past with both grew up to produce "beautiful art and expression". The reason for the ridiculous nature of that little jewel of yours is that it relies on an Association Falacy (a kind of logical falacy which, funnilly enough, is quite commonly used by far right nutters, for example one of their "pearls" is basically "all immigrants are dangerous because some murders are immigrants").
I celebrate the actual "beautiful art and expression" and if certain elements of the past experience of an artist are integral in making it happen, then as I see it they are relevant and it makes sense to mention them (i.e. I'm not against mentioning the sexual orientation of the artist when that helps explain her or his art because that information is entirelly relevant in that context). However it makes no sense to celebrate specific things about people just because of they are part of the life experience that contribute to the uniqueness of some artist, somewhere, and hopefully my example of there being artists whose past of "crushing poverty" and "a preference for Coca-Cola over Pepsi" "contributed to make them unique" makes crystal clear why what you wrote there is a senseless and incredibly vague association.
You are however right that I am triggered: it's sad and infuriating when I see somebody who deep down probably shares a similar yearning for a more Equal World as I have, doggedly defend with the level of rationality of a cultist, a take on it cloned from the slogans of some political tribe in a culturally backwards country which have long drifted away from rationality (no doubt corrupted by the local politicians) and be incapable of using rationality to reach their own conclusion from first principles or at least pull themselves out a little from their narrow cultural environment and look at things from a fresh perspective.
My expectation of such capability in random people on the internet is indeed highly irrational of me.
This is about as well formulated as it gets, thank you. I think the same way.
Straight people often (don't) have children. Assuming that it must be this or that, forever, is absurd.
It's about the expectations about the likelihood of having descendants that the knowledge that the man was gay create in everybody else, especially was this was quite some time ago.
(People naturally assume that gay men are far less likely to have children than straight men, for obvious reasons which I assume I do not need to explain to you)
Such expectations then fed into expectations about the future of the DC Universe.
All this makes the discovery that people were wrong in their expectations a pivotal and thus key element in the whole story.
I'll make it easier for you: imagine that the man was a catolic priest rather than gay, and then imagine that the story teller would have to try and work the story around not mentioning that piece of information because some people felt that there should be no mention of "catolicism". Think just how senseless the story would be without it (most of it would make no sense for the audience because they wouldn't understand people's expectation that he had no childen).
If it would make no sense for the story-teller to refrain from mentioning a specific christian denomination when it was key to the story, why would it make sense for the story-teller to refrain from mentioning a specific sexual orientation which is key to the story?!
For that specific reason... alright. Makes sense to mention it. Sadly, often it is not mentioned for such a reason. Which is what made me comment here, even tho in this case, it actually does make sense. Sorry for the confusion.
I'd like to compare that percentage to the amount of gay men that have children without adoption. Something tells me that all the butt fucking I do isn't gonna lead me to have a child accidentally. But maybe I've been having gay sex all wrong.
In America, race and sexuality being irrelevant is a privilege of straight white men. When someone has done you violence because of who you are, you'll spend every second of the rest of your life with who you are and how likely the people around you are to try to kill you over it in the forefront of your mind. When I, as a queer person, walk into a room I immediately sort everyone in the room into threats, allies, and people who will just stand off to the side because experience has taught me that if I don't some people will beat the shit out of me and others will tell me that I deserve it for "being a f*g about things". Ask your black friend, or your gay friend, or your woman friend. I guarantee you every one of them is more on guard than you because race, gender and sexual orientation will never be irrelevant to them.
That's fucking terrible. And another reason not to make something like that public, when it is that prone to be used against that person.
The last time I was bullied and attacked was back in school. Kids don't need any reason to be hostile, it could be the angle of your eyebrow.
Permanently Deleted