In case you've been living under a rock, DC comics is refusing to let Batwoman marry her longtime girlfriend, citing flimsy, bullshit excuses. Story here. Well, I have some words to say about this.
Read the entire thread here: http://the-funeral-party.tumblr.com/post/60572325584/discowing-elfgrove-gabzilla-z
If that’s truly their position, I want to know how they can justify their characters having ANY sort of personal relationships (because they all have some sort of personal relationships despite what Didio’s response might imply)? Why does it only become a problem when the word “marriage” is involved? Either DC is full of short-sighted hypocrites or a bunch of people who have no idea how relationships actually work. Their response devalues the relationships that all their characters have established, essentially relegating these personal relationships to meaningless cannon fodder as long as the “M” word isn’t involved. Because apparently, according to DC, these relationships don’t count and don’t interfere with the hero until they become marriages (which is like super serious for grown-ups only stuff).
Furthermore, as my boyfriend pointed out, heroes get married all the time only to have their relationship end in divorce, death, or simply a villain interrupting the wedding. So even if DC is committed to keeping their heroes unhappy, they can still have a wedding and let tragedy strike later. DC, you have no leg to stand on here.
To sacrifice all personal relationships for the goal of being a hero is not noble; it’s narcissistic.
Read the entire thread here: http://the-funeral-party.tumblr.com/post/60572325584/discowing-elfgrove-gabzilla-z
"Heroes shouldn’t have happy personal lives. They are committed to being that person and committed to defending others at the sacrifice of their own personal interests.”
“That’s very important and something we reinforced,” he continued. … It’s wonderful that they try to establish personal lives, but it’s equally important that they set them aside. That is our mandate, that is our edict and that is our stand.”—-Dan Didio, Baltimore Comic Con in response the anti-marriage edict at DC Comics
If that’s truly their position, I want to know how they can justify their characters having ANY sort of personal relationships (because they all have some sort of personal relationships despite what Didio’s response might imply)? Why does it only become a problem when the word “marriage” is involved? Either DC is full of short-sighted hypocrites or a bunch of people who have no idea how relationships actually work. Their response devalues the relationships that all their characters have established, essentially relegating these personal relationships to meaningless cannon fodder as long as the “M” word isn’t involved. Because apparently, according to DC, these relationships don’t count and don’t interfere with the hero until they become marriages (which is like super serious for grown-ups only stuff).
Furthermore, as my boyfriend pointed out, heroes get married all the time only to have their relationship end in divorce, death, or simply a villain interrupting the wedding. So even if DC is committed to keeping their heroes unhappy, they can still have a wedding and let tragedy strike later. DC, you have no leg to stand on here.
To sacrifice all personal relationships for the goal of being a hero is not noble; it’s narcissistic.
*It's kinda sad how much I and other people use the tag "fuck you dc".
