According to the New York Times (and when was the last time that august publication popped up in the Fortress?), the new Batwoman is none other than the old Batwoman - Kathy Kane!
Since the world has changed since the character debuted 50 years ago, Kathy Kane has undergone a transformation herself.
She is described by the Times as “a wealthy (socialite), buxom lipstick lesbian who has a history with Renee Montoya, an ex-police detective who has a starring role in 52.”
Her costume is also different, trading in the old red-and-yellow number for battle togs that resemble the futuristic gear of Batman Beyond.
Frankly, the Keeper views both changes as positive. Although DC has done a laudable job diversifying its universe in recent years, Batwoman is arguably the company’s most high-profile gay character yet.
The test, of course, is whether Kathy will be written as a “gay” super-hero (Hello, Northstar!) or a super-hero who happens to be gay (What’s the Pied Piper doing these days?).
Given DC’s portrayal of Holly over in Catwoman, the Keeper is cautiously optimistic that Batwoman will be an example of the latter.
(Although does every lesbian in Gotham know each other? The back-story of Kane and Montoya will be more complex than the Times article hints…)
Oh, yeah. The new costume looks great…
Batwoman debuts in 52 #11. The Keeper is crossing his fingers Kathy Kane will get a bit more respect this go-round than the Silver Age, where Batman dismissed her efforts until the one-time acrobat finally returned to circus life.
Where she was murdered.
Hmmm, given that history there’s nowhere to go but up …
Okay I’m going to nitpick here. I realize it isn’t meant as a bad thing but I hate that “gay” character or character who happens to be gay stuff. It’s like asking a large man in a comic shop - are you a fat-fanboy or a fanboy who happens to be fat? But I know what you’re getting at. I hope this doesn’t become some straight white male version of a hot lipstick lesbian that is nothing more than a parody of itself and unintentionally offensive.
I’m interested to see where it goes and I hope it doesn’t end up being a well intentioned parody. The moment she’s seen lounging in a checkered lumberjack shirt, I’m out! Although it would be a step up from the push-up lingerie we’re seeing on most women characters.
I’m keeping my fingers crossed as well, but I do like the idea of a new female Bat character.
Sorry for my crap spelling.
Hmmm…I still think the distinction is valid. It was primarily inspired by Northstar’s infamous leap from the closet, where he stood in Heroic Pose #132 and loudly proclaimed, “I AM GAY.”
I felt there was no reason for that particular scene, other than allowing Marvel to loudly condemn the stupid “no gays in our universe” rule of the time.
That to my mind, is a “gay” with an upper-case “G” character.
DC, on the other hand, has been more subtle with such characters as Obsidian and Pied Piper - weaving their sexual preferences into personalities that are more than simply tributes to political correctness.
To me, they are characters who happen to be gay.
Maybe I’m creating a distinction that doesn’t exist, but I’m comfortable with it.
Thanks for the comments though!
You gave me something to think about.
Fair enough, I’m not leaving in outrage or anything.
And I like the costume. I bet her superpower is fighting crime in heels.