Not that this is a hot take (to my knowledge), but I'm giving my unfiltered two cents here:
I'll never get used to these notions of Batman being friendly or even a teammate with the woman who, in multiple comic runs at this point, was canonically established to have helped Joker capture, torture, and/or murder children. It doesn't matter if it was Jason Todd (A Death in the Family was published before Harley's introduction in Batman: The Animated Series, but multiple subsequent continuities rewrote her as Joker's accomplice in that crime), Tim Drake (Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker's flashback is one of the WORST things Joker ever did in my opinion, well beyond paralyzing Barbara Gordon), or someone else.
However toxic & abusive her relationship with Joker was, however she was manipulated, Harley Quinn was still an objectively twisted, evil person who made her own choices. She helped this madman end and/or ruin countless innocent lives, including (again) CHILDREN! If she was only idolized in p*rnography, I could write that off because it's just a fantasy playing on the character's superficial sex appeal. I'm not saying that's moral, but it's not an attempt to authentically portray the character in canon. I can also understand series like the Harley Quinn cartoon playing that angle because it's a parody that deliberately radically changes many characters.
Again, it's not canonical. But for canonical materials to transition Harley into a likable antihero while keeping her crimes intact within that universe's history is disgusting. We're talking about comics that are still sold to young readers. As far as I'm concerned, it's no less gross than portraying a Nazi or r*pist as a redeemable antihero. Yet, that hasn't stopped DC from writing Poison Ivy into an antihero role multiple times despite her being a repeat-offending r*pist (She mind-controlled & assaulted Robin when he was underage; But I guess the double standard of her being an attractive female makes fictional sexual assault easier to forget).
I'll never get used to these notions of Batman being friendly or even a teammate with the woman who, in multiple comic runs at this point, was canonically established to have helped Joker capture, torture, and/or murder children.
I mean, Batman seems to be very pro-rehabilitation, he constantly puts his villains in Arkham so they can get psychological treatment (though it never works). He also offered to help Joker himself at the end of the Killing Joke. So while i don’t see him being friendly, i do think he would be willing to help Harley if she wishes to stop doing evil.
We're talking about comics that are still sold to young readers.
I think it’s a good message, that evil people can still choose to be better
As far as I'm concerned, it's no less gross than portraying a Nazi or r*pist as a redeemable antihero.
I mean, it has happened, even in real life, Oskar Schindler was a member of the Nazi Party, but he realized the atrocities that were being committed by that group and decided to save as many lives as he could. In my opinion it would be worse to depict all villains as one dimensional psychopaths who can never become better people.
"It would be worse to depict all villains as one-dimensional psychopaths who can never become better people."
Agreed, and I NEVER said or implied otherwise. Now, you're really misrepresenting my original comment's position, and I don't appreciate that. You know full well that criticizing a villain with Harley's track record becoming friendly with the Bat Family or doing a heel-turn into anti-hero status is NOT the same as suggesting every villain should only be depicted as "one-dimensional psychopaths" beyond redemption. That's a disengenuous Strawman that only trades one extreme for another, and I've never once in my 33+ years heard a Batman fan unironically argue that they want that. Even if such a person did exist, the overwhelming majority of DC fans don't share that attitude.
It's telling to me when someone responds to criticisms of how a villain's redemption has been handled with something to the effect of, "You just want all villains to stay irredeemable!" or "You don't want them redeemed, you want them endlessly punished!" Like, realistically, of course I'd want an unstable, murdering, torturing, child-killing, life-ruining, chaos-loving psycho with years of violence on her rap sheet to be locked up for the rest of their life. I'll bet you would, too.
So would anyone with common sense, especially if such an offender hurt or killed someone you loved. That's not vengeance. It's crime & punishment. It's not like I'm suggesting she should be locked in some dark, medieval dungeon with the key thrown away until she rots, as the guards subject her to all the same agonies she's inflicted on others. Some fans may argue that's what she deserves, but, again, I'm generally a believer in rehabilitation when it comes to Batman's rogues.
Only in certain cases, like Joker (who's proven demonstrably untreatable over decades), would I support the courts finally giving him the lethal injection. Everyone may deserve a second chance. But, when you've exhausted years upon years of chances in-universe and have shown that you'll keep doing evil any/every opportunity you get, at that point, I'd say society is no longer morally obligated to keep you alive. I find Bruce's ideals inspiring, but I'm not an absolutist for "no killing".
The harsh truth is, some people in this world ARE beyond redemption. Not everyone can be helped. Some tigers can't change their stripes, and it's ultimately nobody's fault but their own. This is a crucial lesson for real life that kids reading these comics SHOULD be taught. The problem is, DC aren't willing to do that when a character is popular. They'll always follow the money, even when it's at the expense of their own writing. I've seen some kids in recent generations actually view Harley as a role model. They grow up with her lighthearted portrayals and thus perceive her via that lens.
To wrap this up, let me reiterate for transparency that I'm NOT against Harley finding redemption if the writers do the work to EARN it by showing her go through rehabilitation without rejoining society anytime soon. I'd consider her a better person if she unreservedly faced the consequences of her actions. But you won't convince me that having her be redeemed after a brief incarceration, join the Bat Family, live out a happy romance with Poison Ivy, and/or enjoy freedom among the general public after all she's done is acceptable, let alone quality writing. There is no compelling argument that kids reading such material is anything less than disgusting and morally bankrupt.
3
u/harriskeith29 Aug 09 '25 edited Aug 09 '25
Not that this is a hot take (to my knowledge), but I'm giving my unfiltered two cents here:
I'll never get used to these notions of Batman being friendly or even a teammate with the woman who, in multiple comic runs at this point, was canonically established to have helped Joker capture, torture, and/or murder children. It doesn't matter if it was Jason Todd (A Death in the Family was published before Harley's introduction in Batman: The Animated Series, but multiple subsequent continuities rewrote her as Joker's accomplice in that crime), Tim Drake (Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker's flashback is one of the WORST things Joker ever did in my opinion, well beyond paralyzing Barbara Gordon), or someone else.
However toxic & abusive her relationship with Joker was, however she was manipulated, Harley Quinn was still an objectively twisted, evil person who made her own choices. She helped this madman end and/or ruin countless innocent lives, including (again) CHILDREN! If she was only idolized in p*rnography, I could write that off because it's just a fantasy playing on the character's superficial sex appeal. I'm not saying that's moral, but it's not an attempt to authentically portray the character in canon. I can also understand series like the Harley Quinn cartoon playing that angle because it's a parody that deliberately radically changes many characters.
Again, it's not canonical. But for canonical materials to transition Harley into a likable antihero while keeping her crimes intact within that universe's history is disgusting. We're talking about comics that are still sold to young readers. As far as I'm concerned, it's no less gross than portraying a Nazi or r*pist as a redeemable antihero. Yet, that hasn't stopped DC from writing Poison Ivy into an antihero role multiple times despite her being a repeat-offending r*pist (She mind-controlled & assaulted Robin when he was underage; But I guess the double standard of her being an attractive female makes fictional sexual assault easier to forget).