When DC makes the Kents and Smallville stereotypical backwards hicks who looked like they walked out of [I]Deliverance[/I], I'll stop complaining about Daddy Zeus and the New 52 Amazons.
Printable View
When DC makes the Kents and Smallville stereotypical backwards hicks who looked like they walked out of [I]Deliverance[/I], I'll stop complaining about Daddy Zeus and the New 52 Amazons.
[QUOTE=Shockingjustice;6569833]Speaking of Fathers is it still canon that Hawaiian God adopted her? I rarely see people talk about him. Would you like it if he was brought back?[/QUOTE]
I don't think Kane Milohai has even been mentioned since Simone's run ended.
[QUOTE=Natamaxxx;6569762]I disagree.
I think some of you over estimate how “feminist” or “queer” (that hateful word!) her origin was. How does not having a father make her inherently feminist? Wouldn’t she be more so if she were portrayed to promote equality while demonstrating agency and empowerment through her actions rather than by default?
Besides, my issue isn’t exactly referring to the origin itself. I could take it or leave it since it doesn’t represent any of those things to me. My issue is the inevitable and tedious way most threads here are eventually led into yet another pointless circle jerk of a discussion on the subject.[/QUOTE]
There's all of the stuff Alpha mentioned, plus there's the symbolic gesture of self-actualization that comes from Hippolyta creating her people's legacy with her hands. The origin of the Amazons and Diana's creation is a powerful story with meaning in itself, and provides crucial context for what Diana represents; it's not an explanation for why she's a hero.
There's also the fact that Diana's power comes from a man when her father is Zeus. Her lore always challenged the near-ubiquitous paternal narrative where the father is of chief importance, and she's supposed to represent the strength of women's solidarity. Her by-line is now "daughter of Zeus." I prefer her not having a father for the reasons we've already outlined, but I'd be more open to it if her father were just a regular mortal man. [URL="https://www.themarysue.com/wonder-woman-paternal-narrative/"]This article[/URL] articulates it very well:
[quote]What I am opposed to is the Paternal Narrative’s relentless ubiquity, the way it can be expected to pop up in almost any story. It is so standard, so easy to make a key element of a story be:
“The hero’s father was a hero/villain/adventurer/inventor…”
“The hero wishes to live up to his or her father’s example; or is afraid of becoming just like his or her father…”
“The hero’s life changes when he or she discovers that his or her real father is…”
Fathers, in these stories, have significant traits, character arcs, influence. Mothers are generally far less well defined, mainly used for their biological function: she gave birth to the father’s child. Not much more needs to be known. The message this communicates is that the hero’s father has a vital and specific role in his child’s narrative, the mother a generic role that could be played by any non-specific woman. Men’s personalities drive the narrative, whether the hero is male or female; women give birth, and don’t need much of a personality. (A mother with a strong personality would often get in the way in a story like this. It’s no surprise so many die in childbirth, or not long after.)
There was exactly one well-known, easily recognized—“iconic”—DC superhero (not second-generation, not a legacy) that not only avoided the Paternal Narrative, but subverted it, presented us with a real counterpoint to it. Exactly one, and that was Wonder Woman.
Wonder Woman—Diana—was the daughter of Hippolyta, queen of the Amazons. Hippolyta raised Diana, trained her, taught her the Amazon values. She continued to be an important presence in her daughter’s life. In many ways, Diana’s strongest ongoing relationship was with her mother.
Her father? He is, at best, implied—some man with whom Hippolyta had a relationship or marriage in the past. He is not named; he does not have highly-defined, specific characteristics. In some versions of the “clay origin,” he doesn’t even exist. In any case he is not a significant part of Diana’s story. He does not bestow upon her powers, motivations, or her family name. This is the inversion of the Paternal Narrative, the one story—one!—that implicitly challenges the assumption that that father’s character and actions are of primary importance, and the mother’s a distant second.[/quote]
Yes, we talk in circles about it, but it's a massive violation of the character and it keeps coming up in the text. So naturally it's going to keep coming up.
[QUOTE=Agent Z;6569881]I don't think Kane Milohai has even been mentioned since Simone's run ended.[/QUOTE]
Not that anything from Gail Simone's run is canon anymore (or I guess all of it is canon, and so is everything? idek anymore), but didn't Zeus kill him?
I liked him and Pele a lot and really dug the ocean full of stars, but much like Rama, I can't see him being brought back. Drawing from actively practiced religions is kind of a no-no.
[QUOTE=Natamaxxx;6569762]I think some of you over estimate how “feminist” or “queer” (that hateful word!) her origin was. How does not having a father make her inherently feminist? Wouldn’t she be more so if she were portrayed to promote equality while demonstrating agency and empowerment through her actions rather than by default?[/QUOTE]
We as fans sometimes like to assign too much importance to some things. I have done it a lot as well so I'm not pretending that I'm any better than people insisting that WW has a father fundamentally changes the character.
Child not having father or mother or either of those is not a unique concept. Being able to have your child as you want isn't something unique either. Only difference is that these ideas are usually used in stories about dystopian nightmares.
[QUOTE=HsssH;6569939]We as fans sometimes like to assign too much importance to some things. I have done it a lot as well so I'm not pretending that I'm any better than people insisting that WW has a father fundamentally changes the character.
Child not having father or mother or either of those is not a unique concept. Being able to have your child as you want isn't something unique either. Only difference is that these ideas are usually used in stories about dystopian nightmares.[/QUOTE]
How is the classic origin similar to dystopian narratives? The other narratives also usually involves cold science, not divine magic.
If a child without a father isn't unique, a daughter owing her power to the lineage she inherits from a father is even less unique. Especially if said dad is Zeus, famous for being unable to keep it in his pants and sowing his oats everywhere
I'm not saying that clay origin is dystopian, but that similar ideas are usually used in dystopian settings.
Why I Love Wonder Woman by Vaclav Urbanek.
[url]https://writingbubbles.substack.com/p/why-i-love-wonder-woman[/url]
[QUOTE=HsssH;6569957]I'm not saying that clay origin is dystopian, but that similar ideas are usually used in dystopian settings.[/QUOTE]
Then what does it matter that it shows up in dystopian settings if it doesn't end up having the same vibes as those?
[QUOTE=Agent Z;6570049]Why I Love Wonder Woman by Vaclav Urbanek.
[url]https://writingbubbles.substack.com/p/why-i-love-wonder-woman[/url][/QUOTE]
what in the world is this dude referencing?
[quote]
usually referencing the Greek gods that enslaved the Amazons before they were able to break free and leave to Paradise Island.[/quote]
I don't think that describes any continuity at all.
Also the opinion that Diana is more cynical than Clark is really weird. Clark actually grew up in this world, in a very social enviroment, he knows how our systems work and how they don't work. It's why he should always be the one trying to fix the system from within, participating in the United Nations and such, whereas Diana should be trying to create a whole new system, a separate alternative.
And again with the dumb sword and shield. Who is she stabbing? And why does she need a sword to do it when she has super strength?
A lasso is what she uses to wrestle with enemies, it's literally about overcoming, as opposed to harming.
[QUOTE=Alpha;6570088]what in the world is this dude referencing?
I don't think that describes any continuity at all.[/QUOTE]
It's sort of correct. The Amazons were enslaved by Heracles who is a demigod.
[QUOTE]Also the opinion that Diana is more cynical than Clark is really weird. Clark actually grew up in this world, in a very social enviroment, he knows how our systems work and how they don't work. It's why he should always be the one trying to fix the system from within, participating in the United Nations and such, whereas Diana should be trying to create a whole new system, a separate alternative.[/QUOTE]
He never calls Diana cynical, just less naive than Clark (he explicitly saves the cynical descriptor for Batman). His argument is that as a woman, she can't afford to be as naive about the world as Clark is.
Also, many Superman fans would disagree with you that Clark should only try to fix the system from within.
[QUOTE]And again with the dumb sword and shield. Who is she stabbing? And why does she need a sword to do it when she has super strength?
A lasso is what she uses to wrestle with enemies, it's literally about overcoming, as opposed to harming.[/QUOTE]
with super strength also use swords. The lasso is not exactly a harmless weapon either, nor is Diana a bleeding heart pacifist. None of the Amazons are. The entire point is that Diana is flexible both in her options when it comes to dealing with enemies and her skillset. The sword is not taking anything away from the lasso. Even the Golden Age Amazons used swords, so can we please stop acting like this is the worst offense ever visited upon Wonder Woman?
[QUOTE=Agent Z;6570134]It's sort of correct. The Amazons were enslaved by Heracles who is a demigod.[/quote] If he meant a demigod, he would have said a demigod. He wrote Gods. plural
[quote]
He never calls Diana cynical, just less naive than Clark (he explicitly saves the cynical descriptor for Batman). His argument is that as a woman, she can't afford to be as naive about the world as Clark is. [/quote]
Except Diana's whole thing is that she is the only woman in the world that never had to think about the fact that she was a woman until she was already a fully grown adult, and once she did come to this world, no mortal man was a physical threat to her. Diana isn't someone that experiences sexism the way woman in the real world do, so the statement "as a woman, she can't afford to be as naive about the world as Clark is" doesn't actually reflect her lived experience. And there's no reason why Clark would be naive. He's a freaking journalist.
[quote]with super strength also use swords. The lasso is not exactly a harmless weapon either. The entire point is that Diana is flexible both in her options when it comes to dealing with enemies and her skillset. The sword is not taking anything away from the lasso.[/QUOTE]
But who is she stabbing on a regular basis?
And the article is implying a shield and sword represent her stance better than the lasso does, when actually:
- the lasso is a literal representation of a power struggle as an extension of her wrestling and grappling.
- Diana's thing isn't harming, it's subduing, dominating.
- She carries the tool of restrainment, because she won't be restrained by anybody
- and she will take away the power of those that wield it for exploitation, by supressing them.
And no, she only uses a sword if she doesn't have the strength required for whatever task she needs to do. Superman doesn't need a sword, nor does Hulk
[QUOTE=Alpha;6570150]
Except Diana's whole thing is that she is the only woman in the world that never had to think about the fact that she was a woman until she was already a fully grown adult,
[/QUOTE]
She grew up being told stories of what her mother and fellow Amazons went through because of men and was warned about how dangerous the world of man was. She may not have met a man until Steve arrived on the island but she did have some idea of what it meant to be a woman in a man's world, even if it was more in the abstract.
[QUOTE] and once she did come to this world, no mortal man was a physical threat to her. [/QUOTE]
If she were only dealing with mortal men, that would be a good point. Besides, physical force isn't the only way a man cause harm to a woman as we've seen in the real world and even in the Wonder Woman comics.
[QUOTE]Diana isn't someone that experiences sexism the way woman in the real world do, so the statement "as a woman, she can't afford to be as naive about the world as Clark is" doesn't actually reflect her lived experience.[/QUOTE]
Of course it does. Diana has been objectified, sexually harassed, had her capabilities and motives questioned and scrutinized, publicly smeared and been the victim of an attempted rape twice.
[QUOTE] And there's no reason why Clark would be naive. He's a freaking journalist.[/QUOTE]
Clark is an intelligent and very empathetic person. He is also someone who is privileged in many ways that will color his perspective. He will not experience sexism the way Lois or Diana have.
Diana also has privileges that distant her from certain forms of bigotry and suffering.
[QUOTE]But who is she stabbing on a regular basis?[/QUOTE]
Who says she has to do it on a regular basis?
Again, no one is saying the sword should be her first and only option. You are attacking an argument no one has ever made.
If the Jedi can use lightsabers while still using the force, Diana using a sword should not cause such contention. The only reason her using a sword is controversial in the first place is because of Kingdom Come and the New 52, neither of which were particularly well written depictions of her (save for Azzarello's run).
[QUOTE]And the article is implying a shield and sword represent her stance better than the lasso does, when actually:
- the lasso is a literal representation of a power struggle as an extension of her wrestling and grappling. [/QUOTE]
You keep bringing up this point as if wrestling and grappling are the only fighting methods Diana uses. That has never been true.
[QUOTE]- Diana's thing isn't harming, it's subduing, dominating. [/QUOTE]
Diana's thing is using whatever method will work provided it doesn't violate her ethics.
She will subdue if she needs and harm if she needs to, all within reason.
[QUOTE]She carries the tool of restrainment, because she won't be restrained by anybody
and she will take away the power of those that wield it for exploitation, by supressing them.[/QUOTE]
And people say a "warrior of peace" is contradictory.
[QUOTE]And no, she only uses a sword if she doesn't have the strength required for whatever task she needs to do. Superman doesn't need a sword, nor does Hulk[/QUOTE]
Superman was raised on a farm and the Hulk is a berserker who relies primarily on his brute strength. They don't use swords because they were never taught to use swords. Or any weapon for that matter.
[QUOTE=Stanlos;6566250]Ohhhh! She did critique of the [B]DiDidiocy [/B]surrounding New Poopy-2? Where's that?[/QUOTE]
I think this is how I will refer to that era from now on. Thanks.
[QUOTE=Natamaxxx;6569762]I disagree.
I think some of you over estimate how “feminist” or “queer” (that hateful word!) her origin was. How does not having a father make her inherently feminist? Wouldn’t she be more so if she were portrayed to promote equality while demonstrating agency and empowerment through her actions rather than by default?
Besides, my issue isn’t exactly referring to the origin itself. I could take it or leave it since it doesn’t represent any of those things to me. My issue is the inevitable and tedious way most threads here are eventually led into yet another pointless circle jerk of a discussion on the subject.[/QUOTE]
How about sheer borderline unoriginality? has that crossed your mind?
[QUOTE=Agent Z;6570189]She grew up being told stories of what her mother and fellow Amazons went through because of men and was warned about how dangerous the world of man was. She may not have met a man until Steve arrived on the island but she did have some idea of what it meant to be a woman in a man's world, even if it was more in the abstract.[/quote] And the world the amazons lived in was radically different from the world Diana arrives in. Clark would understand the nuances of our world way better than she does, because he has 20 years of experience with it compared to her, and the stories she was told don't prepare her for the world we live in. Being told that marriage was an exchanged of property between a father and a husband, does not in any way prepare you for the nuances of marriage in the western world of today.
[quote]
If she were only dealing with mortal men, that would be a good point. Besides, physical force isn't the only way a man cause harm to a woman as we've seen in the real world and even in the Wonder Woman comics.[/quote] who are these men that make Diana feel fear and humiliation? Ares apparantely isn't one of them. Hercules isn't around. Is it just Zeus? Dr Psycho? (is Diana even scarred of Psycho?)
Diana can see how other women fear and are humiliated, the same way Clark can see it, but she doesn't actually experience it.
Diana was raised in paradise, worshipped by an advanced society of women that saw her as a literal idol, she was the best of them, and each of them was great by themselves. There are almost zero people in the DC universe that can realistically make Diana feel like she is less than what she is (unless writers don't know how to write her and actually think she is Lois Lane or Jean Grey)
[quote]
Of course it does. Diana has been objectified, sexually harassed, had her capabilities and motives questioned and scrutinized, publicly smeared and been the victim of an attempted rape twice.[/quote] you've gotta show me what you mean by victim of attempted rape, because I do not know what stories you are talking about.
As far as everything else, yes there are multiple stories of her being smeared, but Diana doesn't actually have to rely on the same resources that real women need to rely on in order to endure. The ways she had to learn pragmatism are the same ways Superman has to. Greg Rucka's run tried to explore a little bit of the rightwing histeria about "protecting the culture". I'll give you that. But compare that to Superman being seen as a world ending threat by other countries.
[quote]
Clark is an intelligent and very empathetic person. He is also someone who is privileged in many ways that will color his perspective. He will not experience sexism the way Lois or Diana have.
[/quote] Diana does not experience sexism the same way Lois Lane does. She doesn't even experience sexism the same way Zatanna does.
[quote]Diana also has privileges that distant her from certain forms of bigotry and suffering.[/quote] Yes Diana is very priviledged (and I'm glad she is)
[quote]
Who says she has to do it on a regular basis?
[/quote] If Diana were to use a sword as often as Thor uses a sword, I have no problem with that. Thor doesn't need a sword, and neither does she.
[quote]
Again, no one is saying the sword should be her first and only option. You are attacking an argument no one has ever made.
[/quote]
She is literally advertised with it in her hands, most videogames in the last 10 years give her those things, she has it in movies even though she really doesn't need it, and half the stories at least outside her own book put a sword in her hand.
[quote]
If the Jedi can use lightsabers while still using the force, Diana using a sword should not cause such contention. The only reason her using a sword is controversial in the first place is because of Kingdom Come and the New 52, neither of which were particularly well written depictions of her (save for Azzarello's run).[/quote] The jedi are literally trying to kill the armies of enemies most of the time. Diana isn't usually fighting hordes of monsters or robots that she can kill without remorse. So again, what is she stabbing?
[quote]
You keep bringing up this point as if wrestling and grappling are the only fighting methods Diana uses. That has never been true.
[/quote]I keep bringing it up because it's at the core of her fantasy of empowerment. She is strong enough to overcome any challenge, and she uses her strength to take away the strength of those that use it for exploitation.
[quote]She will subdue if she needs and harm if she needs to, all within reason.[/quote] and if she needs to harm, she has super strength and knows how to use it. She doesn't need a sword
[quote]Superman was raised on a farm and the Hulk is a berserker who relies primarily on his brute strength. They don't use swords because they were never taught to use swords. Or any weapon for that matter.[/QUOTE]
Hulk was literally a gladiator, as was Superman. If they needed a sword, they have the minimum ability to use one. But they are more than strong enough to use their hands.
[QUOTE=bardkeep;6569935]There's all of the stuff Alpha mentioned, plus there's the symbolic gesture of self-actualization that comes from Hippolyta creating her people's legacy with her hands. The origin of the Amazons and Diana's creation is a powerful story with meaning in itself, and provides crucial context for what Diana represents; it's not an explanation for why she's a hero.
There's also the fact that Diana's power comes from a man when her father is Zeus. Her lore always challenged the near-ubiquitous paternal narrative where the father is of chief importance, and she's supposed to represent the strength of women's solidarity. Her by-line is now "daughter of Zeus." I prefer her not having a father for the reasons we've already outlined, but I'd be more open to it if her father were just a regular mortal man. [URL="https://www.themarysue.com/wonder-woman-paternal-narrative/"]This article[/URL] articulates it very well:
Yes, we talk in circles about it, but it's a massive violation of the character and it keeps coming up in the text. So naturally it's going to keep coming up.
Not that anything from Gail Simone's run is canon anymore (or I guess all of it is canon, and so is everything? idek anymore), but didn't Zeus kill him?
I liked him and Pele a lot and really dug the ocean full of stars, but much like Rama, I can't see him being brought back. Drawing from actively practiced religions is kind of a no-no.[/QUOTE]
It'd be hilarious for WW to get into a super-fight in Hawaii then suddenly go "What was that" then go... "oh right, I'm in Hawaii".... a few seconds before Pele lays the smack down.
For extra fun it could be above Kilauea. 'cause one of Pele's powers is being able to swim in lava apparently. I mean also the fact she can punch you into next month... But swimming in lava is also a thing.
[QUOTE=Natamaxxx;6569762]I disagree.
I think some of you over estimate how “feminist” or “queer” (that hateful word!) her origin was. How does not having a father make her inherently feminist? Wouldn’t she be more so if she were portrayed to promote equality while demonstrating agency and empowerment through her actions rather than by default?
Besides, my issue isn’t exactly referring to the origin itself. I could take it or leave it since it doesn’t represent any of those things to me. My issue is the inevitable and tedious way most threads here are eventually led into yet another pointless circle jerk of a discussion on the subject.[/QUOTE]
First, why does she have to have a father to promote equality?
Also, it's about changing a purely female centric story to something that pushes a narrative that ends up focusing on a male narrative.
In doing so, you eliminate one of the few ( if not only), or at the least most prominent and oldest female driven narrative in comics
The Goddesses of Olympus create a race of women who live in a peaceful utopia. Their Queen so longs for a daughter that the Goddess of Love bestows life to the clay sculpture the Queen created. This daughter, loved by a thousand mothers, leaves paradise to become a champion in the world of Men, tracing the ways of her people.
Shoehorn in Zeus, and (1) Hippolyta is an adulterer who (2 ) forsakes her goddess to have an affair with the King of the Gods.3) Diana gets all of her powers from said God. (4) the Amazons lie to protect her, but most hate her. (5) She allies herself with the God of War, who trains her
But do we see that with any major male characters? No. Mothers or any female persons in origins are secondary at best. ( Martha's pearls are more prevalent than Martha's influence on Bruce). None of those origins are changing to alter a major element to focus on a female character, have powers given by a female character to the main male , etc.
So maybe we don't mess with the one, historic, major, important character's origin when it's THE one vs the hundreds of others.
And then maybe we can talk about approaching any kind of idea of " equality"
[QUOTE=wonder39;6570741]First, why does she have to have a father to promote equality?
Also, it's about changing a purely female centric story to something that pushes a narrative that ends up focusing on a male narrative.
In doing so, you eliminate one of the few ( if not only), or at the least most prominent and oldest female driven narrative in comics
The Goddesses of Olympus create a race of women who live in a peaceful utopia. Their Queen so longs for a daughter that the Goddess of Love bestows life to the clay sculpture the Queen created. This daughter, loved by a thousand mothers, leaves paradise to become a champion in the world of Men, tracing the ways of her people.
Shoehorn in Zeus, and (1) Hippolyta is an adulterer who (2 ) forsakes her goddess to have an affair with the King of the Gods.3) Diana gets all of her powers from said God. (4) the Amazons lie to protect her, but most hate her. (5) She allies herself with the God of War, who trains her
But do we see that with any major male characters? No. Mothers or any female persons in origins are secondary at best. ( Martha's pearls are more prevalent than Martha's influence on Bruce). None of those origins are changing to alter a major element to focus on a female character, have powers given by a female character to the main male , etc.
So maybe we don't mess with the one, historic, major, important character's origin when it's THE one vs the hundreds of others.
And then maybe we can talk about approaching any kind of idea of " equality"[/QUOTE]
Bravo. I definitely concur 100 %.
[QUOTE]Diana has been...the victim of an attempted rape twice.[/QUOTE]
I know about Zeus pressuring her....but what is the 2nd time?
[QUOTE=DisneyBoy;6570785]I know about Zeus pressuring her....but what is the 2nd time?[/QUOTE]
Heracles tried to force himself on her in "Who Is Wonder Woman?"
[IMG]https://www.amazonarchives.com/wp-content/uploads/wonder-woman-volume-3-annual-issue-1-page-14.jpg[/IMG]
Thankfully, she was able to fight him off.
And how did Zeus pressuring her and Hercules doing that make her more pragmatic in most stories?
[CENTER][IMG]https://i.ibb.co/r2LmjWp/Image.png[/IMG][/CENTER]
[QUOTE]JUSTICE SOCIETY OF AMERICA #9
Written by GEOFF JOHNS
Art and cover by MIKEL JANIN
Variant cover by TONY HARRIS
1:25 variant cover by DAMION SCOTT
$3.99 US | 32 pages | Variant $4.99 US (card stock)
ON SALE 11/21/23
The JSA scour Europe on the hunt for Ruby, the daughter of the Red Lantern! But can they catch up to her before she burns the Earth in search of her father?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Hypo;6571187][CENTER][IMG]https://i.ibb.co/r2LmjWp/Image.png[/IMG][/CENTER][/QUOTE]
Diana looks nice here.
Also "Ruby" is the daughter of the Red Lantern, as "Jade" is the daughter of Green Lantern.
And this version of Red Lantern is powered up by the Crimson Flame, which sonething Geoff stole from the golden age Wonder Woman villain "Zara", though he doesn't seem to acknowledge Zara at all
[QUOTE=Alpha;6571353]And this version of Red Lantern is powered up by the Crimson Flame, which sonething Geoff stole from the golden age Wonder Woman villain "Zara", though he doesn't seem to acknowledge Zara at all[/QUOTE]
Ah, so the Red Lantern is not powered by Hate, but the Crimson Flame? I guess that parallels GL Alan's Green Flame (which was how Alan's power was initially described).
Maybe Zara will somehow figure into the story?
[QUOTE=Phoenixx9;6571405]Ah, so the Red Lantern is not powered by Hate, but the Crimson Flame? I guess that parallels GL Alan's Green Flame (which was how Alan's power was initially described).
Maybe Zara will somehow figure into the story?[/QUOTE]
Possible but unlikely I think since Zara wasn't mentioned in the little character bio thing they did in the Golden Age one-shot (see below) - though the "little is known about the origin of the Crimson Flame" bit leaves the door open for further reveals I suppose.
[IMG]https://i.ibb.co/xGFk1cy/image.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Hypo;6571421]Possible but unlikely I think since Zara wasn't mentioned in the little character bio thing they did in the Golden Age one-shot (see below) - though the "little is known about the origin of the Crimson Flame" bit leaves the door open for further reveals I suppose.
[IMG]https://i.ibb.co/xGFk1cy/image.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Thanks for posting this Bio!
It will be interesting to see where this all leads....
[QUOTE=Natamaxxx;6569762]I disagree.
I think some of you over estimate how “feminist” or “queer” (that hateful word!) her origin was. How does not having a father make her inherently feminist? Wouldn’t she be more so if she were portrayed to promote equality while demonstrating agency and empowerment through her actions rather than by default?
Besides, my issue isn’t exactly referring to the origin itself. I could take it or leave it since it doesn’t represent any of those things to me. My issue is the inevitable and tedious way most threads here are eventually led into yet another pointless circle jerk of a discussion on the subject.[/QUOTE]
Because society discriminates heavily against families that don't include a mom and dad, most of the time that discrimination has very misogynistic or homophobic subtexts? WW existing as she is despite being raised by Hippolyta & the amazons and not getting a traditional background goes against all that.
[img]https://static1.cbrimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/birds-of-prey-4-1-50-variant-2.jpg[/img]
[quote]BIRDS OF PREY #3
Written by KELLY THOMPSON
Art and cover by LEONARDO ROMERO
ON SALE 11/7/23
The covert first mission of the re-formed Birds of Prey has established their beachhead…in Themyscira! What could be so important to Black Canary that she’d risk the wrath of the greatest warriors on Earth?!
BIRDS OF PREY #4
Written by KELLY THOMPSON
Art and cover by LEONARDO ROMERO
ON SALE 12/5/23
Chaos reigns as the first mission for the Birds of Prey has (unsurprisingly) gone sideways. Even with the collective battle prowess of her hand-picked team, did Black Canary bring enough firepower to fight their way off Themyscira?![/quote]
[img]https://static1.cbrimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/birds-of-prey-3-1-50-variant-2.jpg[/img]
Clay origin team!
[img]https://i.imgur.com/RArBKra.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Hypo;6571187][CENTER][IMG]https://i.ibb.co/r2LmjWp/Image.png[/IMG][/CENTER][/QUOTE]
I can’t knock the beauty of this illustration…but did Diana have to be striking such a [B][I]cheesecake[/I][/B] pose? Rather than saving the world, she looks like she’s about to seduce Robert Mitchum in some film noir.
[QUOTE=Largo161;6571783]I can’t knock the beauty of this illustration…but did Diana have to be striking such a [B][I]cheesecake[/I][/B] pose? Rather than saving the world, she looks like she’s about to seduce Robert Mitchum in some film noir.[/QUOTE]
bold of you to assume she's only going to do one of those things. :D
[QUOTE=marhawkman;6571931]bold of you to assume she's only going to do one of those things. :D[/QUOTE]
LOL…okay, I’ll take back my gripe if there’s some in-story reason for Diana to play the temptress while saving the world. :D
I think it's very Carter-esque and I love it. Tony Harris has always been amazing.
[QUOTE=Largo161;6571966]LOL…okay, I’ll take back my gripe if there’s some in-story reason for Diana to play the temptress while saving the world. :D[/QUOTE]
Of course there is, she is showing off the Beauty of Aphrodite! :)
[QUOTE=Koriand'r;6571980]I think it's very Carter-esque and I love it. Tony Harris has always been amazing.[/QUOTE]
Me too!
It almost looks like Diana is coming out of one of her spins, now transformed into Wonder Woman!
[QUOTE=John Venus;6565676]When baby Diana was being brought to life, she accidentally pooped and that poop turned into Jason.[/QUOTE]
THUD.
::falls over dead from laughter::
[QUOTE=Natamaxxx;6569762]I disagree.
I think some of you over estimate how “feminist” or “queer” (that hateful word!) her origin was. How does not having a father make her inherently feminist? Wouldn’t she be more so if she were portrayed to promote equality while demonstrating agency and empowerment through her actions rather than by default?
Besides, my issue isn’t exactly referring to the origin itself. I could take it or leave it since it doesn’t represent any of those things to me. My issue is the inevitable and tedious way most threads here are eventually led into yet another pointless circle jerk of a discussion on the subject.[/QUOTE]
The point is to provide multiple different perspectives. If you look at characters like Zatanna and Lois Lane, their father figures are treated as the most important figures of their lives and the source of their powers.
Majority of heroes follow the Joseph Campbell heroes journey model wherein the father provides the seed of life, the power comes from the father, the hero goes from resenting the father to emulating their father to becoming their father and then surpassing their father. The mom is just the incubator for life. Everyone from Luke Skywalker to Tony Stark to Shang Chi and even heroes from manga like Luffy, Ichigo and Naruto follow this with a side serving of 'Journey to the West', in some narratives they do work around the Campbell formula to give the mom more agency; Naruto does this with Kushina, Bleach later did it with Ichigo's mom and so did Shang Chi. Even when the father figure is entirely absent from the protagonists life or are evil, they are still treated as important (see Luke Skywalker and also Luffy).
Wonder Woman is one of the few narratives that doesn't follow the Campbell heroes journey*. Diana is a creation of Hippolyta, raised entirely in a society of women and her powers come from women. Turning Diana into the daughter of Zeus moves away from the unique themes established in the narrative, splits the fanbase and creators and it's redundant both from a creative standpoint and even from a mythological standpoint (since in mythology Hippolyta is Ares daughter, him banging her means he slept with his own grand daughter and while that wouldn't be out of character for Zeus, it still.....no. Just no.).
*I think Steve Rogers is the only other hero to avoid this trend as well.
Course, if DC wants to double down on the Zeus origin they could always make Wonder Womans new catch phrase "Incest is best!" or something along those lines to further promote their gross and twisted desires.
I think this is worth sharing here too. Cassie went from being something meaningful in the Wonderverse, to what she was after Geoff Johns
[QUOTE=Agent Z;6572532][img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F32TQPmXgAA4uqD?format=jpg&name=large[/img]
[img] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F32TaC3WQAAR_eF?format=jpg&name=large[/img]
[img] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F32TaC4WQAEVDg5?format=jpg&name=900x900[/img]
[url]https://twitter.com/orngejuicefan/status/1692670947411529810[/url][/QUOTE]