Wonder Woman - General Discussion

[QUOTE=Alpha;6139924]In what way did I imply anything of the sort?


[B]Use her lasso[/B]. That's what it's there for. Put your foot on his back, even that is more in character. And for goodness sake, if you are gonna put your foot on his head as he lies on the ground, just to humiliate him even more than don't say those words "Don't.Get.Up" since you know he has absolutely no way to escape the situation he is in.

It's not because she is a superhero. Plenty of superheroes would still do that. But she is fckng Wonder Woman. She came here for a very clear reason. This is the opposite of ehy she us here. And the only reason why people celebrate it is because they are more interested in the revenge fantasy of Diana humiliating DC's fabourite big Macho Man.[/QUOTE]

We all know how nerfed the lasso is, and writers will always try and find a way out especially when it comes to Batman. Also, since when does she have to be perfect all the time and do what we think should be done? Wasn't that a criticism of Diana at the time in that she was too perfect? I think she made the impact of her statement to a 'asshole' like Bruce in a great manner with the [B]Don't.Get.Up.[/B] She told him in no uncertain words that she was pissed and would brook no quarter from him.

[QUOTE=Alpha;6139924]In what way did I imply anything of the sort?


Use her lasso. That's what it's there for. Put your foot on his back, even that is more in character. And for goodness sake, if you are gonna put your foot on his head as he lies on the ground, just to humiliate him even more than don't say those words "Don't.Get.Up" since you know he has absolutely no way to escape the situation he is in.

It's not because she is a superhero. Plenty of superheroes would still do that. But she is fckng Wonder Woman. She came here for a very clear reason. This is the opposite of ehy she us here. And the only reason why people celebrate it is because they are more interested in the revenge fantasy of Diana humiliating DC's fabourite big Macho Man.[/QUOTE]

Even Marston's Diana took a moment to mockingly gloat over Priscilla Rich in Comics Cavalcade #11 when the latter tried and failed to club her over the head. And this isn't a Cheetah with powers, so Diana is a superhuman here who is mocking an opponent she already took out. Nobody bemoans stuff like that because Cheetah was trying to hurt her, and Bruce here was being an arrogant disrespectful jerk who was the first to resort to violence.

So even Marston viewed Diana as someone who would be petty to opponents weaker than herself at times. He didn't view it as being the opposite of why she's here

If only there were images to celebrate Diana's power other than a revenge fantasy against DC's Spoiled Macho Man.

But again, it's important to always remind everyone. One of the things that makes her great and powerful is that she can put her foot on the head of a man lying on the ground and slowly threaten him when he has absolutely no way of even escaping. Maybe she should just lose the lasso and start putting those boots on top of everyone she faces. Her boots should be called the boots of vengeance.

I guess I'm starting to understand the real Diana. Can't believe it took me this long to see how cool she is.

DC should have a month of homages to that inspiring cover with each superhero putting their foot on top of another superhero as they lie on the ground.

Next up is Oracle putting her wheelchair on top of Damian Wayne. Plus a Supergirl story where she stomps on the head of Black Lightning.

[QUOTE=Alpha;6140532]If only there were images to celebrate Diana's power other than a revenge fantasy against DC's Spoiled Macho Man.

But again, it's important to always remind everyone. One of the things that makes her great and powerful is that she can put her foot on the head of a man lying on the ground and slowly threaten him when he has absolutely no way of even escaping. Maybe she should just lose the lasso and start putting those boots on top of everyone she faces. Her boots should be called the boots of vengeance.

I guess I'm starting to understand the real Diana. Can't believe it took me this long to see how cool she is.

DC should have a month of homages to that inspiring cover with each superhero putting their foot on top of another superhero as they lie on the ground.

Next up is Oracle putting her wheelchair on top of Damian Wayne. Plus a Supergirl story where she stomps on the head of Black Lightning.[/QUOTE]

No actually what's cool about it is that it's THE feminist icon's very recognizable boot on the head of an icon of toxic masculinity. It's not cool because it's someone's boot on someone's head, it's cool because it's political and subversive and the image only relays that message because of the characters' (especially WW's) iconography. My only complaint is that there aren't variants with the Punisher, Superman, and Dirty Harry in Batman's place.

It's a great story overall from one of WW's best writers ever. I'll gladly take a moment of bad/questionable characterization (which, in fairness, is while she's being stalked by demons who want to kill her the moment she slips up, and is directed toward someone who's being a complete and utter ass) if it means we get that cover image.

That message doesn't really work with Superman.He's (at least is supposed to be) a example of of healthy masculinity.

Also, putting a boot to his head isn't her first response. Her first response was diplomacy and its only after exhausting all other options and after Bruce tries abusing the ritual does she reach the point of pinning him down with her boot. She halts his single minded obsession with capturing the girl and putting both the girl and Diana's soul in danger.

Much like Diana snapping Lord's neck only after trying several other ways, that's the nuance that people are missing.

Gal Gadot shared on her social media today that she's finished filming Heart of Stone, her Netflix action film. I also believed she's finished filming her part in Snow White, too. In her social media post, she says she's about to rest. Hopefully, with Jenkins Star Wars film still seemingly on hold - I guess we'll know for sure at D23 - and Gadot finished with her movie projects. I hope we can get some news on a 2023 production schedule and a 2024 release date.

Gadot is also connected to Cleopatra - as is Jenkins as a producer - however the last update we, the public, received was that Universal was trying to buy the rights of the film from Paramount. I'm not certain what that means for the production schedule; however, with Gadot and Jenkins involved in both films, I'm certain/hopeful Gadot could film both movies in 2023.

[QUOTE=bardkeep;6140708]No actually what's cool about it is that it's THE feminist icon's very recognizable boot on the head of an icon of toxic masculinity. It's not cool because it's someone's boot on someone's head, it's cool because it's political and subversive and the image only relays that message because of the characters' (especially WW's) iconography. My only complaint is that there aren't variants with the Punisher, Superman, and Dirty Harry in Batman's place.

It's a great story overall from one of WW's best writers ever. I'll gladly take a moment of bad/questionable characterization (which, in fairness, is while she's being stalked by demons who want to kill her the moment she slips up, and is directed toward someone who's being a complete and utter ass) if it means we get that cover image.[/QUOTE]

As far as toxic masculinity goes, I wouldn't lump Superman in with the other three.

And tbf to Batman, the term only applies to the post Frank Miller versions, and not even all of them. But yeah, fair game for h as far as that period goes.

[QUOTE=SiegePerilous02;6140879]As far as toxic masculinity goes, I wouldn't lump Superman in with the other three.

And tbf to Batman, the term only applies to the post Frank Miller versions, and not even all of them. But yeah, fair game for h as far as that period goes.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I should clarify, I was thinking of Superman in the "guy sitting in his car in an S-shield shirt and Oakleys, recording a selfie-cam video where he rants about superheroes having pronouns now" reductive male power fantasy sense. I've got no issues with Superman as a character (or many iterations of Batman, for that matter).

[QUOTE=John Venus;6140720]Also, putting a boot to his head isn't her first response. Her first response was diplomacy and its only after exhausting all other options and after Bruce tries abusing the ritual does she reach the point of pinning him down with her boot. She halts his single minded obsession with capturing the girl and putting both the girl and Diana's soul in danger.

Much like Diana snapping Lord's neck only after trying several other ways, that's the nuance that people are missing.[/QUOTE]

Then again, put that foot on his back. Or use the lasso. Not his head. There's nothing feminist about humiliating a human being. You are right about Batman being a symbol of toxic masculinity (there are exceptions actually but whatever), and that imagery of putting your foot on the head of him lying on the ground doesn't make you the hero. It just makes you another kind of toxic individual.

If anything that's a symbol of toxic feminism. That's not Diana. And if she dies become it, that's her at her lowest. That's what she doesn't want to be. What gives people pleasure about that image is the fact that she is humiliating someone that supposedly deserves it. But why would someone want that type of revenge? That's a sickness. A sad thing. It's not a symbol of inspiration. It's a sad moment. It isn't feminism

This is Diana actually taking the wind out of a Nazi's sails. And she can find some pleasure in shaking him up. It doesn't make her toxic.
[IMG]https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-geELm84grPs/VngI9tcdjzI/AAAAAAAANH8/xGV1YUcnKik/s0-Ic42/RCO011.jpg[/IMG]
She isn't doing anything more than she has to. This isn't humiliation and he certainly gets the point. Even this dude still has some human dignity left. And it is followed by this panel:
[IMG]https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4L262WdN-e4/VngI-qohvsI/AAAAAAAANH8/jbq2YjBMPPQ/s0-Ic42/RCO015.jpg[/IMG]

She doesn't suddenly sympathize with Nazis, but she does see a screwed up human being hurting others on purpose. And there is a point of no return. Dr Psycho and Joker certainly crossed it and deserve all the humiliation you can get. But when you roll around in the mud with pigs, you get filthy too.

That's nice, dear.

Still think you're making a mountain out of that ant hill.

[img]https://c.tenor.com/t6z7LezFfJkAAAAd/married-to-med-married-to-medicine.gif[/img]

[QUOTE=Alpha;6141045]This is Diana actually taking the wind out of a Nazi's sails. And she can find some pleasure in shaking him up. It doesn't make her toxic.
[IMG]https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-geELm84grPs/VngI9tcdjzI/AAAAAAAANH8/xGV1YUcnKik/s0-Ic42/RCO011.jpg[/IMG]
She isn't doing anything more than she has to. This isn't humiliation and he certainly gets the point. Even this dude still has some human dignity left. And it is followed by this panel:
[IMG]https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4L262WdN-e4/VngI-qohvsI/AAAAAAAANH8/jbq2YjBMPPQ/s0-Ic42/RCO015.jpg[/IMG]

She doesn't suddenly sympathize with Nazis, but she does see a screwed up human being hurting others on purpose. And there is a point of no return. Dr Psycho and Joker certainly crossed it and deserve all the humiliation you can get. But when you roll around in the mud with pigs, you get filthy too.[/QUOTE]

"I know your father was her pimp. He killed her over a sack of stolen groceries." The lasso should make you tell the truth, selectively showing the tuth in that way is too much like telepathy and feels like an invasion of privacy.

[QUOTE=Koriand'r;6141447]"I know your father was her pimp. He killed her over a sack of stolen groceries." The lasso should make you tell the truth, selectively showing the tuth in that way is too much like telepathy and feels like an invasion of privacy.[/QUOTE]

I read a article about how Wonder Woman should be more responsible by not invading someone's privacy. Diana can blackmail, manipulate, and cause emotional and physiological trauma.

[QUOTE=Zahina;6142392]I read a article about how Wonder Woman should be more responsible by not invading someone's privacy. Diana can blackmail, manipulate, and cause emotional and physiological trauma.[/QUOTE]

I think one of the effects of the lasso should be that when she opens a person's mind, her mind is also open to them, all her thoughts and history. So there is a kind of sacrifice she makes in order to use it

[QUOTE=Zahina;6142392]I read a article about how Wonder Woman should be more responsible by not invading someone's privacy. Diana can blackmail, manipulate, and cause emotional and physiological trauma.[/QUOTE]

A lot of writers address this. Gail Simone's own Diana said that "no one touches the lasso unchanged," so she doesn't take its power lightly. It's also why in the Genocide arc even after she's beaten to a bloody pulp the only thing she's concerned about is someone evil having the power of the lasso.

We also just had Trial of the Amazons, where Diana refused to use the lasso on everyone on the island to solve a murder case because it was an invasion of privacy. Granted, it definitely felt like a plot contrivance, but still.

Reading busieks trinity for the very first time

[img]https://i.imgur.com/UF7wQao.jpg[/img]

Yeah that's pretty nice. I think Kurt writes a better Superman than he does Wonder Woman, but he does widely get Diana. Just lacks a bit of energy and "quirkyness" in her attitude. But quite good and love when he's writing her

[QUOTE=Sebastianne;6142711]Reading busieks trinity for the very first time

[img]https://i.imgur.com/UF7wQao.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]

Never read Trinity but thought Busiek is probably one of the few writers I've come across who I think has solid takes on all three of Trinity.

[QUOTE=Sebastianne;6142711]Reading busieks trinity for the very first time

[img]https://i.imgur.com/UF7wQao.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]

That we never got a Busiek run is tragic. I would like to see what he, Walt Simonson and Warren Ellis would have done prior to the clusterclop that was Stupid52

As for the lasso (back when it was defined and somewhat powerful) Diana can choose to reveal her mind/soul to captives. But it is her choice. With the lasso she can choose to delve deeply or merely skim the surface. She can even use your memories to physically transport to the places seen there.

[QUOTE=Stanlos;6142857]That we never got a Busiek run is tragic. I would like to see what he, Walt Simonson and Warren Ellis would have done prior to the clusterclop that was Stupid52[/QUOTE]

Walt Simonson did write a Wonder Woman story arc right before Rucka's first run

[QUOTE=Alpha;6142884]Walt Simonson did write a Wonder Woman story arc right before Rucka's first run[/QUOTE]

Was that the story immediately after Phil Jimenez's final WW issue? I vaguely remember that it was written by Simonson and drawn by Jerry Ordway.

[QUOTE=HestiasHearth;6142997]Was that the story immediately after Phil Jimenez's final WW issue? I vaguely remember that it was written by Simonson and drawn by Jerry Ordway.[/QUOTE]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]123460[/ATTACH]

With covers by Adam Hughes and other than those covers it was terrible. Becca was the first Maggie and the entire storyline was only an elaborate way to kill off Trevor Barnes.

[QUOTE=Alpha;6142884]Walt Simonson did write a Wonder Woman story arc right before Rucka's first run[/QUOTE]

But only for 6 issues. He crammed a lot of ideas celebrating WWs and the Amazons' deal but it was so dense a lot was overlooked. I think the bizarre wedding/compulsory union stuff dominated my attention. I want a full 36 months so he could really dig into the concepts. Whereas Morrison choked and did not deliver excellence Simonson did well overall by the characters' design and trappings

Grant Morrison only "choked" in Volume 1. Vol 2 was quite interesting, and volume 3 was fantastic and is one of the most awesome and memorable Wonder Woman stories

[QUOTE=Alpha;6143240]Grant Morrison only "choked" in Volume 1. Vol 2 was quite interesting, and volume 3 was fantastic and is one of the most awesome and memorable Wonder Woman stories[/QUOTE]

To each her or his own.

[QUOTE=Stanlos;6143219]But only for 6 issues. He crammed a lot of ideas celebrating WWs and the Amazons' deal but it was so dense a lot was overlooked. I think the bizarre wedding/compulsory union stuff dominated my attention. I want a full 36 months so he could really dig into the concepts. Whereas Morrison choked and did not deliver excellence Simonson did well overall by the characters' design and trappings[/QUOTE]

Yeah, only the third volume I felt had enough going for it. Plus Paquette's art just made it hard to get through.

GL: EO books were really the one that lived up to what the imprint could do.

Actually i thought the GLEO were quite disappointing. The characters lacked any characterization and the stories and worlds didn't do anything new with Green lantern. The only new thing was the corporation dystopia on earth, but that was only a minor part of volume 2

[QUOTE=Stanlos;6143219]But only for 6 issues. He crammed a lot of ideas celebrating WWs and the Amazons' deal but it was so dense a lot was overlooked. I think the bizarre wedding/compulsory union stuff dominated my attention. I want a full 36 months so he could really dig into the concepts. Whereas Morrison choked and did not deliver excellence Simonson did well overall by the characters' design and trappings[/QUOTE]

It stunk up the place.

[QUOTE=Stanlos;6143219]But only for 6 issues. He crammed a lot of ideas celebrating WWs and the Amazons' deal but it was so dense a lot was overlooked. I think the bizarre wedding/compulsory union stuff dominated my attention. I want a full 36 months so he could really dig into the concepts. Whereas Morrison choked and did not deliver excellence Simonson did well overall by the characters' design and trappings[/QUOTE]

My opinion is that Grant Morrison mainly approaches Wonder Woman from the perspective that she's some "dangerous oddball propaganda" that sprung out of the "twisted mind" of Marston. It almost seems like they don't like Wonder Woman; like they find her curious [I]maybe[/I], but really, they are terrified by the idea of her and tries to convey that terror in both subtle and obvious ways. And I've detected this from the moment they first wrote her in [I]JLA[/I] way back when.

I hated the [I]Earth-One[/I] series, even though the ending attempted to make up for all the damage I felt it had previously done. To me, that series was scarred by a deep-seated misogyny; it wasn't just [I]commentary[/I] on misogyny; the series [I]itself[/I] felt misogynistic to me.

Not to mention, very often corny and heavy-handed.

[QUOTE=SonOfBaldwin;6143486]My opinion is that Grant Morrison mainly approaches Wonder Woman from the perspective that she's some "dangerous oddball propaganda" that sprung out of the "twisted mind" of Marston. It almost seems like they don't like Wonder Woman; like they find her curious [I]maybe[/I], but really, they are terrified by the idea of her and tries to convey that terror is both subtle and obvious ways. And I've detected this from the moment they first wrote her in [I]JLA[/I] way back when.

I hated the [I]Earth-One[/I] series, even though the ending attempted to make up for all the damage I felt it had previously done. To me, that series was scarred by a deep-seated misogyny; it wasn't just [I]commentary[/I] on misogyny; the series [I]itself[/I] felt misogynistic to me.

Not to mention, very often corny and heavy-handed.[/QUOTE]

I believe Morrison did state they thought they didn't do WW well in their previous works, so that was why they took on the project (and one of the reasons Rucka got kicked off the EO books).

It's not the worst WW content but it's definitely not in the Perez/Rucka/Simone tier for me.

Art certainly didn't help imo. I don't know if I have a worst WW artist list but Paquette would definitely be on an overrated one for me.

I think Morrison definitely views Marston's (and therefore the Amazons') philosophies and flawed and bizarre, and they're entire approach to Wonder Woman was satirical. The original Golden Age strips had some political satire in them, and Max Lord!Ares consulting with his generals in Volume 3 brings more of that flavor.

I don't know if Morrison necessarily firmly sides against the Amazons as they've written them though. Realistically, the Amazons saying "screw it" and using their superior technology to take over the world is problematic and ominous, because a monopoly of power like that is dangerous. it'd be similar to Miracleman where the human race becomes a joke by surrendering their power to the superior God-like beings and being changed by them. On the other hand, taking a casual glance at the world around us (particularly with the situation in Ukraine and here in the US)...the idea of the Amazons taking over honesty has some appeal at this point.

If you think about it, the ending of the [I]Earth One[/I] books is a thorough rejection of the traditionally patriarchal expectation where peace can never be truly achieved, and if it is, it will be imperfect, brief, and only through bitter sacrifice.

But Morrison has Wonder Woman and the Amazons completely and utterly achieve their goals with minimal loss. Those that do die are reborn and effectively become immortal. Peace and love reigns and is apparently long lasting.
And the only people upset about it are the "rugged individuals" that would propagate the flawed patriarchal system: insecure, chauvinistic losers beating their chests about their masculinity.

It seems to me Morrison is taking Marston's ideas to what they perceive to be their logical conclusion.
But I'm inclined to agree that I'm not sure if Morrison is being sincere that the outcome is a good thing or if they're taking the piss out of it. By the time I finished the [I]Earth One[/I] books, I was left wondering if Morrison was celebrating Wonder Woman with these books or mocking her.

[QUOTE=Guy_McNichts;6143650]By the time I finished the [I]Earth One[/I] books, I was left wondering if Morrison was celebrating Wonder Woman with these books or mocking her.[/QUOTE]

This. I actually finished the series feeling as though they were mocking the very idea of her.

Do you really believe that a man who declares himself as Non-Binary, and who went through a whole process of self-discovery as an adult, would mocking of Diana and her concepts?
I believe that her declaration of love on Earth One is totally sincere and respectful, perhaps not the best, but with good intentions.

[QUOTE=Sebastianne;6143701]Do you really believe that a man who declares himself as Non-Binary, and who went through a whole process of self-discovery as an adult, would mocking of Diana and her concepts?
I believe that her declaration of love on Earth One is totally sincere and respectful, perhaps not the best, but with good intentions.[/QUOTE]

Just as a heads up, Morrison uses they/them pronouns and doesn't identify as a man! But I will now go on to explain why I hate Earth One.

Everything about it screams "we didn't have a single woman on the entire creative team." It speaks volumes that the editor was later fired from DC following sexual harassment allegations. I don't think Morrison meant to mock the character and I can see the care that went into the book, but I do think they profoundly missed the point and it's salt in the wound knowing we could have gotten a Greg Rucka/JH Williams III book instead.

First off, if the first pages of a GN are a graphic, fetishized scene of a man attempting to sexually assault a woman, even if that scene ends in the victim's retribution...that shows a fundamental disrespect for women readers. It's basically the opposite of the intense care that Kelly Sue DeConnick and Phil Jimenez put into depicting violence against women in a way that wasn't triggering or exploitative.

Also I didn't think her origin could get worse than Daddy Zeus but Morrison somehow pulled it off. I've said it before and I'll say it again - subverting WW's mythos just means opting for the hegemonic narrative. The idea of a woman bearing an incredibly powerful child through her own love and the love of her sisters and their goddesses is deeply subversive. Making Diana the child of Hippolyta's rape by Hercules, making said rapist the source of Diana's power, and warping Diana's intended mission into Hippolyta's rape revenge fantasy that she has to be taught is wrong...there's nothing subversive or feminist about that. Diana acting as the embodiment of the Amazons' liberation and working to repair the relationship between man's world and the Amazons is a really important part of the character IMO, but to frame the Amazons as hateful misandrists and Diana's olive branch as "not all men" is the exact wrong way to do it.

And then there's the bondage. The bondage fetishism is laid on so, so thick, with just a tiny scrape of the thematic depth Marston put into it (and I say that as someone who detests the bondage obsession in early WW comics). That scene with Diana putting a collar on Black Steve was in such bad taste that I have to wonder if they spoke to a single Black person before including it.

It just sucks that Morrison's All-Star Superman showed so much admiration and respect for the character's mythos while their Wonder Woman hyper-focused on bondage fetishism and warped (or just misinterpreted) a lot of the essential political messaging. And the fact that a huge part of her arc involved her being manipulated by a PUA is just...ugh, regardless of intent. There's a place for that story, but it shouldn't be told in a book that's meant to get to the absolute core of what the character stands for, and it certainly shouldn't be told when there isn't a single woman offering substantial creative input.

The only things I liked were (a) Diana actually addressing and welcoming non-cis women, (b) actually showing the Amazons in queer relationships (including Diana!), (c) the return of some of Marston's sci-fi elements, and (d) no sword/shield warrior woman. And there were some cool ideas in there - I like the premise of the government being so threatened by Diana's radical message that they take military action, and the idea of writing the Amazons' dialog in dactylic hexameter was pretty cool even if it did read awkwardly at times. But any merit is outweighed by the undercurrent of misogyny.

[QUOTE=Sebastianne;6143701]Do you really believe that a man who declares himself as Non-Binary, and who went through a whole process of self-discovery as an adult, would mocking of Diana and her concepts?
I believe that her declaration of love on Earth One is totally sincere and respectful, perhaps not the best, but with good intentions.[/QUOTE]

They aren't a man. They are non-binary, which means neither man nor woman. Thank you.

That said, there is a popular and frustrating notion on the Internet, especially in social media spaces, where some people truly believe that one's identity exempts one from participating in and perpetuating certain forms of bigotry, and, therefore, those who claim said identities are above accountability, impossible to implicate, wholly pure, and inherently innocent.

That, of course, is not how bigotry works and this pretense/falsehood isn't how we actually end bigotry.

[QUOTE=bardkeep;6143705]Just as a heads up, Morrison uses they/them pronouns and doesn't identify as a man! But I will now go on to explain why I hate Earth One.

Everything about it screams "we didn't have a single woman on the entire creative team." It speaks volumes that the editor was later fired from DC following sexual harassment allegations. I don't think Morrison meant to mock the character and I can see the care that went into the book, but I do think they profoundly missed the point and it's salt in the wound knowing we could have gotten a Greg Rucka/JH Williams III book instead.

First off, if the first pages of a GN are a graphic, fetishized scene of a man attempting to sexually assault a woman, even if that scene ends in the victim's retribution...that shows a fundamental disrespect for women readers. It's basically the opposite of the intense care that Kelly Sue DeConnick and Phil Jimenez put into depicting violence against women in a way that wasn't triggering or exploitative.

Also I didn't think her origin could get worse than Daddy Zeus but Morrison somehow pulled it off. I've said it before and I'll say it again - subverting WW's mythos just means opting for the hegemonic narrative. The idea of a woman bearing an incredibly powerful child through her own love and the love of her sisters and their goddesses is deeply subversive. Making Diana the child of Hippolyta's rape by Hercules, making said rapist the source of Diana's power, and warping Diana's intended mission into Hippolyta's rape revenge fantasy that she has to be taught is wrong...there's nothing subversive or feminist about that. Diana acting as the embodiment of the Amazons' liberation and working to repair the relationship between man's world and the Amazons is a really important part of the character IMO, but to frame the Amazons as hateful misandrists and Diana's olive branch as "not all men" is the exact wrong way to do it.

And then there's the bondage. The bondage fetishism is laid on so, so thick, with just a tiny scrape of the thematic depth Marston put into it (and I say that as someone who detests the bondage obsession in early WW comics). That scene with Diana putting a collar on Black Steve was in such bad taste that I have to wonder if they spoke to a single Black person before including it.

It just sucks that Morrison's All-Star Superman showed so much admiration and respect for the character's mythos while their Wonder Woman hyper-focused on bondage fetishism and warped (or just misinterpreted) a lot of the essential political messaging. And the fact that a huge part of her arc involved her being manipulated by a PUA is just...ugh, regardless of intent. There's a place for that story, but it shouldn't be told in a book that's meant to get to the absolute core of what the character stands for, and it certainly shouldn't be told when there isn't a single woman offering substantial creative input.

The only things I liked were (a) Diana actually addressing and welcoming non-cis women, (b) actually showing the Amazons in queer relationships (including Diana!), (c) the return of some of Marston's sci-fi elements, and (d) no sword/shield warrior woman. And there were some cool ideas in there - I like the premise of the government being so threatened by Diana's radical message that they take military action, and the idea of writing the Amazons' dialog in dactylic hexameter was pretty cool even if it did read awkwardly at times. But any merit is outweighed by the undercurrent of misogyny.[/QUOTE]

[IMG]https://c.tenor.com/Jo8EDLcgyo8AAAAC/sing-it-for-the-children-janet-jackson.gif[/IMG]