Perez #1 Discussion

[brettc1]

Yeaaaah........WHY was Herc angry again? He showed up to rape and enslave them. It was completely unprovoked. The Amazons had done nothing to wrong him. Precisely WHAT motivated him to get angry and start insulting Hippolyta again?

If it's just "Eh. He's Heracles. He's ALWAYS angry." then there's no dealing with that. If he's always angry, then all the well-reasoned talk in the world won't fix that. And truly angry people don't need any help getting even angrier.

It was no unprovoked from his point of view. He was duped by Ares. But Heracles is simply not the two dimensional figure you describe because, frankly, that is not how Perez writes.

Hippolyta absolutely found a better way. She didn't kill the psychotic rapist who invaded her home when she had the chance. She offered him a chance for peace. And she didn't initiate any of the unpleasantness of this situation. She was the bigger person in every way.

Heracles was going to rape and enslave Hippolyta whether she fawned over him or insulted him. Her choices were a non-issue in his decision-making.

You do not know that, you only assume that because it supports your view that Hippolyta has no control over what happens. He is not guilty of any crime at the point where they meet.

Doesn't matter. Welcome to the world or shared-universe ongoing storytelling. It's the same character, just under a different writer with his/her own ideas of how to characterize him/her.

Well then Hippolyta conspired to murder Artemis. So she is no better than Heracles.

And thousands of years transpired between those 14 issues.

Hippolyta helped free him from imprisonment. She did NOTHING to contribute to his "redemption." She let him out of prison then he immediately cranked up is apology tour (of questionable sincerity when viewed in a larger context.)

Yes, thousands of years of torture, and then a few moments of true understanding.

Are we saying that torture is a better way to change people than compassion now? Seems pretty bleak, but I guess some folks might think so.

Sure, the potential's there. Problem is, people still have to CHOOSE to be better than they are, and the mere fact that Heracles set off on a mission to rape and enslave a bunch of women who never wronged him or anyone he cares about is kinda proof that he wasn't interested in even acknowledging this point, and Hippolyta coddling him wouldn't have changed that.

You seem to have to think so. But again, you don't seem to distinguish in your argument between respect and subservience.

Because Heracles would see no such middle ground. He insulted Hippolyta first. Once again, within the context of the culture in which he was raised, the only response to an insult was to respond in kind. To do anything else was not seen as "taking the high road" or "being the adult in the room." It was seen as cowardice. If I insult you, you'd better insult me back, or clearly you're afraid of me. That is how people thought back then.

Yes, that is the world Ares wanted. Pride leading to violence leading to endless conflict. The Amazons exist to break that cycle, not perpetuate it.

If Hippolyta responded to him with gentle words of cooperation and mutual respect, he'd just see it as her trying to smokescreen her fear. She's too proud to fall to her knees and beg for mercy, but she clearly doesn't want a conflict because she knows she'll lose. If she responded to him by fawning over him and praising him, he'd see that as tantamount to her offering complete an unconditional surrender.

Maybe she should have surrendered.

Yes, I know what I just said.

[Vanguard-01]

It was no unprovoked from his point of view. He was duped by Ares. But Heracles is simply not the two dimensional figure you describe because, frankly, that is not how Perez writes.

Heracles has no evidence that the Amazons ever did anything wrong to him? Then it was unprovoked. End of story. He had NO legitimate justification to launch a war of aggression against the Amazons. ESPECIALLY not a war in which the endgame was rape and enslavement for an entire population.

You do not know that, you only assume that because it supports your view that Hippolyta has no control over what happens. He is not guilty of any crime at the point where they meet.

He was guilty of invading a sovereign nation without provocation, insulting said nation's Queen, and then announcing his intent to conquer and enslave them. He brought an entire army with him. He planned this out. It was pre-meditated.

Well then Hippolyta conspired to murder Artemis. So she is no better than Heracles.

"Unprovoked war of aggression to enslave an innocent population."

"Conspired to kill one former enemy in order to save her daughter, who is also a vitally important superhero."

One of these things is not like the other.

Yes, thousands of years of torture, and then a few moments of true understanding.

Are we saying that torture is a better way to change people than compassion now? Seems pretty bleak, but I guess some folks might think so.

What compassion? Letting him out of prison? Sure, one moment of being nice completely cures one of the kind of psychopathy that leads one to say "Ya know? Those women over there? Imma go over there and rape the ever-lovin' CRAP out of them! For reasons!"

Yes, that is the world Ares wanted. Pride leading to violence leading to endless conflict. The Amazons exist to break that cycle, not perpetuate it.

Amazons are NOT supposed to be doormats who allow men to rape and enslave them whenever they like.

Do you REALLY think Hippolyta didn't know what he was talking about when he started boasting about his intentions toward her people?

Maybe she should have surrendered.

Yes, I know what I just said.

Surrender to rape and torture for no reason? Yep. That'll sure teach Herc the error of his ways.

[brettc1]

Amazons are NOT supposed to be doormats who allow men to rape and enslave them whenever they like.

Do you REALLY think Hippolyta didn't know what he was talking about when he started boasting about his intentions toward her people?

I'm sure it made her angry. And she responded in kind, unhelpfully.

Surrender to rape and torture for no reason? Yep. That'll sure teach Herc the error of his ways.

Without risk there is no true courage.

[Vanguard-01]

I'm sure it made her angry. And she responded in kind, unhelpfully.

Questioning his intelligence does NOT justify rape and slavery. Especially not when he was planning to do that to her regardless of what she said.

Without risk there is no true courage.

Without pragmatism, your people get raped, enslaved, tortured, and possibly even killed.

Heck of a gamble with a very questionable payoff.

Dude had an army of loyal followers all around them. If he died, the other dude would've been dead two seconds later and he knew it.

Green Lantern rings don't come to bad people as a general rule. Diana had every reason in the world to believe he wouldn't kill her.

Those people died. Horribly. Painfully. For no good reason at all.

[brettc1]

Questioning his intelligence does NOT justify rape and slavery. Especially not when he was planning to do that to her regardless of what she said.

There is a world of difference between what a person intends to do and what is actually done. The problem here is your argument is only based on surviving.

Without pragmatism, your people get raped, enslaved, tortured, and possibly even killed.

And they achieve nothing. The world is at it was. Victory to Ares.

Heck of a gamble with a very questionable payoff.

So is sending the Ring into Mordor.

Dude had an army of loyal followers all around them. If he died, the other dude would've been dead two seconds later and he knew it.

Your argument seems based on the premise that most if not all people are hopelessly wretched, and that sides in a conflict can always be divided into totally good and totally evil.

But I agree with Diana. "They all that you say - but so much more."

Green Lantern rings don't come to bad people as a general rule. Diana had every reason in the world to believe he wouldn't kill her.

No, she took a risk. That is why she is a hero.

Those people died. Horribly. Painfully. For no good reason at all.

They would disagree. They dies as an example of faith. Given the chance to change that, they provided an example to others of what courage looked like.

[Vanguard-01]

There is a world of difference between what a person intends to do and what is actually done. The problem here is your argument is only based on surviving.

So Heracles showed up with his army intending to.....what? Gently chastise Hippolyta for being an Amazon? And it was only after she insulted him that he suddenly decided it was "Rape Time" and "Slavery 'o Clock?"

If so, then he's still a horrible person if it only takes a little embarrassment to spur him into such extreme and horrible behavior.

And they achieve nothing. The world is at it was. Victory to Ares.

The world was as it was even when they were walking around in it. If the gods actually intended the Amazons to SUCCEED in their mission, then they clearly didn't equip them for success.

Oh, and then the gods removed them from the world altogether and now they REALLY didn't have the option of getting back to trying to spread peace. So it's a moot point anyhow.

So is sending the Ring into Mordor.

Nope. Huge gamble, HUGE payoff. If it works? No more Sauron.

Hippolyta? Being nicey-nice to Heracles MIGHT win her some respect from the world's greatest misogynist. Or, it could leave her and her people open to being raped, enslaved, and eventually killed.

Big gamble? Questionable payoff. You're asking the Queen of an entire civilization to gamble herself and all the people under her care on the OFF CHANCE that stroking the misogynistic egomaniac's ego would somehow magically turn him into an enlightened man who DOESN'T think that rape and torture are okay.

Your argument seems based on the premise that most if not all people are hopelessly wretched, and that sides in a conflict can always be divided into totally good and totally evil.

Nope. My argument is that Hippolyta insulting Heracles in no way makes her responsible for what happened to her and her people.

In this scene? That dude was already on the losing side of a battle and he was surrounded by enemy soldiers. He'd be an idiot to think a petty act of revenge was worth his own life.

No, she took a risk. That is why she is a hero.

She took a risk based on the assumption that this guy wouldn't be wearing a Green Lantern ring if he was the kind of guy who would murder a woman who was making no effort to defend himself. Her inner monologue even reveals that she came to the conclusion that she should change her tactics after she deduced that her opponent was clearly acting out of grief and loss rather than hatred and malice.

As has already been mentioned: If she had taken that risk with Sinestro or Atrocitus, she would've been VERY dead.

They would disagree. They dies as an example of faith. Given the chance to change that, they provided an example to others of what courage looked like.

And they accomplished nothing. Christians only stopped being persecuted once the Emperor of Rome converted to Christianity and ORDERED it stopped. And it wasn't the suffering of Christian martyrs that motivated Constantine I to convert.

[brettc1]

So Heracles showed up with his army intending to.....what? Gently chastise Hippolyta for being an Amazon? And it was only after she insulted him that he suddenly decided it was "Rape Time" and "Slavery 'o Clock?"

If so, then he's still a horrible person if it only takes a little embarrassment to spur him into such extreme and horrible behavior.

It is horrible of him to do that, but the darkness and the light always exist side by side. Rage if like a fire - you cannot defeat rage by feeding it.

The world was as it was even when they were walking around in it. If the gods actually intended the Amazons to SUCCEED in their mission, then they clearly didn't equip them for success.

Oh, and then the gods removed them from the world altogether and now they REALLY didn't have the option of getting back to trying to spread peace. So it's a moot point anyhow.

They gave them everything they needed. Courage and a noble philosophy.

Nope. Huge gamble, HUGE payoff. If it works? No more Sauron.

Hippolyta? Being nicey-nice to Heracles MIGHT win her some respect from the world's greatest misogynist. Or, it could leave her and her people open to being raped, enslaved, and eventually killed.

Big gamble? Questionable payoff. You're asking the Queen of an entire civilization to gamble herself and all the people under her care on the OFF CHANCE that stroking the misogynistic egomaniac's ego would somehow magically turn him into an enlightened man who DOESN'T think that rape and torture are okay.

I never said Hippolyta surrender the entire city, since clearly doing that in the set scenario was much less wise than she thought herself. She only had to surrender herself.

Winning Heracles to your side would have been a big step towards undermining Ares influence.

Nope. My argument is that Hippolyta insulting Heracles in no way makes her responsible for what happened to her and her people.

In this scene? That dude was already on the losing side of a battle and he was surrounded by enemy soldiers. He'd be an idiot to think a petty act of revenge was worth his own life.

And Hippolyta had Heracles in exactly the same position. But she gives him the choice between death and, according to your summation of his character and the culture of the time, dishonour. When she had him helpless she could have chosen to yield herself as an example that her true intentions were not the lies he had been fed. But she seems to angry to do that.

You only have to see the look on her face when he gives up to realize that she actually expected him to choose death and for the war to start.

There seems to be an attitude that people can say whatever they want and that they are not in any way responsible for what happens next. But even the CBR boards don't function that way.

She took a risk based on the assumption that this guy wouldn't be wearing a Green Lantern ring if he was the kind of guy who would murder a woman who was making no effort to defend himself. Her inner monologue even reveals that she came to the conclusion that she should change her tactics after she deduced that her opponent was clearly acting out of grief and loss rather than hatred and malice.

As has already been mentioned: If she had taken that risk with Sinestro or Atrocitus, she would've been VERY dead.

Perhaps. But Heracles is not either of those characters. And you cannot tell me a man who is about to murder a planet is not acting out of malice. That seems antithetical.

And they accomplished nothing. Christians only stopped being persecuted once the Emperor of Rome converted to Christianity and ORDERED it stopped. And it wasn't the suffering of Christian martyrs that motivated Constantine I to convert.

Yes it was, in part. Because the suffering of the martyrs impressed others, and that kept their faith alive and gave it the chance to reach the Emperor.

[Vanguard-01]

It is horrible of him to do that, but the darkness and the light always exist side by side. Rage if like a fire - you cannot defeat rage by feeding it.

You actually can. It's a fire. A fire burns until it has no more fuel.

You also can't defeat a fire by dousing yourself with gasoline and jumping into the middle of it.

They gave them everything they needed. Courage and a noble philosophy.

Yes, it was working very well!

Oh, wait......Geez, it's almost like that isn't enough or something.

I never said Hippolyta surrender the entire city, since clearly doing that in the set scenario was much less wise than she thought herself. She only had to surrender herself.

You are advocating that a woman should allow herself to be raped and tortured. I just want to point that out.

And Hippolyta had Heracles in exactly the same position. But she gives him the choice between death and, according to your summation of his character and the culture of the time, dishonour. When she had him helpless she could have chosen to yield herself as an example that her true intentions were not the lies he had been fed. But she seems to angry to do that.

Twice now you have advocated for Hippolyta surrendering to being raped and abused.

You only have to see the look on her face when he gives up to realize that she actually expected him to choose death and for the war to start.

I don't read it that way at all, but you're free to read it however you like.

There seems to be an attitude that people can say whatever they want and that they are not in any way responsible for what happens next. But even the CBR boards don't function that way.

Hippolyta questioned Heracles' intelligence. She did NOT speak a magical incantation that compelled him to rape and torture her and her sisters. Hence? She was NOT responsible for being raped and tortured by him. That is NOT how any remotely civilized form of morality works. Words are NEVER a justification for rape.

Perhaps. But Heracles is not either of those characters. And you cannot tell me a man who is about to murder a planet is not acting out of malice. That seems antithetical.

Heracles is a rapist, a slave driver, a torturer, and mass murderer. Sinestro has never raped anyone, but he DOES have rapists working within his corps. This was shown to us in no uncertain terms. He very much enslaves, tortures, and murders people, even innocent ones. He also allows his corps to do the same things.

Not seeing a very big difference there.

Atrocitus? Rapist? No. Slave driver? You could argue he basically treats his corps as if they were his slaves. Torturer? Absolutely. At one point he intended to CRUCIFY the entire Green Lantern Corps and force the Guardians to watch them all die. He also has had professional torturers on his corps. Murderer? You betcha!

Again? Not much of a difference.

Yes it was, in part. Because the suffering of the martyrs impressed others, and that kept their faith alive and gave it the chance to reach the Emperor.

The faith would've stayed alive a lot better if it wasn't regularly hemorrhaging members to pointless displays of passivity.

[brettc1]

You actually can. It's a fire. A fire burns until it has no more fuel.

You also can't defeat a fire by dousing yourself with gasoline and jumping into the middle of it.



Yes, it was working very well!

Oh, wait......



You are advocating that a woman should allow herself to be raped and tortured. I just want to point that out.



Twice now you have advocated for Hippolyta surrendering to being raped and abused. I'd really recommend taking a couple steps back to re-evaluate this position, if I were you.

I am completely aware of what I am saying.

I dont see a difference between beaten and raped and being whipped and crucified to death. They are both horrible.

I don't read it that way at all, but you're free to read it however you like.



Hippolyta questioned Heracles' intelligence. She did NOT speak a magical incantation that compelled him to rape and torture her and her sisters. Hence? She was NOT responsible for being raped and tortured by him. That is NOT how any remotely civilized form of morality works. Words are NEVER a justification for rape.



Heracles is a rapist, a slave driver, a torturer, and mass murderer. Sinestro has never raped anyone, but he DOES have rapists working within his corps. This was shown to us in no uncertain terms. He very much enslaves, tortures, and murders people, even innocent ones. He also allows his corps to do the same things.

Not seeing a very big difference there.

Atrocitus? Rapist? No. Slave driver? You could argue he basically treats his corps as if they were his slaves. Torturer? Absolutely. At one point he intended to CRUCIFY the entire Green Lantern Corps and force the Guardians to watch them all die. He also has had professional torturers on his corps. Murderer? You betcha!

Again? Not much of a difference.



The faith would've stayed alive a lot better if it wasn't regularly hemorrhaging members to pointless displays of passivity.

I agree with your first point Bout Hippolyta and the fire, though not, I think, in the way you intend.

We clearly dont agree on much here. That might change at some point.

[Vanguard-01]

I am completely aware of what I am saying.

I dont see a difference between beaten and raped and being whipped and crucified to death. They are both horrible.

And you are actively advocating that people should willingly submit to these horrible things instead of defending themselves based solely on the SLIM chance that they may magically transform the monsters who are doing it into decent human beings.

I agree with your first point Bout Hippolyta and the fire, though not, I think, in the way you intend.

We clearly dont agree on much here. That might change at some point.

Yeah, I don't think I'll EVER be agreeing that people should just roll over at allow themselves to be abused and tortured for the sick amusement of monsters, thanks.

But you're right. This is pointless. Long past time we called a stop to this.

[brettc1]

And you are actively advocating that people should willingly submit to these horrible things instead of defending themselves based solely on the SLIM chance that they may magically transform the monsters who are doing it into decent human beings.

It is an option.

The man who wrote amazing grace was a slaver, and therefore a rapist by default.

[Awonder]

... If I were addressing this issue in my class, this is how I would break things down in so many words.

What Hippolyta said in her first encounter with Heracles was a very human mistake.

It would be a mistake for a woman, a mistake for a man, and most particularly and especially a mistake for the leader of a nation who is not only trying to avoid bloodshed but to actually make friends.

Choose your words carefully and be sure you are not letting what you say be guided by your own fear or anger at a threat, because insulting somebody who is angry with you, even if they are wrong, NEVER helps calm things down.

I am confident my students would be able to understand that insulting somebody who is angry with you is not going to make them feel better about you, or want to be friends with you. It is a great way to start a fight, if that is what you're after. Maybe Hippolyta is. Maybe she really just want an excuse to put this guy in his place and show him once and for all who is best. But it was a mistake.

... Rage if like a fire - you cannot defeat rage by feeding it.

There seems to be an attitude that people can say whatever they want and that they are not in any way responsible for what happens next. But even the CBR boards don't function that way...

I believe, at the heart of it all, this is your general point. Am I right?

It's a nice lesson. Honest. But, it's incomplete.

Maybe she should have surrendered.

Yes, I know what I just said.

Surrender to rape and torture for no reason? Yep. That'll sure teach Herc the error of his ways.

Without risk there is no true courage.

I never said Hippolyta surrender the entire city, since clearly doing that in the set scenario was much less wise than she thought herself. She only had to surrender herself.

Winning Heracles to your side would have been a big step towards undermining Ares influence.

I am completely aware of what I am saying.

This is where, if I'm understanding you correctly, it gets really, really ugly. You say you know what you are saying. But, clarify it for me.

First, are you speaking of just comic books where it's fictional characters and the author has control? Or, are you asserting that this should be applied to real people in the real world?

If it's intended for real people, are you claiming that real women (and men) should just surrender to whatever your angry person wants to do in the hope that through beatings, rape, and even death, then the angry person might be won to your side? If anyone doesn't surrender to beatings, rape, kidnapping, and murder, then they lack courage?

You didn't answer me the first time, so, I'm asking again: is this your message to rape victims? Is it the rape victims fault for not saying the right things to stop the actions of the rapist?

[brettc1]

I believe, at the heart of it all, this is your general point. Am I right?

It's a nice lesson. Honest. But, it's incomplete.

It is, and what is more there is more evidence within the text that Hippolyta's words are spurred by her own lack of restraint...

Wonder Woman #1 - Page 21.jpg

"...bitter and corrupt..." That is how Athena describes the Amazons, having lost their way and strayed from their purpose. Hippolyta lets that bitterness lead her into rash words. When you insult somebody, you are able anger them. This is not a conscious response on their part, it an instinctive part of human biology. Yes, anger can be controlled, but it is better not to create it all if you can avoid it.

This is where, if I'm understanding you correctly, it gets really, really ugly. You say you know what you are saying. But, clarify it for me.

First, are you speaking of just comic books where it's fictional characters and the author has control? Or, are you asserting that this should be applied to real people in the real world?

If it's intended for real people, are you claiming that real women (and men) should just surrender to whatever your angry person wants to do in the hope that through beatings, rape, and even death, then the angry person might be won to your side? If anyone doesn't surrender to beatings, rape, kidnapping, and murder, then they lack courage?

You didn't answer me the first time, so, I'm asking again: is this your message to rape victims? Is it the rape victims fault for not saying the right things to stop the actions of the rapist?

It is impossible to speak on the subject of rape without emotion, which is what makes it so difficult. And yes, it is ugly, but since it is part of the story there is no getting around it.

If, for example, this were a male character like Batman who surrendered as part of a ruse, knowing he was going to be tortured but willing to endure it to achieve some goal, then people would not have the same reaction. Indeed, I have seen Batman do that very thing in The Dark Knight 2.

But if you suggest the same thing of a female character, even one that is obviously powerful and capable, people react in a completely different way.We are conditioned to see the abuse of male prisoner and a female prisoner differently, even if the circumstances are exactly the same. If Batman surrenders to Luthor and allows himself to be tortured to achieve a goal, the writer would be celebrated for making Batman an absolute badass. Do the same thing with a woman, and the writer would likely be labelled a soulless misogynist.

You say, this is where it gets ugly and it is. But if we were talking about the crucifixion, people don't have that same reaction. They would probably feel bad, but not as bad as if we were talking about the same thing being done to a woman.

In the case of what you describe, it is a simple fact that there are philosophies that hold up passive acceptance as the ultimate form of courage. It happens in Christian and Buddhist doctrines. I will answer your question with a question - which do you think shows greater courage? To fight in the hopes of achieving victory, or to surrender as a conscious choice in the knowledge that you will probably suffer terribly, but also to do what you feel it right? Personally I would struggle with that and I don't know that I would have that kind or courage. I suspect I wouldn't. I count that as a failing of mine.

With regards to Hippolyta obviously we are talking about a story, and what the story communicates.

I don't look at Hippolyta as a rape victim because I believe that, for one thing, that diminishes her character. She would be a rape survivor, for a start.

Lets also be clear - I didn't say that Hippolyta being sexually assaulted would be good or the desired outcome. It is a risk, like Arthur giving up the sword so his sworn enemy can knight him. A calculated risk, but a risk nonetheless. I would not, for example, suggest this with Arthur Light. But I am not convinced Heracles is Light.

Also, as a powerful figure I think people look at Hippolyta as a woman first and a leader second. As a woman, it is abhorrent for many to think that she would take any lip from this bully. Doing so would be seen as weak. If Jean Luc Picard weathered the same insults with a smile and an earnest endeavor to make peace rather than an exchange of passive aggressive quips people would be impressed with his self control. That is what I think.

But I am wondering if you asked anybody who had been attacked by another person in any capacity - which I have experienced as an adult - if you found yourself in a situation where you are confronted with possible violence and you had your choice of saying one thing that would allow you to peacefully remove yourself from harm, or something that would inflame the situation further, which would you recommend a person do?

Personally I chose to give the three guys the money they wanted. Am I a coward? Part of me has always thought so, but had I been beaten and killed my kids would not exist.

[Awonder]

With regards to Hippolyta obviously we are talking about a story, and what the story communicates.

You still haven't really answered my questions. Yes, for Hippolyta and Heracles, it's just a story. But, by mixing in real world examples, I'm still not clear whether or not what your comments should be taken as just for this story or for the real world. So, please, answer my question - do you blame real rape victims for not having the right words to stop the person attacking them?

I don't look at Hippolyta as a rape victim because I believe that, for one thing, that diminishes her character. She would be a rape survivor, for a start.

She can't be a rape survivor if she were not a rape victim first.

Lets also be clear - I didn't say that Hippolyta being sexually assaulted would be good or the desired outcome.

No, but, you are blaming her words for causing his behavior, correct?

But I am not convinced Heracles is Light.

Because you keep ignoring the evidence that says he only changed thousands of years AFTER issue #1.

But I am wondering if you asked anybody who had been attacked by another person in any capacity - which I have experienced as an adult - if you found yourself in a situation where you are confronted with possible violence and you had your choice of saying one thing that would allow you to peacefully remove yourself from harm, or something that would inflame the situation further, which would you recommend a person do?

And this gets to the heart of my position. I know many rape survivors. I've been to villages like the one Boko Haram raided, and I've seen the damage done to men, women, and children by armies like Heracles'. To them, it is not just a fictional story. It's not a theoretical internet debate. It's far too real. The murder, the rape and sex slavery, forced to be a child soldiers - this is what others chose to do to them.

Your general ideal here - to try to find the right words to diffuse a situation if you can - is an ideal with merit. But, I find it horribly offensive to say to these survivors that they are the cause - the trigger, a link in a chain, a snowflake in the avalanche - because they did not find the right words to stop someone else's behavior.

You say you believe that Heracles can be pulled back from the brink, find his better angel - but why do you put the onus for that on Hippolyta? Doesn't that rob Heracles of his own agency? Is he not responsible for what he chooses to do? If you are capable of being irked by words without you attacking anyone, why isn't he capable of the same thing?

For me, it all really boils done to one word: choice. Just as my words do not control you, her words do not control him.

[brettc1]

You still haven't really answered my questions. Yes, for Hippolyta and Heracles, it's just a story. But, by mixing in real world examples, I'm still not clear whether or not what your comments should be taken as just for this story or for the real world. So, please, answer my question - do you blame real rape victims for not having the right words to stop the person attacking them

No, but, you are blaming her words for causing his behavior, correct?


Because you keep ignoring the evidence that says he only changed thousands of years AFTER issue #1.

And this gets to the heart of my position. I know many rape survivors. I've been to villages like the one Boko Haram raided, and I've seen the damage done to men, women, and children by armies like Heracles'. To them, it is not just a fictional story. It's not a theoretical internet debate. It's far too real. The murder, the rape and sex slavery, forced to be a child soldiers - this is what others chose to do to them.

Your general ideal here - to try to find the right words to diffuse a situation if you can - is an ideal with merit. But, I find it horribly offensive to say to these survivors that they are the cause - the trigger, a link in a chain, a snowflake in the avalanche - because they did not find the right words to stop someone else's behavior.

You say you believe that Heracles can be pulled back from the brink, find his better angel - but why do you put the onus for that on Hippolyta? Doesn't that rob Heracles of his own agency? Is he not responsible for what he chooses to do? If you are capable of being irked by words without you attacking anyone, why isn't he capable of the same thing?

For me, it all really boils done to one word: choice. Just as my words do not control you, her words do not control him.

Lets get straight to the guts of it then.

Do I blame Hippolyta for Heracles assaulting her? No.

Do I blame Hippolyta for Heracles failing in her mission of peace? Yes.

It's clear we both know people who have been sexually assaulted. We could trade stories back and forth, but I think it would only ultimately serve to distract from the issue I raised in the OP, which was the initial meeting between Heracles and Hippolyta.

And unlike almost all women who have been confronted by a figure like Heracles, Hippolyta does not go into that meeting without power. She is capable, skilled, and most importantly knows what sort of situation she is facing. She has time to prepare. And she isn't going out there to avoid being assaulted as her primary goal - she goes out there to stop a war.

Or does she?

Wonder Woman #1 - Page 21.jpg

Again, examining her words to Heracles and linking them with Athena's summation a short time later that the Amazons had become "...bitter and corrupt...", it looks very much to me like Hippolyta goes out there with a least part of her mind spoiling for a fight. She and the Amazons might not all express the Amazon Arella's idea of just killing him as an example out loud, but if Perez [via Athena] is to be believed then they all feel it at some level. Because Athena is not just speaking to Hippolyta in generalizations, she is also addressing this assessment to the Amazon queen personally.

[And can I just add, as a quick aside here, that this is not how I would recommend counseling a person in Hippolyta's position immediately after the event. Also I think any clear thinking person could have foreseen the Amazons' reaction when they were liberated. Perez writing is amazing, but in hindsight not without flaws]

So moving forward on the premise that she does have a certain level of resentment towards him, who is responsible for her choice of how she reacts to that. You have been pretty clear that the individual controls their own choices. If she chooses to meet aggression with aggression [albeit passive aggression in her case] then she has to own that as her own choice.

Of course, I don't entirely agree with your argument in that area because in the real world nobody's actions in a social setting are independent of those around them. Social interactions, except in the case of true psychopaths and sociopaths, are a constant back and forth, a series of causes and effects based on the stimuli we receive from others. And regardless of what you may have said about control, there is such a thing as being able to foretell how a person will "reasonably react". You, me, and everyone else in the world [real and fictional] constantly adjust their behavior towards others based on how we expect them to react. If I insult my wife in a way I know is going to make her angry, its not all on her if she gets angry. I contributed to that situation. It's her choice about whether she gives me the cold shoulder or hits me with a frying pan, but it would be naive of me to think I had nothing to do with the situation as it unfolds.

Again, Athena makes the Amazon mission clear - you were supposed to make the world a better place. Instead, Hippolyta has allowed herself to sink down to Heracles level of trading insult for insult. Conflict immediately follows, as anyone as smart as Hippolyta who has spent about thirty seconds listening to Heracles bluster might reasonably expect [we noted above] and then this...

Wonder Woman #1 - Page 18.jpg

Right there! The last expression on her face to me is NOT the look of someone who has had everything go according to plan. It's "Really? OMG, I can't believe it!"

Her offer here for him to surrender or die is not a great idea either, in my opinion. First, she says that the choice is his but by your own argument it is actually hers. Regardless of what he might say, the decision to kill or not will be on her shoulders.

But more importantly, its a bad choice because there really is no telling how he is going to react. War now depends entirely, it would seem, on a man who has serious anger management issues making a good decision. Something he hasn't done yet.

Now maybe Hippolyta would not have killed him anyway. Maybe she would have raised the sword and, just before the blow was struck, told him "No. Because I didn't come out here to start a war. That is not the Amazon way." And that would have been kind of awesome, although I would have been even more impressed without the surrender or die option. She could even have [and of course this is with the knowledge that her actions are dictated by the author] have taken the young King Arthur option and given HIM the sword, and the power with what to do with it. That would be an incredibly bold move, and not one the pragmatists among us would agree with I know. But in terms of showing him that the intentions of the Amazons are truly about peace, it would be incredibly powerful.

But we will never know. What we do know is that Hippolyta had forewarning that this confrontation was coming, experience as a leader, and time to plan for how to get Heracles to listen to her about the Amazons wanting peace, not war.

Hippolyta has not, in my opinion, used that time well. Heracles choices about how he reacts to their encounter might remain his responsibility, but I think that what Perez is showing us here is that she has not made good choices of her own.