Wonder Woman 32 Discussion and Spoilers

[AmiMizuno]

That’s not better. All characters that are supporting cast both male or female should have an impact. Not just women. I mean Steve is the man in male character. How many males’s shoule there be? I would love a wonder boy and others

[brettc1]

Plus I dont see how this book is male centric when Steve has been dissed as useless twice in as many issue, and Hercules got taken down like an absolute noob.

If this is supposed to be the guy that Hippolyta was able to defeat in battle, then it's not much of a accolade to her fighting skills, is it?

So, no, not really seeing the over the top man-love here.

[Awonder]

What?

What part of the question are you not understanding?

So we're saying that Wonder Woman has to be written like A-Force, where every character who has any impact on the story is a woman?

You may be saying that. But, have I ever said that? If so, please show me the post. If not, what is science and/or logical reasoning without accuracy?

And the point of your bet seems to be to get me to agree that the inclusion of Hercule in the story is a bad thing. Yeah, he could be more than a mortal, but the question would be is that terrible?

So, to be clear, you don't want to take the bet?

The problem with this issue for me is there is a lot of exposition, not who gives it. It feels to me like if Hercule were a woman people wouldn't be complaining, but I would still be thinking 'meh'.

Sure, the exposition isn't great - but, one (arguable?) problem does not exclude another, right?

Plus I dont see how this book is male centric when Steve has been dissed as useless twice in as many issue, and Hercules got taken down like an absolute noob.

Because if Steve is "dissed," then it can't be male centric? It's not as if Diana has done anything particularly impressive or noteworthy for two issues.

So, no, not really seeing the over the top man-love here.

Does everything need to be "over-the-top" or it doesn't exist?

[brettc1]

You may be saying that. But, have I ever said that? If so, please show me the post. If not, what is science and/or logical reasoning without accuracy?

It's a question. There is a question mark. Asking a question is not the same as making a statement. I teach punctuation, as well as Science. And I do it pretty well, in spite of what some might wish to imply.

So, to be clear, you don't want to take the bet?

No, because doing so would validate a point that I don't think is valid. I'll just make my usual donations to charity like always.

Because if Steve is "dissed," then it can't be male centric? It's not as if Diana has done anything particularly impressive or noteworthy for two issues.


Does everything need to be "over-the-top" or it doesn't exist?

If you are saying that the book has become male centric, then it seems to me you are arguing it is unfairly biased towards the influence of men. In other words, it is unbalanced towards the input of male characters. Ergo, over the top.

In two issues the only guy who has done anything significant is Hercule, and its all just words. Hercules' input is posthumous, and not more relevant to the overarching plot than Kenobi's brief appearance in Return of the Jedi. He turns up, gives you some backstory, and then its all up to the main protagonist to get stuff done.

Speaking of which, Diana has taken down Giganta and a squad of Parademons in the last two issues. Steve offers some back up support after getting sidelined, Hercules gets slapped down like a rookie [by a female opponent] and the lawyer talks. Sure, more could have be shown but that is a problem of decompression, not male-centrism, IMO.

I kinda hope that Robinson is dissing Steve on purpose, because its a dynamic worth exploring. Who, man or woman, wants to be in a relationship where the person you are with with takes the thing you are most accomplished in constantly makes you look mediocre at best. That is not a recipe for happy.

[Awonder]

It's a question. There is a question mark. Asking a question is not the same as making a statement. I teach punctuation, as well as Science. And I do it pretty well, in spite of what some might wish to imply.

Why ask a question - with or without correct punctuation - to which you already know the answer?

And, for the record, your inference is not my "imply."

No, because doing so would validate a point that I don't think is valid. I'll just make my usual donations to charity like always.

And what would that "invalid point" be?

If you are saying that the book has become male centric, then it seems to me you are arguing it is unfairly biased towards the influence of men. In other words, it is unbalanced towards the input of male characters. Ergo, over the top.

And, what is the tile of this storyline?

In two issues the only guy who has done anything significant is Hercule, and its all just words.

You leaving out Grail?

Hercules' input is posthumous, and not more relevant to the overarching plot than Kenobi's brief appearance in Return of the Jedi. He turns up, gives you some backstory, and then its all up to the main protagonist to get stuff done.

Hercules is wasted on this storyline. But, comparing him to Kenobi doesn't work that well given that Herc is now Diana's half-brother (with all he "ick" that implies).

Speaking of which, Diana has taken down Giganta and a squad of Parademons in the last two issues.

Yawn. Did you actually like those scenes?

Steve offers some back up support after getting sidelined, Hercules gets slapped down like a rookie [by a female opponent] and the lawyer talks. Sure, more could have be shown but that is a problem of decompression, not male-centrism, IMO.

One does not exclude the other.

I kinda hope that Robinson is dissing Steve on purpose, because its a dynamic worth exploring. Who, man or woman, wants to be in a relationship where the person you are with with takes the thing you are most accomplished in constantly makes you look mediocre at best. That is not a recipe for happy.

I disagree. That just sounds like lazy trope writing.

[brettc1]

Why ask a question - with or without correct punctuation - to which you already know the answer?

And, for the record, your inference is not my "imply."

And what would that "invalid point" be?

And, what is the tile of this storyline?

You leaving out Grail?

Hercules is wasted on this storyline. But, comparing him to Kenobi doesn't work that well given that Herc is now Diana's half-brother (with all he "ick" that implies).

Yawn. Did you actually like those scenes?

One does not exclude the other.

I disagree. That just sounds like lazy trope writing.

It's not lazy if its realistic. Ignoring an obvious human dynamic when it staring you right in the face is far worse in my eyes. It would mean that they are writing Steve as a prop, not a character. And how often has that been realistically dealt with, anyway. If we are abandoning all tropes from the story process for WW then we wont have any villain fights any more, and how dull would that be for every single month? [sorry, that was actually rhetorical]

I don't ask questions to which I already know the answer except in class. So do people want a Wonder Woman with an all female cast? Because that is what A-Force had. And I didn't mind A-Force and would like to see it back, but I don't think that's right for WW. But others might genuinely want that.

Yes, I like seeing Wonder Woman strutting her stuff taking down super villains. Maybe that is a trope as well, but Joss Whedon didnt stop having Buffy stake vampires after third season. Obviously there is going to be throw down with Grail coming up, probably more than one. No, I didn't forget Grail, I mentioned her further down the post, but she is not a "guy".

The Kenobi analogy is functionally accurate, IMO, for this issue. Both of them turn up briefly in the story, give some backstory, and then disappear. I agree I don't like the idea that Diana's half brother may have sexually assaulted her mother, and I said so earlier, but that is separate issue to his immediate impact on this singular storyline.

I don't really see how if we are saying Hercules is wasted in the story [which I would also agree with] that the story is male-centric. It seems to be entirely based on the lawyer giving a lot of exposition. What is the problem here. Is it now not PC to have a man tell a woman something she genuinely does not know? [not rhetorical] Because to me that seems crazy.

[Awonder]

It's not lazy if its realistic. Ignoring an obvious human dynamic when it staring you right in the face is far worse in my eyes. It would mean that they are writing Steve as a prop, not a character. And how often has that been realistically dealt with, anyway. If we are abandoning all tropes from the story process for WW then we wont have any villain fights any more, and how dull would that be for every single month? [sorry, that was actually rhetorical]

You're right that it may be realistic for some people, but I find it predictable and dull. If Steve's going to start crying himself to sleep because Diana is a better parademon hunter than he is, then she should dump him, like she did in JL, for being too soft and squishy.

I don't ask questions to which I already know the answer except in class. So do people want a Wonder Woman with an all female cast? Because that is what A-Force had. And I didn't mind A-Force and would like to see it back, but I don't think that's right for WW. But others might genuinely want that.

How many years have you and I been discussing WW? Have I ever said that I want the comic to be an all female cast? To be clear - I'm not against male cast members, I'm against using patriarchal themes to redefine WW. See the difference?

Yes, I like seeing Wonder Woman strutting her stuff taking down super villains.

Me, too. But, she hasn't done anything interesting so far (imo).

Obviously there is going to be throw down with Grail coming up, probably more than one. No, I didn't forget Grail, I mentioned her further down the post, but she is not a "guy".

Yeah, obvious future fight is obvious. Wake me when we get there.

The Kenobi analogy is functionally accurate, IMO, for this issue. Both of them turn up briefly in the story, give some backstory, and then disappear. I agree I don't like the idea that Diana's half brother may have sexually assaulted her mother, and I said so earlier, but that is separate issue to his immediate impact on this singular storyline.

You're right, you did say that earlier. But, I disagree about the Kenobi comparison - there are similarities, sure, but, for starters, he doesn't reveal himself to be Luke's other half-brother.

I don't really see how if we are saying Hercules is wasted in the story [which I would also agree with] that the story is male-centric.

Again, those are not not mutually exclusive. Hercules is wasted in such a role; but even male characters can be poorly used in male-centric storylines, right? And, I can't help but notice you keep avoiding my questions.

It seems to be entirely based on the lawyer giving a lot of exposition.

Nope. You can do better than that.

What is the problem here. Is it now not PC to have a man tell a woman something she genuinely does not know? [not rhetorical] Because to me that seems crazy.

Well, that's not my point - just your rather reductive version - so, yes, it is crazy. Which brings me back to my proposed wager - is the tag-along lawyer that Diana can't get rid of just "a man tell(ing) a woman something she genuinely does not know?" Maybe. If so, then, he's just a dull waste of page space (so far?). But, if not? Then, who is he really? What's the title of the story again? "Lawyers that talk too much but go the extra mile by following you to Greece for no reason!"

Edit -

If you are saying that the book has become male centric, then it seems to me you are arguing it is unfairly biased towards the influence of men. In other words, it is unbalanced towards the input of male characters. Ergo, over the top.

Going back to your point here - what is the title of the story? How might that title reflect in the direction and themes of the story? And, since this is the issue #32 thread specifically, how many women get to speak at all?

[brettc1]

You're right that it may be realistic for some people, but I find it predictable and dull. If Steve's going to start crying himself to sleep because Diana is a better parademon hunter than he is, then she should dump him, like she did in JL, for being too soft and squishy.

How many years have you and I been discussing WW? Have I ever said that I want the comic to be an all female cast? To be clear - I'm not against male cast members, I'm against using patriarchal themes to redefine WW. See the difference?

Me, too. But, she hasn't done anything interesting so far (imo).

Yeah, obvious future fight is obvious. Wake me when we get there.

You're right, you did say that earlier. But, I disagree about the Kenobi comparison - there are similarities, sure, but, for starters, he doesn't reveal himself to be Luke's other half-brother.

Again, those are not not mutually exclusive. Hercules is wasted in such a role; but even male characters can be poorly used in male-centric storylines, right? And, I can't help but notice you keep avoiding my questions.

Nope. You can do better than that.

Well, that's not my point - just your rather reductive version - so, yes, it is crazy. Which brings me back to my proposed wager - is the tag-along lawyer that Diana can't get rid of just "a man tell(ing) a woman something she genuinely does not know?" Maybe. If so, then, he's just a dull waste of page space (so far?). But, if not? Then, who is he really? What's the title of the story again? "Lawyers that talk too much but go the extra mile by following you to Greece for no reason!"


Going back to your point here - what is the title of the story? How might that title reflect in the direction and themes of the story? And, since this is the issue #32 thread specifically, how many women get to speak at all?

If your problem with the book is not the lawyer's exposition then you will have to be more clear to me what the problem is, because I don't see it. Exposition might not the most interesting thing in the world but it is sometimes necessary for the story. Again, to me the problem here is the decompression of issues rather than what is in them. The Hercules fight could, for example, been broken up into two different sequences to give Hercules more props, but the point seemed to be to proceed ASAP to the reveal that Diana is his heir.

It's true that as I recall Diana is the only woman who gets to speak in this issue, but so what? The previous arc had mostly women talking in one issue when Etta and Diana were attacked by villains and it was still NOT a good issue, IMO.

As regards Steve, I think we must both be guilty of reductive viewpoints. Obviously having him literally cry is not a good way to go, showing his character [although I am told that men are allowed to cry more freely, whatever I might personally think about that]. However having him feel genuinely frustrated with a situation would be pretty good, and because the powerful woman/less powerful man dynamic is not one often explored in comics could provide some good side stories. Rucka already planted a seed by suggesting Diana is not that great with romance, and her confusion if Steve begins to feel undervalued and that exploration of relationship patters could be an interesting read. As long as I dont have to sit and hear Etta or Black Canary or someone throwing out tired catch phrases like 'fragile male ego'. Gawd, just shoot me now!

The Kenobi analogue is just that, and analogues do not have to be verbatim copies. Turns up, delivers info by whatever medium, leaves.

Finally, if the Hercule is more than a lawyer, I still don't see the problem. Would probably make more sense, sure. If he's her father, it will still come down to what he does in the story that matters. The movie did a lot to resolve my personal angst about it.

Edit - I never assume that I am only writing to one person, because other people are free to jump in and share ideas. So there is not necessarily a single answer or an pre-assumed answer to my questions.

Also, patriarchal themes seems to imply that the female characters are denied agency and thus far that does not seem to be the case to me. It seems the case often that any time a male character does anything of significance or has any relevant input to the story that people jump up and shout patriarchy. But there has to be an overriding pattern and again, I don't think this story shows a pattern of male dominance.

And even if it did at this point in the story, that dominance and female powerlessness would have to continue all the way through to the conclusion.

Going back to what I said earlier, the only way to be 100% certain that nobody could claim patriarchal themes would be to have a book with all female characters. Since you've said that's not what you want, we have to accept that sometimes to be meaningful in the story men iare going to have a significant role to play.

[Awonder]

If your problem with the book is not the lawyer's exposition then you will have to be more clear to me what the problem is, because I don't see it. Exposition might not the most interesting thing in the world but it is sometimes necessary for the story. Again, to me the problem here is the decompression of issues rather than what is in them. The Hercules fight could, for example, been broken up into two different sequences to give Hercules more props, but the point seemed to be to proceed ASAP to the reveal that Diana is his heir.

I've been trying to establish some common ground from which we could potentially build a better understanding, even if we disagree on some things; but, from my perspective, one preoblem here is that we aren't speaking about the same things.

You're right that some times some exposition may be needed to move the story along - but that doesn't really address whether or not said exposition is part of a patriarchal pattern in the narrative. As I said, if he's just a lawyer, then there isn't much to him. But, as my proposed bet suggested, I suspect he's more than that, which would alter the dynamics of the story.

It's true that as I recall Diana is the only woman who gets to speak in this issue, but so what? The previous arc had mostly women talking in one issue when Etta and Diana were attacked by villains and it was still NOT a good issue, IMO.

Actually, there was another woman allowed to speak - she told Diana where Jason was (obviously, she's very forgettable). But, I fail to understand how you can say that women not being allowed speaking roles is a "so what?"

Here, I'm not speaking to the quality or personal enjoyment of a story. That's different than whether or not an approach to the story is male-centric. For instance, the Marvel Thor movies are very male-centric, giving women comparatively little to do. Agree? I still enjoy them.

As regards Steve, I think we must both be guilty of reductive viewpoints. Obviously having him literally cry is not a good way to go, showing his character [although I am told that men are allowed to cry more freely, whatever I might personally think about that]. However having him feel genuinely frustrated with a situation would be pretty good, and because the powerful woman/less powerful man dynamic is not one often explored in comics could provide some good side stories. Rucka already planted a seed by suggesting Diana is not that great with romance, and her confusion if Steve begins to feel undervalued and that exploration of relationship patters could be an interesting read. As long as I dont have to sit and hear Etta or Black Canary or someone throwing out tired catch phrases like 'fragile male ego'. Gawd, just shoot me now!

So, you want a story about Steve's fragile male ego, but don't want anyone to call him on it? Either way, that's not really my point, so, I'll skip this for now.

The Kenobi analogue is just that, and analogues do not have to be verbatim copies. Turns up, delivers info by whatever medium, leaves.

You're right that analogues don't have to be a perfect match to make a point, and I see the point you are making with it. The problem is that the differences alter the dynamics.

Finally, if the Hercule is more than a lawyer, I still don't see the problem. Would probably make more sense, sure. If he's her father, it will still come down to what he does in the story that matters. The movie did a lot to resolve my personal angst about it.

Your personal angst doesn't really apply to my point, but, you're right that much comes down to how things are handled. So, it goes without saying really, that any and all of my expressed options are subject to change as the story unfolds. For now, I'm just going off what we have so far (with a touch of speculation) - and what we have so far is not impressive.

Again, I ask, what's the title? And, how does that title express (in)equality?

Edit - I never assume that I am only writing to one person, because other people are free to jump in and share ideas. So there is not necessarily a single answer or an pre-assumed answer to my questions.

Sure, anyone should feel free to jump in. But, when you are responding to and addressing me, I appreciate it if we could stick to things I've actually said.

Also, patriarchal themes seems to imply that the female characters are denied agency and thus far that does not seem to be the case to me. It seems the case often that any time a male character does anything of significance or has any relevant input to the story that people jump up and shout patriarchy. But there has to be an overriding pattern and again, I don't think this story shows a pattern of male dominance.

A lack of female agency is definitely one form of patriarchal themes, but it is not the only way in which patriarchal themes can show up. So, again, what's the title? How is women - even women with some agency - being defined primarily by their powerful fathers, not a patriarchal theme?

And even if it did at this point in the story, that dominance and female powerlessness would have to continue all the way through to the conclusion.

Hey, I'll be happy to be proven wrong, but given DC's track record - including both Johns and Robinson? I'm not taking that bet.

Going back to what I said earlier, the only way to be 100% certain that nobody could claim patriarchal themes would be to have a book with all female characters. Since you've said that's not what you want, we have to accept that sometimes to be meaningful in the story men iare going to have a significant role to play.

Again with the extremes? And, again, I'm not against men having significant roles to play, so, please, give up on that tired act as if men are somehow neglected in superhero stories.

I'M NOT AGAINST MEN! I'm anti-inequality! And, patriarchy has always been, and continues to be, unequal. Zeus and Darkseid are NOT simply men - they are patriarchal dictators. Zeus being forced into the powerful daddy role erases what were the NON-patriarchal story elements that defined WW and her world.

See the issue #33 preview, yet? Grails gets to do the acting, but she is acting, and speaking, for and about Darkseid. So far.

[brettc1]

I've been trying to establish some common ground from which we could potentially build a better understanding, even if we disagree on some things; but, from my perspective, one preoblem here is that we aren't speaking about the same things.

You're right that some times some exposition may be needed to move the story along - but that doesn't really address whether or not said exposition is part of a patriarchal pattern in the narrative. As I said, if he's just a lawyer, then there isn't much to him. But, as my proposed bet suggested, I suspect he's more than that, which would alter the dynamics of the story.

Not for me. I think we must allow for the fact that sometimes the story will have a figure in it who is powerful and has a level of authority and is male. Saying that an story where that is the case is following a patriarchal narrative is effectively censoring storytelling to disallow male figures to be powerful. IMO.

Actually, there was another woman allowed to speak - she told Diana where Jason was (obviously, she's very forgettable). But, I fail to understand how you can say that women not being allowed speaking roles is a "so what?"

Here, I'm not speaking to the quality or personal enjoyment of a story. That's different than whether or not an approach to the story is male-centric. For instance, the Marvel Thor movies are very male-centric, giving women comparatively little to do. Agree? I still enjoy them.

No, I don't agree at all. I think Jane Foster gave a nice balance in the movies and especially the second. Thor would not have won the fight in Dark World without Jane's Science.

So, you want a story about Steve's fragile male ego, but don't want anyone to call him on it? Either way, that's not really my point, so, I'll skip this for now.

Seems like a woman is allowed to have feelings and express them, but a man can't.

Your personal angst doesn't really apply to my point, but, you're right that much comes down to how things are handled. So, it goes without saying really, that any and all of my expressed options are subject to change as the story unfolds. For now, I'm just going off what we have so far (with a touch of speculation) - and what we have so far is not impressive.

Again, I ask, what's the title? And, how does that title express (in)equality?

Isn't it called children of the gods? How does it express inequality? I don't know. It doesn't to me.

Sure, anyone should feel free to jump in. But, when you are responding to and addressing me, I appreciate it if we could stick to things I've actually said.

So we won't be hearing any more about Steve crying then, I guess.

A lack of female agency is definitely one form of patriarchal themes, but it is not the only way in which patriarchal themes can show up. So, again, what's the title? How is women - even women with some agency - being defined primarily by their powerful fathers, not a patriarchal theme?

Because people have fathers, and some fathers are powerful. The 'defined' thing here is something you seem to be bringing to the narrative, and that is certainly your right. But to me is a simple description, not a definition.

Again with the extremes? And, again, I'm not against men having significant roles to play, so, please, give up on that tired act as if men are somehow neglected in superhero stories.

I'M NOT AGAINST MEN! I'm anti-inequality! And, patriarchy has always been, and continues to be, unequal. Zeus and Darkseid are NOT simply men - they are patriarchal dictators. Zeus being forced into the powerful daddy role erases what were the NON-patriarchal story elements that defined WW and her world.

No, it doesn't. You said yourself that the movie was fore-fronted by a dominant female presence that balanced out the last two thirds where Diana was surrounded by men. So that can equally be applied to runs of Wonder Woman. The Rucka run was largely about women of agency - Diana, Hippolyta, Etta, Veronica Cale, and Barbara Minerva. Ares had very little to do with anything. Steve played a significant supporting role but ultimately did not have the same impact on the story as the five women I mentioned.

So now, we are going to have a story where there are some more men in it, and maybe one of those males will be Zeus. But I still see Hippolyta and the Amazons as being more significant. Maybe it's just not a terrible sin for a woman to have a both a mother who inspires you AND a father who is powerful and also has something to offer.

I try not to look at previews. The issues are short enough as it is without reading 5 pages before they come out.

[Awonder]

Not for me. I think we must allow for the fact that sometimes the story will have a figure in it who is powerful and has a level of authority and is male. Saying that an story where that is the case is following a patriarchal narrative is effectively censoring storytelling to disallow male figures to be powerful. IMO.

Sometimes? Sure, you'd have a good point here IF "sometimes" was the reality. However, let's check the facts - here's Box Office Mojo's list of the top 100 (US domestic) superhero films:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/...=superhero.htm

Proposed Wager #2 - who is more likely to be restricted from roles that are "powerful and have a level of authority:" men or women? Without even looking at the list, you know the answer, right?

Now, at the individual story level, I'm all for male-centric stories. I really like the father-son-brother dynamic in the Thor movies. I look forward to what should be a father-daughter dynamic in the upcoming Batgirl movie. But, science and reason would be incredibly flawed if it only looked at single events and failed to look at the larger pattern.

I am not suggesting that men should be excluded from roles - but, that isn't the problem as men aren't excluded from these roles. The problem is that they so dominate and hog these roles to the extent that women are the ones being effectively excluded. I've enjoyed all the Marvel movies individually - individually, they are not the problem. The problem is in the pattern (a pattern that goes well beyond just Marvel).

The irony of your position here is that it is the addition of Zeus in the WW story that effectively erases and "censors" what was intended to be a non-patriarchal narrative. In short, going back to the top 100 superhero movies, where is the equal treatment for women?

No, I don't agree at all. I think Jane Foster gave a nice balance in the movies and especially the second. Thor would not have won the fight in Dark World without Jane's Science.

Balance? Who's name is in the title? Jane's story revolves around Thor, not the other way around. Count the number of women and the number of men, e.g., Sif and the Warriors Three? Look at the throne room? No one - not Odin, not Thor - treats Frigga as an equal ruler of Asgard. Just because the women get a little more to do in the sequel does not make for "balanced" movies. And, this male-centric pattern is far from limited to Thor - it's treated as normal.

Seems like a woman is allowed to have feelings and express them, but a man can't.

Again, I have to ask - where did I say that?

Isn't it called children of the gods? How does it express inequality? I don't know. It doesn't to me.

Diana, Grail, Jason - the three main characters. We, also, get Heracles and [spoiler for 33]. What do they all have in common that the title refers to? They are all children of God-FATHERS. The title effectively downplays their mothers - a pattern we see in movie Thor, movie Superman, movie Iron Man, movie Batman, etc - are you seeing the pattern, yet?

So we won't be hearing any more about Steve crying then, I guess.

It's your story idea, not mine. If you wish to discuss it further, I'd suggest it's own thread.

Because people have fathers, and some fathers are powerful. The 'defined' thing here is something you seem to be bringing to the narrative, and that is certainly your right. But to me is a simple description, not a definition.

Yes, people have fathers - people, also, have mothers. One of these have been, and continues to be, routinely treated as secodnday. Hint: it's not the fathers. Superman and Thor both have powerful mothers - and both of them are still treated as secondary to the fathers. To simply call it a "description" is to ignore the facts of the pattern.

No, it doesn't. You said yourself that the movie was fore-fronted by a dominant female presence that balanced out the last two thirds where Diana was surrounded by men. So that can equally be applied to runs of Wonder Woman. The Rucka run was largely about women of agency - Diana, Hippolyta, Etta, Veronica Cale, and Barbara Minerva. Ares had very little to do with anything. Steve played a significant supporting role but ultimately did not have the same impact on the story as the five women I mentioned.

I've said that the movie does a much better job than the Azzarello run, but, I've, also, said this element of the movie - Zeus as the "all-father" - is still male-centric because it still reinforces the patriarchy by eliminating/censoring the non-patriarchal. Swap out Zeus creating the Amazons and Diana, and swap back in Aphrodite, Athena - WOMEN with power and authority.

And, what was the one main thing Rucka and Scott were not allowed to change in Rebirth? You can not change the patriarchy. Remember, DiDio, also, wouldn't let Simone use Rucka's Athena -(non-patriarchal)-led Olympus.

So now, we are going to have a story where there are some more men in it, and maybe one of those males will be Zeus. But I still see Hippolyta and the Amazons as being more significant. Maybe it's just not a terrible sin for a woman to have a both a mother who inspires you AND a father who is powerful and also has something to offer.

A powerful father is not something that superhero stories are lacking - again, it's such a pervasive pattern that it's simply treated as normal. But, in a male-centric market, in a larger male-centric global society, the "normal" is just more male-centric. What's actually lacking here, the real "sin," is that women/mothers are the ones being effectively excluded from those positions of power. WW was rightly intended to be non-patriarchal, not to perpetuate patriarchal patterns.

So, can we please stop acting like the "sin" here is that men are being "censored" from these roles?

[brettc1]

Sometimes? Sure, you'd have a good point here IF "sometimes" was the reality. However, let's check the facts - here's Box Office Mojo's list of the top 100 (US domestic) superhero films:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/...=superhero.htm

Proposed Wager #2 - who is more likely to be restricted from roles that are "powerful and have a level of authority:" men or women? Without even looking at the list, you know the answer, right?

Now, at the individual story level, I'm all for male-centric stories. I really like the father-son-brother dynamic in the Thor movies. I look forward to what should be a father-daughter dynamic in the upcoming Batgirl movie. But, science and reason would be incredibly flawed if it only looked at single events and failed to look at the larger pattern.

I am not suggesting that men should be excluded from roles - but, that isn't the problem as men aren't excluded from these roles. The problem is that they so dominate and hog these roles to the extent that women are the ones being effectively excluded. I've enjoyed all the Marvel movies individually - individually, they are not the problem. The problem is in the pattern (a pattern that goes well beyond just Marvel).

The irony of your position here is that it is the addition of Zeus in the WW story that effectively erases and "censors" what was intended to be a non-patriarchal narrative. In short, going back to the top 100 superhero movies, where is the equal treatment for women?

We aren't talking about movies. We are talking about a story in a comic book that has been going for two issues. You cannot draw a pattern from that. Two occurrences of something that is purely subjective is not a pattern in science or anything else.

Balance? Who's name is in the title? Jane's story revolves around Thor, not the other way around. Count the number of women and the number of men, e.g., Sif and the Warriors Three? Look at the throne room? No one - not Odin, not Thor - treats Frigga as an equal ruler of Asgard. Just because the women get a little more to do in the sequel does not make for "balanced" movies. And, this male-centric pattern is far from limited to Thor - it's treated as normal.

I disagree. I see Jane's story as integral to Thor's. So what if there is only one ruler of Asgard. There is only one captain of the Starship Voyager and it's a woman. Is Voyager a matriarchy?

You rail against the way the movie is set up, and yet you say you enjoy it?

Again, I have to ask - where did I say that?

I'M saying it, based on your comments. I suggested Steve might have a cause for complaint, and you went with fragile male ego. That sounds like a double standard to me, by any other name.

But if you disagree and think Steve or other male characters should be able to voice disapproval if they are treated less respectfully by someone, without being called or thought of as fragile, then you are free to say so.

Diana, Grail, Jason - the three main characters. We, also, get Heracles and [spoiler for 33]. What do they all have in common that the title refers to? They are all children of God-FATHERS. The title effectively downplays their mothers - a pattern we see in movie Thor, movie Superman, movie Iron Man, movie Batman, etc - are you seeing the pattern, yet?

You know the pattern I see in those movies you mentioned? The dads almost always DIE! Fathers get fridged in comic stories about as quickly as girlfiends. Batman, Superman, Iron Man, Spider-Man... all of them have father figures who's role is to inspire from six feet in the cold cold ground. Superman has two dads and BOTH of them end up dead. The day either of my kids becomes a super-hero is the day I start planning my funeral service.

The title is children of the gods because the story is about Darkseid harvesting the power of gods.

It's your story idea, not mine. If you wish to discuss it further, I'd suggest it's own thread.

I dont see any such need, considering its part of the ongoing story in this issue. If it turns up in next issue, I will mention it there as well.

Yes, people have fathers - people, also, have mothers. One of these have been, and continues to be, routinely treated as secodnday. Hint: it's not the fathers. Superman and Thor both have powerful mothers - and both of them are still treated as secondary to the fathers. To simply call it a "description" is to ignore the facts of the pattern.

See above. Also, Superman and Thor and men and men relate better to men. Women don't know what it means to be a man, and vice versa. Barbara Gordon might look to her father as her inspiration, but for relationship advice she goes to Dinah Lance. In Batman V Superman the thing that drags Batman back from the brink is the mention of his mother's name, not his father's.

I've said that the movie does a much better job than the Azzarello run, but, I've, also, said this element of the movie - Zeus as the "all-father" - is still male-centric because it still reinforces the patriarchy by eliminating/censoring the non-patriarchal. Swap out Zeus creating the Amazons and Diana, and swap back in Aphrodite, Athena - WOMEN with power and authority.

And, what was the one main thing Rucka and Scott were not allowed to change in Rebirth? You can not change the patriarchy. Remember, DiDio, also, wouldn't let Simone use Rucka's Athena -(non-patriarchal)-led Olympus.

I don't know the details about the Athena Zeus situation. If you have more info, please share the links. And it didn't say in the movie Zeus created the Amazons, it says the gods did. It also uses the word gods an uni-sex. And Diana succeeds where her father failed in defeating Ares.

A powerful father is not something that superhero stories are lacking - again, it's such a pervasive pattern that it's simply treated as normal. But, in a male-centric market, in a larger male-centric global society, the "normal" is just more male-centric. What's actually lacking here, the real "sin," is that women/mothers are the ones being effectively excluded from those positions of power. WW was rightly intended to be non-patriarchal, not to perpetuate patriarchal patterns.

So, can we please stop acting like the "sin" here is that men are being "censored" from these roles?

No, powerful father's are not lacking. Living ones, though, tend to be in short supply. Where's Han Solo, again?

Two issues into a story about Diana's link to he father is not proof to me that her mother is being dissed, boxed, or sidelined. Wonder Woman is about balance, which means we had 30 isues of stories that were pretty much dominated by female characters and now we are getting one that swings somewhat the other way, but still has the main protagonist and antagonist as women.

I'm good with it. But if it is that vexing to you, you can always balance it out with an issue of Bombshells, which is also very good.

[Awonder]

We aren't talking about movies. We are talking about a story in a comic book that has been going for two issues. You cannot draw a pattern from that. Two occurrences of something that is purely subjective is not a pattern in science or anything else.

There are only "two occurrences" IF you choose to ignore the larger cultural context in which they occur.

I use the Marvel movies as examples. Again, I enjoy them individually. Individually, it's all good to tell stories about men. Collectively - the pattern - it becomes a problem when the (straight white) men so dominate every role, except love interest, that it reduces the roles of everyone else. You will never see the obvious pattern if you only look at each movie individually.

I disagree. I see Jane's story as integral to Thor's.

Jane is so "integral" that she's in 3 and Thor isn't? The trilogy (and Avengers) has always been Thor first, Loki second, Jane third.

So what if there is only one ruler of Asgard.

It's not just one ruler - it's a patriarchy. When Odin wants to take a nap, why does no one ever consider that Frigga could rule? Instead, it's all about Thor and Loki - in other words, it's all about MEN ruling.

You rail against the way the movie is set up, and yet you say you enjoy it?

Those are not mutually exclusive. I enjoy the Thor movies as individual movies - I do not enjoy the pattern used that normalizes patriarchy. So, again, I ask, is patriarchy an egalitarian system? If not, then, how is promoting it as "normal" a good thing?

You know the pattern I see in those movies you mentioned? The dads almost always DIE! Fathers get fridged in comic stories about as quickly as girlfiends. Batman, Superman, Iron Man, Spider-Man... all of them have father figures who's role is to inspire from six feet in the cold cold ground. Superman has two dads and BOTH of them end up dead. The day either of my kids becomes a super-hero is the day I start planning my funeral service.

Yes, that, too, is a pattern - but, c'mon, that is not all that is going on. Jor-El has the technology to download his brain so that he can hang out with his kid on Earth (and play at being a symbolic benevolent god) - but, no one ever thinks that maybe Kal's mother may want to do the same?

See above. Also, Superman and Thor and men and men relate better to men. Women don't know what it means to be a man, and vice versa. Barbara Gordon might look to her father as her inspiration, but for relationship advice she goes to Dinah Lance. In Batman V Superman the thing that drags Batman back from the brink is the mention of his mother's name, not his father's.

You mean Bruce's mother that never gets to speak, much less, never gets to do anything but die? Bruce's dad's name isn't "Jonathan," so that wouldn't work anyway.

Men may relate better to men - but, why can't men share a little more? If you take your son to all the superhero movies focusing primarily on men, and take your daughter to all the superhero movies focusing primarily on women - which one gets to go to more movies? Why did the WW make such big news this year? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that it's been so long since we last had a superhero movie primarily about a woman?

And it didn't say in the movie Zeus created the Amazons, it says the gods did. It also uses the word gods an uni-sex.

All those goddesses that don't even get names. And, who is sitting front and center? The king. That is not a "uni-sex" of equality.

And Diana succeeds where her father failed in defeating Ares.

A female protagonist succeeded does not make the set-up any less patriarchal. Simone is right!

No, powerful father's are not lacking. Living ones, though, tend to be in short supply. Where's Han Solo, again?

I thought we weren't talking about movies. Who got to do far more in four movies: Han Solo or Princess Leia?

Two issues into a story about Diana's link to he father is not proof to me that her mother is being dissed, boxed, or sidelined.

It might help if you didn't keep ignoring everything that goes contrary to your conclusion.

Wonder Woman is about balance, which means we had 30 isues of stories that were pretty much dominated by female characters and now we are getting one that swings somewhat the other way, but still has the main protagonist and antagonist as women.

There is nothing "balanced" with men hogging the "all-father" role to the extent it effectively eliminates "all-mothers." And this isn't a role reserved for comic book fiction - this is still our global culture. Patriarchy is not balance.

I'm good with it. But if it is that vexing to you, you can always balance it out with an issue of Bombshells, which is also very good.

Read something else? Ok, if you want to play that card - how many other comics star men vs how many star women? Who is hogging the spotlight? Oh, but, it's just "two issues" - so, it can't possibly be a pattern throughout the industry (and the larger culture), right?

[brettc1]

I actually said you could read something else as well. And if you hate the way the Thor movies are freaked so much, why do you support them with your money? And Frigga doesn't rule Asgard in Thor #1 because she won't leave Odin's side Ashe sleeps.

Your argument seems to centre on the idea that Wonder Woman must be totally devoid of anything that might hint at a patriarchal theme, to balance out the many other examples of it elsewhere. I understand the reasoning but don't see it as helpful overall. It merely, in my mind, segregates the book. Wonder Woman should be inclusive. So I would rather see it showing both women and men in authority positions, and both women and men as parents with influence. The book should be an example of balance, not try vainly to balance out all other books.

I'm sorry you felt so let down by the Wonder Woman movie. I loved it. So did Gwen. Even if Diana's father did up as dead as all the other hero dads.

Edit: Thor Ragnarok starts today here and Xander and I are going tonight. It will be good for him to see that men can be heroic and he doesn't have to hate himself for his male-ness.

Meanwhile, our winner for the Prime Minister's Science Award this year has discovered evidence that the Y chromosome is shrinking. And that in about 4million years men might cease to exist. I guess that will have an effect on narrative structure, so something for you to look forward to.

[Awonder]

I actually said you could read something else as well.

I know - I was referring to the flaw in that approach.

And if you hate the way the Thor movies are freaked so much, why do you support them with your money?

I don't hate the Thor movies. I don't want movies of fathers, brothers, and sons to go away. I just don't want them to crowd out stories of mothers, sisters, and daughters.

And Frigga doesn't rule Asgard in Thor #1 because she won't leave Odin's side Ashe sleeps.

My, what a grand and glorious role for women.

Your argument seems to centre on the idea that Wonder Woman must be totally devoid of anything that might hint at a patriarchal theme, to balance out the many other examples of it elsewhere. I understand the reasoning but don't see it as helpful overall.

And, just what is helpful about a WW that promotes patriarchy? How is it helpful for WW to be used to erase "all-mothers" in favor of yet another "all-father" story?

It merely, in my mind, segregates the book.

Of all the characters, WW was created for the purpose of being different. That's her whole point.

Wonder Woman should be inclusive.

Patriarchy is not inclusive.

So I would rather see it showing both women and men in authority positions, and both women and men as parents with influence. The book should be an example of balance, not try vainly to balance out all other books.

Patriarchy is not balanced. Zeus is not simply a "parent with influence." He is the poster boy of Harvey Weinstein-like behavior, using his position of power to abuse women. More important, while Zeus may be considered fictional now, normalizing men in these positions of power has been, and continues to be, rationalized and justified for real world cultural patterns of abuse. There is not balance in patriarchy.

Adding Zeus was never about balance - it was always about sales. Sales in a male-centric market.

I'm sorry you felt so let down by the Wonder Woman movie. I loved it. So did Gwen. Even if Diana's father did up as dead as all the other hero dads.

I'm glad Gwen loved it. There is much there to enjoy. But, it's not without problems.

Edit: Thor Ragnarok starts today here and Xander and I are going tonight.

Sounds great. I hope you both have a good time.

It will be good for him to see that men can be heroic

Yes, that is good. But, it's not as if "men can be heroic" is a hard movie to find.

and he doesn't have to hate himself for his male-ness.

Oh, please, stop with this nonsense. Where have I ever said men should hate themselves for their male-ness? Oh, wait, I haven't. I am male, and, no, I don't hate male-ness. I don't hate men. I hate people behaving badly - and, patriarchy has a very long and very ugly reality of people behaving very badly.

Meanwhile, our winner for the Prime Minister's Science Award this year has discovered evidence that the Y chromosome is shrinking. And that in about 4million years men might cease to exist. I guess that will have an effect on narrative structure, so something for you to look forward to.

I doubt I will be here in 4 million years, but, I still do not appreciate the very dishonest implication that I'm in favor of killing off all men. Would you appreciate it if I were to "joke" about you promoting the systemic rape and subjugation of women?