Wonder Woman 32 Discussion and Spoilers

[brettc1]

My, what a grand and glorious role for women.

It is, actually, if she chooses it. Just like staying at home and raising children is a perfectly valid role if that is what women choose to do. Meanwhile in the actual Thor book Odin is out of the picture because Frigga is in a coma and he won't leave her side. So, balance.

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?

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

Patriarchy is not inclusive.


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.

And it is here that I feel your argument loses traction.

First, the dominant audience for Wonder Woman was, in fact, women. Women rate the movie more highly than men on IMDB, and anecdotally in every screening I went to the audience was by majority female. So that is not a male-centric market at all.

Patriarchy is not inclusive, but Wonder Woman should be, and that means there are going to be places where women are in charge and powerful and places where men are. The movie CONSTANTLY challenges patriarchal thinking in quite direct terms, but it doesn't do that by simply ignoring it.

Condemning the story because the current version of Diana gets some of her abilities from her father seems to me, on reflection, to be extremely unbalanced and elitist and non-inclusive. It is suggesting that a woman who comes to a story with something from her father has less value than one that has something from her mother, regardless of her own personal ethos and character. To me it seems like a DE-structive approach, whereas I would prefer a CON-structive one of showing men and women able to work together.

Now you might say having Zeus in this story precludes that, because he is all-powerful. But I don't have any evidence yet that the entire problem is going to be solved by Zeus waving his hand and making it all go away. As for the relationship between Darkseid and Grail, it seems to me that Darkseid is the VILLAIN. So having him be all inclusive and equality driven is not in his character anyway. He is not dominant because he is male and thinks he is better than women, he is the way he is because he is DARKSEID and believes he is better than EVERYONE!

I can certainly understand you concerns - people said that the Superman/Wonder Woman book would be balanced between both characters, and in the end that was anything but the case. There is a perfect example of the patriarchal narrative completely subsuming the plot if ever there was one. But I have to believe that you can have Wonder Woman and Zeus be in the same book at the same time and it NOT be all about Zeus,

One reason for that is that it's not always about physical power. That is a patriarchal trap right there - the idea that greater physical power must dominate and that the wielder of that power is inherently better. But power, regardless of the source, is all about how you use it.

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.

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?

Well, it honestly seems to me that you are saying that you cannot or should not have a Wonder Woman book where any man is more powerful or as powerful as Wonder Woman. That the idea of a story with a woman getting power from any source that is not female is promoting an evil idea. No matter what she does with it, her legacy will forever be tainted by the stain of that power coming from a source that was not a woman. That if a man gives her anything, be it power or knowledge or skills or anything at all, that she has less value as a hero.

Whereas I can see that that are merits to both versions of the story - being made from clay or born from a coupling between Hippolyta and Zeus.

Am I wrong? And if I am, what's the problem with issue 32?

[Awonder]

It is, actually, if she chooses it. Just like staying at home and raising children is a perfectly valid role if that is what women choose to do. Meanwhile in the actual Thor book Odin is out of the picture because Frigga is in a coma and he won't leave her side. So, balance.

Balance? Only superficially. Is a housewife really choosing to be a housewife if she has few other options of what she is allowed to be? Odin has the power and authority to choose to leave the throne to sit by Frigga's side. When Frigga wakes up, does she have the same option to rule? Based on Asgard's patriarchal history - the answer is no. Therefore, no, that is not balance.

And it is here that I feel your argument loses traction.

Especially when you keep ignoring and twisting the parts that don't fit your conclusions.

First, the dominant audience for Wonder Woman was, in fact, women. Women rate the movie more highly than men on IMDB, and anecdotally in every screening I went to the audience was by majority female. So that is not a male-centric market at all.

A) I wasn't speaking just about the movie, because B) the movie didn't happen in a vacuum. C) Just because some aspects of the movie really appealed to women, that does not mean all aspects do (not that women have one single opinion on it anyway).

Let's try some basic counting - how many women are on the team for the upcoming JL movie? How many were on the Avengers? Guardians? How many male solo movies? How many male directors? Not a male-market? The facts do not support you.

Patriarchy is not inclusive, but Wonder Woman should be,

If you only care about "inclusion" when it comes to forcing more patriarchy patterns into one of the very few superhero stories that was intended to be non-patriarchal, then, no, I don't believe you actually care about inclusion.

and that means there are going to be places where women are in charge and powerful and places where men are.

Because "male-ness" is under attack if we have ONE female superhero story that doesn't support the divine all-father patriarchal dominance, right?

The movie CONSTANTLY challenges patriarchal thinking in quite direct terms, but it doesn't do that by simply ignoring it.

Repeatedly is more accurate. "Constantly" is factually incorrect given Zeus's role as the divine patriarchal king.

Condemning the story because the current version of Diana gets some of her abilities from her father seems to me, on reflection, to be extremely unbalanced and elitist and non-inclusive. It is suggesting that a woman who comes to a story with something from her father has less value than one that has something from her mother, regardless of her own personal ethos and character. To me it seems like a DE-structive approach, whereas I would prefer a CON-structive one of showing men and women able to work together.

Again with the male pity party? Zeus is not just a father. He isn't just "powerful." So, when can we stop crying about how it's so "elitist and non-inclusion" to not want to support patriarchy given patriarchy's very real and very ugly abuse of real women for millennia? It's patriarchy, not the criticism of it, that is the real "DE-structive" approach here.

WW was shown working with men (and women) for 70 YEARS before Zeus became her daddy. Or, do you value Steve less because he isn't a Harvey Weinstein in the sky?

Now you might say having Zeus in this story precludes that, because he is all-powerful. But I don't have any evidence yet that the entire problem is going to be solved by Zeus waving his hand and making it all go away.

Hand waving or not, he's still a patriarch with a long history of using his power and position to abuse women. Where did all these children of Zeus come from? It wasn't all consensual, you know that, right?

As for the relationship between Darkseid and Grail, it seems to me that Darkseid is the VILLAIN. So having him be all inclusive and equality driven is not in his character anyway. He is not dominant because he is male and thinks he is better than women, he is the way he is because he is DARKSEID and believes he is better than EVERYONE!

It's not about how Darkseid treats Grail - it's about how Johns, and now Robinson, treat Grail. More important, it's about how the patterns in our media and society define and limit women. Grail used to have her own plan and ambition. Now? Well, read the first page of #33 - is that more about Grail herself or Grail as she serves her more powerful father?

I can certainly understand you concerns

You have yet to show it here.

people said that the Superman/Wonder Woman book would be balanced between both characters, and in the end that was anything but the case. There is a perfect example of the patriarchal narrative completely subsuming the plot if ever there was one.

Well, we agree that the SM/WW book never really found balance. But, Superman is not the serial abuser of women that Zeus is.

But I have to believe that you can have Wonder Woman and Zeus be in the same book at the same time and it NOT be all about Zeus,

I'm not against them being in the same book.

One reason for that is that it's not always about physical power. That is a patriarchal trap right there - the idea that greater physical power must dominate and that the wielder of that power is inherently better. But power, regardless of the source, is all about how you use it.

Sure, how you use what you've been given is a great point. But, it's certainly not the only point, and, here, is just being used to mask the mold. This isn't simply about "power;" why can't we have a WW that does not perpetuate patriarchy? Why must "all-fathers" so dominate and restrict the existence of "all-mothers"?

Well, it honestly seems to me that you are saying that you cannot or should not have a Wonder Woman book where any man is more powerful or as powerful as Wonder Woman. That the idea of a story with a woman getting power from any source that is not female is promoting an evil idea. No matter what she does with it, her legacy will forever be tainted by the stain of that power coming from a source that was not a woman. That if a man gives her anything, be it power or knowledge or skills or anything at all, that she has less value as a hero.

Fact #1 - have I been speaking about "any man"? No.

Fact #2 - have I said "any women getting power from a non-female source is evil"? No.

Fact #3 - have I said "men giving women anything makes them lesser heroes"? No.

Fact #4 - are (straight white) men being excluded in our super heroic tales? No. FAR from it.

Where, oh where, does this "male exclusion" mentality come from if we have ONE female superhero that goes against the male-patriarchal-dominance of the genre?

Whereas I can see that that are merits to both versions of the story - being made from clay or born from a coupling between Hippolyta and Zeus.

But, can you see the problems of patriarchy? If so, then, why should WW, of all characters, be used to perpetuate patriarchal patterns, especially given that those same patriarchal patterns in our fiction have very real world counterparts that do very real harm to real people.

Am I wrong? And if I am, what's the problem with issue 32?

Yes, you are wrong. If you are only going to look at a single issue, you will never see the larger pattern.

[brettc1]

You will also never see the pattern if you allow emotion and preconceptions to cloud your judgement. Which I think you might be doing.

You say Zeus is a serial abuser of women, but I don't have evidence in the new continuity that this is the case. In most stories the Amazons are serial abusers of men, but Marston turned that idea on its head. It is not impossible that this version of Zeus would be more benevolent., so unless it is stated in the book I DON'T know that it was not all consensual. I will make no judgements without evidence. And I do not believe that a ruler who is good is actually evil simply because of gender.

I'm sorry that you are upset that Johns and Robinson do not show Darkseid as a loving father to his daughter. Maybe they thought that that simply didn't fit the character of Darksied, the most evil god in the universe.

Also, there is not just one female superhero now. There are a plethora, and it simply ignoring evidence that do not fit your conclusions to say otherwise. While there is a long way to go books like Bombshells and Birds of Prey, shows like Supergirl and Legends of Tomorrow [with a female leading the team] and movies like the new Star Wars episodes that have strong female leads, all make inroads.

[Awonder]

You will also never see the pattern if you allow emotion and preconceptions to cloud your judgement. Which I think you might be doing.

This is hilarious. Please, explain to me how my "emotion and preconceptions" created all the Marvel movies. You can count, right? So, how many of those movies are dominated by males in all roles (except love interests)? You sure it's my judgement that isn't seeing clearly?

You say Zeus is a serial abuser of women, but I don't have evidence in the new continuity that this is the case. In most stories the Amazons are serial abusers of men, but Marston turned that idea on its head. It is not impossible that this version of Zeus would be more benevolent., so unless it is stated in the book I DON'T know that it was not all consensual.

Ah, the white-washed version? Zeus, and thus patriarchy, can't possibly be sexist and harmful to women (and men, too) if they just sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist. Yeah, like men haven't been hiding the realities of sexism - that's sounds like a great idea for WW.

I will make no judgements without evidence.

And you will ignore evidence even when it's there.

And I do not believe that a ruler who is good is actually evil simply because of gender.

Again, where have I ever said a ruler is "evil because of gender"? I haven't. Why must you continue to play this game?

Let me put it this way - are you Zeus? Have you used your position of power and authority to rape and abuse women? If not, then, there's a really good chance that my complaints about Zeus and patriarchy are not about you, nor are they about all men.

I'm sorry that you are upset that Johns and Robinson do not show Darkseid as a loving father to his daughter. Maybe they thought that that simply didn't fit the character of Darksied, the most evil god in the universe.

Wow, you really love misconstruing what I've said. I don't want a loving Darkseid.

Also, there is not just one female superhero now. There are a plethora, and it simply ignoring evidence that do not fit your conclusions to say otherwise.

Accuracy is really not your strong suit here as I did not say there was one female superhero. DC/WB is making a Batgirl movie, right? What's her last name? Is she a daddy's girl or mommy' girl? The Supergirl tv show has been good fun, and I appreciate that they focus a lot on women. Still, what's Supergirl's real name?

Getting your name from your father's side is a hallmark of patriarchy. Why are aliens from space, where both sexes are super powerful with the right sunlight, still patriarchal? Male-centric preconception much?

While there is a long way to go books like Bombshells and Birds of Prey, shows like Supergirl and Legends of Tomorrow [with a female leading the team] and movies like the new Star Wars episodes that have strong female leads, all make inroads.

Wow, a small little nugget of acknowledgement that "there is a long way to go"? You can't be agreeing that I have a valid point here, right?

Yes, we are making progress, and I love that. But, it's still frustrating to see just how slow it is. And, as much as I love Rey and finally getting a female lead, she's still the outlier, not the norm. There is still not balance. Search your feelings, you know this to be true.

And using, even a white-washed (hide the sins of sexism) benevolent Zeus as yet another "all-father" still functions as a patriarchal erasure of what was an "all-mother" narrative. It's REGRESSIVE. Thor gets to have his "all-father" (among many other examples of patriarchal patterns); why can't WW have an "all-mother"?

[brettc1]

This is hilarious. Please, explain to me how my "emotion and preconceptions" created all the Marvel movies. You can count, right? So, how many of those movies are dominated by males in all roles (except love interests)? You sure it's my judgement that isn't seeing clearly?

Yes.

I understand your position - create equality by the exclusion of one side from a book. That is a sort of equality I suppose, if you consider equality of bias valuable.

I don't. I would rather see Wonder Woman as a book promote the idea that you can have equality with all parties present, rather than have totally segregated camps.

Ah, the white-washed version? Zeus, and thus patriarchy, can't possibly be sexist and harmful to women (and men, too) if they just sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist. Yeah, like men haven't been hiding the realities of sexism - that's sounds like a great idea for WW.

Again, your argument shows a certain bias. We can change the version of the Amazons to show they are positive role models, but we cannot change the version of Zeus to show men what a good role model for a powerful man is. Instead, we can only provide men with negative messages about what it means to be a man in power, and thus we subtly send the message that all powerful men are bad.

It's just not a good idea, I think.

Again, where have I ever said a ruler is "evil because of gender"? I haven't. Why must you continue to play this game?

Let me put it this way - are you Zeus? Have you used your position of power and authority to rape and abuse women? If not, then, there's a really good chance that my complaints about Zeus and patriarchy are not about you, nor are they about all men.

The reason I keep mentioning it is because you clearly cannot see what you are doing. Yes, Patriarchal exclusion of women was and is bad, but what are you replacing it with? You don't what the traditional version of Zeus because it would be bad, and you don't want a better version of Zeus because for some reason we have to cling to the past and never move forward. If Stan Lee were trapped by that thinking 50 years ago we wouldn't have a Thor comic. Instead he took an idea from a culture and said 'What if this guy was not a complete ass who was into slaughter and theft, what if we made him a noble hero.' As a result I now have a movie I can take my son to see for a positive male role model.

Wow, you really love misconstruing what I've said. I don't want a loving Darkseid.

I don't love it, but it does sometimes happen. But do you want a stupid Grail? Is it not possible that Grail is either brainwashed by her father [ a common problem] or has her own plans up her sleeve and as a villain is not going to tip her hand too soon.

The story does seem to be set up to contrast the dynamics of the two dads. And equally, how their daughters react to that. Even if Zeus turns out as bad as you think he must, there could still be value in the story about how Diana as an independent woman reacts to a powerful but malevolent father figure, as Gail Simone began to do in her run.

Accuracy is really not your strong suit here as I did not say there was one female superhero. DC/WB is making a Batgirl movie, right? What's her last name? Is she a daddy's girl or mommy' girl? The Supergirl tv show has been good fun, and I appreciate that they focus a lot on women. Still, what's Supergirl's real name?

Getting your name from your father's side is a hallmark of patriarchy. Why are aliens from space, where both sexes are super powerful with the right sunlight, still patriarchal? Male-centric preconception much?

Jesus wept! Kara KO'd Superman last season and it's still not enough for some. We can't even call Batgirl Barbara Gordon? What the hell do you want to call her?!

Meanwhile I have to go home and tell my kids that I am ringing their school to change their names to Xander and Gwen Delandelles-Brown- Donelly -Dicker-Crawford so that we can represent all sides of the family, and that is only going back three generations. Yeah, they will love me for that LOL

Wow, a small little nugget of acknowledgement that "there is a long way to go"? You can't be agreeing that I have a valid point here, right?

Yes, we are making progress, and I love that. But, it's still frustrating to see just how slow it is. And, as much as I love Rey and finally getting a female lead, she's still the outlier, not the norm. There is still not balance. Search your feelings, you know this to be true.

And using, even a white-washed (hide the sins of sexism) benevolent Zeus as yet another "all-father" that functions as a patriarchal erasure of what was an "all-mother" narrative doesn't help. It's REGRESSIVE. Thor gets to have his "all-father" (among many other examples of patriarchal patterns); why can't WW have an "all-mother"?

Because she already has a mother and she is awesome.

[Awonder]

I understand your position - create equality by the exclusion of one side from a book.
That is a sort of equality I suppose, if you consider equality of bias valuable.

*facepalm* No, you clearly do not understand my position - you keep twisting it in to something it is not.

Is Zeus all men or something? Even if I could get rid of him, would that "exclude" all men from the book? No. I'm not even against Diana having a biological dad. I'm against WW being used to promote patriarchy - and Zeus is a patriarch, even if you white-wash him to pretend he does no wrong.

I would rather see Wonder Woman as a book promote the idea that you can have equality with all parties present, rather than have totally segregated camps.

So, the Thor movies are "balanced" (according to you), but, if I flip the sexes of the roles, then it's "segregated camps"? How does that work?

Again, your argument shows a certain bias.

And yours doesn't?

We can change the version of the Amazons to show they are positive role models, but we cannot change the version of Zeus to show men what a good role model for a powerful man is. Instead, we can only provide men with negative messages about what it means to be a man in power, and thus we subtly send the message that all powerful men are bad.

Again with the "men are so picked on" pity parade?

If I take my son and daughter to all the superhero movies, and watch all the tv shows, which one gets to see far more depictions of their sex?

I've never said I only want to "provide men with negative messages" - they already have FAR more positive messages than women do. It's not even close. For the ONE female superhero in over a DECADE, do men not have three Iron Man movies, three Thor movies, three Captain America movies, three and a half Batman movies, one and half Superman movies, and more? Do men not dominate the Avengers, Guardians, and JL? Is Steve not male? Is he not a great addition to the WW movie?

For every Supergirl tv show, didn't Arrow and Flash get to go first? For Jessica Jones, is there not Daredevil, Cage, and Iron Fist?

How can you possibly argue that it is men that are being excluded?

The reason I keep mentioning it is because you clearly cannot see what you are doing.

The guy arguing that it is men being excluded from positive depictions of their sex is arguing that I'm the one who can't see what I'm doing?

Yes, Patriarchal exclusion of women was and is bad, but what are you replacing it with? You don't what the traditional version of Zeus because it would be bad, and you don't want a better version of Zeus because for some reason we have to cling to the past and never move forward.

Why does it have to be a patriarch? How is it helpful to pretend that patriarchy isn't skewed, even with all the progress we've made, towards favoritism of one sex over the other?

If Stan Lee were trapped by that thinking 50 years ago we wouldn't have a Thor comic. Instead he took an idea from a culture and said 'What if this guy was not a complete ass who was into slaughter and theft, what if we made him a noble hero.' As a result I now have a movie I can take my son to see for a positive male role model.

And do you have as many movies you can take your daughter to to see positive female role models? Or is that less important?

I don't love it, but it does sometimes happen. But do you want a stupid Grail? Is it not possible that Grail is either brainwashed by her father [ a common problem] or has her own plans up her sleeve and as a villain is not going to tip her hand too soon.

Why would I want a stupid, or yet another generic brainwashed, Grail?

The story does seem to be set up to contrast the dynamics of the two dads. And equally, how their daughters react to that.

No, who could have seen that coming?

Even if Zeus turns out as bad as you think he must, there could still be value in the story about how Diana as an independent woman reacts to a powerful but malevolent father figure,

Still missing the point - forcing (good or bad) Zeus in, as they have, steals the role females were meant to play in the WW story. It's a role males already dominate. As Simone said, it changes the maternal nature of it in to one of patriarchy. My point does not hinge on whether or not Zeus is depreciated as good or bad here. Either way, it steals the divine creator role from the goddesses, either Aphrodite (Marston) or the group of them (Perez).

That would in no way exclude men from positive depictions of fathers as we both know we still have many more movies focusing on men in all roles (except love interest). We would still have Odin in Thor, would we not? Still have Joe-El, too. Well, where's the female equivalent to that? Where are the "all-mothers"?

Earlier, you criticized me for wanting to "censor" out "all-fathers," even though getting rid of Zeus as Diana's divine daddy would not eliminate the other depictions of "all-fathers." So, why is it ok for you to censor out an "all-mother" non-patriarchal narrative in WW when there are so few of them?

... as Gail Simone began to do in her run.

You mean the Gail Simone run that put far more emphasis on her mother, right? Her run was never named for Diana's patriarchal daddy, correct?

We can't even call Batgirl Barbara Gordon? What the hell do you want to call her?!

Call her Barbara Gordon. I love Babs. I love that she's a daddy's girl and really hope they get that right in the movie.

What I don't love is the pattern for men to dominate positions of power, authority, and influence. I also don't love normalizing patriarchy as if patriarchy is not a system of inequality with very ugly realities to it. Hiding the sins of patriarchy is as dishonest as hiding the history of racism and slavery in the U.S. (and other countries).

Because she already has a mother and she is awesome.

So, why isn't that good enough? Why have you spent days now advocating for Zeus and pretending "male-ness" is under attack if I dare to criticize the ugly realities of patriarchy?

[brettc1]

*facepalm* No, you clearly do not understand my position - you keep twisting it in to something it is not.

Is Zeus all men or something? Even if I could get rid of him, would that "exclude" all men from the book? No. I'm not even against Diana having a biological dad. I'm against WW being used to promote patriarchy - and Zeus is a patriarch, even if you white-wash him to pretend he does no wrong.

It seems like you think any man who is powerful and in charge of something is inherently evil. Even if he were written as not.

So, the Thor movies are "balanced" (according to you), but, if I flip the sexes of the roles, then it's "segregated camps"? How does that work?

Apparently Asgard can have a Queen.

And yours doesn't?

No.

Or maybe yes - a bias towards bridge building.

If I take my son and daughter to all the superhero movies, and watch all the tv shows, which one gets to see far more depictions of their sex?

I've never said I only want to "provide men with negative messages" - they already have FAR more positive messages than women do. It's not even close. For the ONE female superhero in over a DECADE, do men not have three Iron Man movies, three Thor movies, three Captain America movies, three and a half Batman movies, one and half Superman movies, and more? Do men not dominate the Avengers, Guardians, and JL? Is Steve not male? Is he not a great addition to the WW movie?

For every Supergirl tv show, didn't Arrow and Flash get to go first? For Jessica Jones, is there not Daredevil, Cage, and Iron Fist?

How can you possibly argue that it is men that are being excluded?

If you are saying you want to exclude them from Wonder Woman. That you cannot have a powerful male figure in Wonder Woman who is helpful because it sabotages feminism.

The guy arguing that it is men being excluded from positive depictions of their sex is arguing that I'm the one who can't see what I'm doing?

The guy pointing out what you want is saying that you can't see the implications.

Why does it have to be a patriarch? How is it helpful to pretend that patriarchy isn't skewed, even with all the progress we've made, towards favoritism of one sex over the other?

How is it helpful to brand any man in charge a patriarch, and therefor either an active or unwitting misogynist?

Why would I want a stupid, or yet another generic brainwashed, Grail?

If you don't want that in the character that is a personal choice.

Still missing the point - forcing (good or bad) Zeus in, as they have, steals the role females were meant to play in the WW story. It's a role males already dominate. As Simone said, it changes the maternal nature of it in to one of patriarchy. My point does not hinge on whether or not Zeus is depreciated as good or bad here. Either way, it steals the divine creator role from the goddesses, either Aphrodite (Marston) or the group of them (Perez).

Gail might be wrong. Having a father does not make a woman an agent of patriarchal evil.

That would in no way exclude men from positive depictions of fathers as we both know we still have many more movies focusing on men in all roles (except love interest). We would still have Odin in Thor, would we not? Still have Joe-El, too. Well, where's the female equivalent to that? Where are the "all-mothers"?

Earlier, you criticized me for wanting to "censor" out "all-fathers," even though getting rid of Zeus as Diana's divine daddy would not eliminate the other depictions of "all-fathers." So, why is it ok for you to censor out an "all-mother" non-patriarchal narrative in WW when there are so few of them?

What you seem to want is to rid women of positive male influence. You point out upthread that Bab's is a 'daddy's girl' to support your argument.

You mean the Gail Simone run that put far more emphasis on her mother, right? Her run was never named for Diana's patriarchal daddy, correct?

Yes, you finally see that Zeus can be in the story without everything going to crap, even in a continuity where Wonder Woman has spoken of him as a father figure.

all her Barbara Gordon. I love Babs. I love that she's a daddy's girl and really hope they get that right in the movie.

What I don't love is the pattern for men to dominate positions of power, authority, and influence. I also don't love normalizing patriarchy as if patriarchy is not a system of inequality with very ugly realities to it. Hiding the sins of patriarchy is as dishonest as hiding the history of racism and slavery in the U.S. (and other countries).

Ignoring history may mean you are doomed to repeat it, but chaining yourself to history will never let you move forward.

So, why isn't that good enough? Why have you spent days now advocating for Zeus and pretending "male-ness" is under attack if I dare to criticize the ugly realities of patriarchy?

Because you cannot seem to see Zeus as anything other than inherently evil, and we haven't even seen him in issue 32 yet.

[Awonder]

It seems like you think any man who is powerful and in charge of something is inherently evil. Even if he were written as not.

How many times do I have to explain that I am not against "any man who is powerful and in charge of something"? Seriously, I'm a broken record repeatedly trying (in vain?) to correct your ridiculous misrepresentations of what I've said.

Apparently Asgard can have a Queen.

Can? But, does it?

Or maybe yes - a bias towards bridge building.

Patriarchy is a system of oppression - that's not a bridge.

If you are saying you want to exclude them from Wonder Woman. That you cannot have a powerful male figure in Wonder Woman who is helpful because it sabotages feminism.

I've never said that WW can not have powerful and helpful male figures. You really need to check your facts.

How is it helpful to brand any man in charge a patriarch, and therefor either an active or unwitting misogynist?

Is there a "good" slave owner? Patriarchy is not egalitarian. That is fact.

Gail might be wrong.

Or you might?

Having a father does not make a woman an agent of patriarchal evil.

My argument is not anti-father. I'm a big Alfred fan (even if he isn't a biological father).

Why do you persist with these manufactured slights on men, fathers, and "male-ness"? Do you really love Zeus this much? Why is he so important to you? Do you not get enough positive "male-ness" throughout the superhero genre?

What you seem to want is to rid women of positive male influence.

Wow, not even remotely close.

You point out upthread that Bab's is a 'daddy's girl' to support your argument.

I just said I love Babs as a daddy's girl. You even quoted it.

Yes, you finally see that Zeus can be in the story without everything going to crap, even in a continuity where Wonder Woman has spoken of him as a father figure.

That was not in Simone's run.

Ignoring history may mean you are doomed to repeat it, but chaining yourself to history will never let you move forward.

"Chaining" WW to patriarchy is not moving forward - it's repeating the male-centric "norms" of history. Marston was the one who moved the narrative forward by not having WW be part of that destructive pattern.

Because you cannot seem to see Zeus as anything other than inherently evil, and we haven't even seen him in issue 32 yet.

Zeus is not simply an individual. He is not "inherently evil" by virtue of being male (is that clear enough for you?). However, he is a patriarch, is he not? Patriarchy is a system of inequality - thus, perpetuating that system perpetuates inequality. How is that a good thing?


Edit -
"Of the 4,370 named, speaking characters from the top-grossing films in 2015:
- 31.4 percent were women — a figure that’s remained consistent since 2007. (In reality, women account for 50.8 percent of the population in the U.S)"
https://blog.womenandhollywood.com/n...d-42d20275c0d7

But, your position is that it is men that's being excluded?

[Gaelforce]

Okay, guys, at this point your discussion is getting a bit circular, and verging on snarky/insulting.

I think it's time to agree to disagree and move on.

[brettc1]

I didn't thing the art on 32 was as good, but on the other hand there was more to the text

[WonderScott]

HUGE mistake IMHO of Steve (and most like Etta too) leaving ARGUS and rejoining the Navy. While I get this might be easier to connect him to the Wonder Woman title, the backdrop of ARGUS gave him a lot of intriguing agency to play with in his role with the Amazon.

Developing ARGUS, the Red Room, the Circus, etc. in the pages of a Wonder Woman would provide another backdrop for varied stories to tell about Diana. Superman has had STARLabs and Cadmus, Batman has had Arkham Asylum, and Diana should have ARGUS.

[brettc1]

HUGE mistake IMHO of Steve (and most like Etta too) leaving ARGUS and rejoining the Navy. While I get this might be easier to connect him to the Wonder Woman title, the backdrop of ARGUS gave him a lot of intriguing agency to play with in his role with the Amazon.

Developing ARGUS, the Red Room, the Circus, etc. in the pages of a Wonder Woman would provide another backdrop for varied stories to tell about Diana. Superman has had STARLabs and Cadmus, Batman has had Arkham Asylum, and Diana should have ARGUS.

I agree with this

[WonderScott]

I agree with this

I knew I liked you Brett.

[brettc1]

I knew I liked you Brett.

It's nice to know some people still do LOL