Wonder Woman Controversial Opinions Part 2

[I'm a Fish]

I find it funny that the sword gets criticized for being a shallow way to appeal to male audiences given the type of stuff that has been featured in Wonder Woman since the very beginning for the purpose of appealing to male audiences.

Marston philosophies, down the rabbit hole here we go:

Marston didn't use to bondage to appeal to men (though it defiantly did draw men in), it was really more to spread his philosophies. That the path to peace was to change submitting from something negative to something positive, and that people won't enjoy being bound if there wasn't something erotic about it. (Weather his philosophies and his way of depicting them was appropriate, isn't the topic I'm addressing.)

If there was anything about Marston's Wonder Woman that he indented to be appealing to men, it was the desire to be dominated by a strong woman. If you want an exact quote: "About male readers, he later wrote: "Give them an alluring woman stronger than themselves to submit to, and they'll be proud to become her willing slaves!""

-

Marston had Diana use a sword too, but people gloss that over. He never had her use it outside of ritual combat or tournaments.

And it's not the sword I don't like, it the over-the-top warrior persona that too many writers use when she has the sword. I feel Perez and Rucka handled it just fine for the most part.

-

Although, I do see the side that is completely opposed to her using a sword. That the act of her ever using a sword against anyone is a mishandle, since swords were created to kill people and that goes against the strong no-kill rule Diana debuted with.

And, that is an augment I can relate too, since I think there is an inherent response that in order to be strong you need to be "tough", and that to be "tough" you need to be willing to "do whatever needs to be done" including kill, and I don't find the desire to avoid taking life as weak.

And it's that version of "tough" that is used to appeal to a male audience since I think there's a push from society that men shouldn't be seen liking as looking up to a character who doesn't fit surface level's of "toughness". Superman suffers from this too, I think.

[SiegePerilous02]

And while I don't like to go with a "Appeal to the Original Creator" argument, I suppose that is a reason some give it a pass since the bondage stuff was a founding part of Marston's creation of her.

I think Marston is one of the few exceptions where "defer to the what the original creator wanted" is generally good for the character. Or at least taking his ideas into consideration, keeping what already worked and modernizing the ideas that need it. Because frankly, most WW runs after Marston aren't that interesting and the great runs after him can probably be counted on one hand.

Superman is kind of in a similar spot where the core ideas of Sigel and Shuster aren't always touched upon, and attempts to do so get knee jerk reactions about how that's not really Superman, etc.

[Gaius]

I think Marston is one of the few exceptions where "defer to the what the original creator wanted" is generally good for the character. Or at least taking his ideas into consideration, keeping what already worked and modernizing the ideas that need it. Because frankly, most WW runs after Marston aren't that interesting and the great runs after him can probably be counted on one hand.

Superman is kind of in a similar spot where the core ideas of Sigel and Shuster aren't always touched upon, and attempts to do so get knee jerk reactions about how that's not really Superman, etc.

No, I get it. There is obviously room for the creator's original intent. Just seems to me sometimes (at least when I come across it) of comic fans trying use a creator they don't know to make their own takes/opinions seem like it's more superior to another fan's interpretation.

And I guess also the comic industry's history of screwing over creators like Siegal/Schuster or Bill Finger is also another reason to give deference to original creator's opinions.

[SiegePerilous02]

No, I get it. There is obviously room for the creator's original intent. Just seems to me sometimes (at least when I come across it) of comic fans trying use a creator they don't know to make their own takes/opinions seem like it's more superior to another fan's interpretation.

And I guess also the comic industry's history of screwing over creators like Siegal/Schuster or Bill Finger is also another reason to give deference to original creator's opinions.

I've seen this a lot for Spider-Man (at least for the marriage) which is weird because Stan Lee supported the marriage lol.

I think it can go any number of ways as far as fans go, but I think "always take the original creators intentions into consideration but not automatically rule out that improvements or compatible additions can be made." But comic fans (include me) only know how to speak in hyperbole

[I'm a Fish]

Plus the bondage and biker outfit is hardly relevant anymore and are usually referenced in a tough-in-cheak fashion, if mentioned at all.

So not sure why that would be something that would be regularly criticized.

[John Venus]

I think with the sword, it has to be the intention behind it. Nobody complained about Rucka having Diana wield a giant battle axe to fight Medusa. With the Nu52, the intention behind the overt use of the sword was to make Diana fit into the Xena mold or rather their idea of what a strong marketable female character was rather than staying true to what the character was supposed to be.

As for the bondage in Marston's run, in his case, that was a part of his personal philosophy and kink seeping into the comics. But he wasn't trying to take advantage of male audiences base urges to push more books as part of a misguided 'sex sells' scheme, he was using bondage as a sort of entry point into his philosophy. I don't think bondage is going to lead to world peace lol. But submission is also the opposite of aggressiveness. That is a theme worth exploring. If society wasn't so puritanical then maybe writers will be allowed to explore those themes with more depth.

I think it is worth looking into what Marston intended to do with WW. There are some stuff that are worth carrying forward and stuff that are better left behind (the racist elements).

In many ways Marston was ahead of the curve, if he existed today, he would be called a simp.

[Gaius]

I've seen this a lot for Spider-Man (at least for the marriage) which is weird because Stan Lee supported the marriage lol.

I think it can go any number of ways as far as fans go, but I think "always take the original creators intentions into consideration but not automatically rule out that improvements or compatible additions can be made." But comic fans (include me) only know how to speak in hyperbole

Yeah, like I said I try not to it but this particular Marston quote tends to pop up in my head every time something Injustice or "Slay Queen/Warrior Goddess Diana" related pops up.

"It seemed to me, from a psychological angle, that the comics' worst offense was their blood-curdling masculinity"

[Agent Z]

I think with the sword, it has to be the intention behind it. Nobody complained about Rucka having Diana wield a giant battle axe to fight Medusa. With the Nu52, the intention behind the overt use of the sword was to make Diana fit into the Xena mold or rather their idea of what a strong marketable female character was rather than staying true to what the character was supposed to be.

As for the bondage in Marston's run, in his case, that was a part of his personal philosophy and kink seeping into the comics. But he wasn't trying to take advantage of male audiences base urges to push more books as part of a misguided 'sex sells' scheme, he was using bondage as a sort of entry point into his philosophy. I don't think bondage is going to lead to world peace lol. But submission is also the opposite of aggressiveness. That is a theme worth exploring. If society wasn't so puritanical then maybe writers will be allowed to explore those themes with more depth.

I think it is worth looking into what Marston intended to do with WW. There are some stuff that are worth carrying forward and stuff that are better left behind (the racist elements).

In many ways Marston was ahead of the curve, if he existed today, he would be called a simp.

I don't think puritanism has anything to do with it. For one thing, I think people somewhat overstate just how puritanical society is or how it manifests itself (just ask the Norwegian women's volleyball team. Or hell, just look at the types of outfits that were the norm for female characters and still are to an extent). There is also the fact that painting aggression is inherently bad and submission as inherently good isn't actually much better. Things aren't that black and white. For all the many flaws found in modern Wonder Woman stories, I would say many if not most have done a much better job in showing a balance between being a humanitarian and being a peacekeeper much better than what Marston proposed while keeping the better parts of his ideas.

That said, I do think there is room to explore BDSM in a mature and accurate way without demonizing it.

[Agent Z]

Marston philosophies, down the rabbit hole here we go:

Marston didn't use to bondage to appeal to men (though it defiantly did draw men in), it was really more to spread his philosophies. That the path to peace was to change submitting from something negative to something positive, and that people won't enjoy being bound if there wasn't something erotic about it. (Weather his philosophies and his way of depicting them was appropriate, isn't the topic I'm addressing.)

If there was anything about Marston's Wonder Woman that he indented to be appealing to men, it was the desire to be dominated by a strong woman. If you want an exact quote: "About male readers, he later wrote: "Give them an alluring woman stronger than themselves to submit to, and they'll be proud to become her willing slaves!""

From my observations, guys being willing to call themselves a woman's slaves does not mean they actually are willing to be respectful of women.

I know Marston meant well, but this just feels like replacing one form of dehumanization with another.

[John Venus]

The topic of BDSM and purity exceeds my knowledge so I won't comment on that. Though isn't 'slave' in reference to dom/sub roleplay and not the other kind of slavery. As a non-American, an outsider looking in, I do think that American culture is weirdly contradictory when it comes to sex and nudity. Perfectly fine with using sex/nudity to sell deodorant or comic books but backlash against female characters actually being promiscuous.

Sure, Marston's kinks did colour his work but I don't think it was in the same vein as say Red Sonja or Vampirella or mangas like Fairy Tail where they are clearly using fan service to draw people in.

As for aggression vs submission, like I said, it's a theme. I didn't say one was inherently bad and the other was inherently good. I don't agree with everything Marston did either* but there are topics and ideas he put forth that are worth exploring especially from a more nuanced perspective. Like, in what situations is aggression good and in what situations would submission be bad? Are there situations where neither is applicable? I found out that WW is one of the few narratives which openly tackles toxic masculinity and actually tries to depict a matriarchy as a positive thing.


* I don't think men being inherently aggressive and women being inherently more nurturing and caring is a good take either as it should come down to individual character.

[I'm a Fish]

I don't think puritanism has anything to do with it. For one thing, I think people somewhat overstate just how puritanical society is or how it manifests itself (just ask the Norwegian women's volleyball team. Or hell, just look at the types of outfits that were the norm for female characters and still are to an extent). There is also the fact that painting aggression is inherently bad and submission as inherently good isn't actually much better. Things aren't that black and white. For all the many flaws found in modern Wonder Woman stories, I would say many if not most have done a much better job in showing a balance between being a humanitarian and being a peacekeeper much better than what Marston proposed while keeping the better parts of his ideas.

That said, I do think there is room to explore BDSM in a mature and accurate way without demonizing it.

Well, did Martson illustrate aggression and submission so black and white?

Wonder Woman gave him space to explore the nuances of is ideologies, and Diana herself was rather "aggressive" or perhaps the better word is "assertive". As someone best describe her, Marston's Diana was a real "go-getter", she saw a problem and she faced it, which is not an act I would characterize as submissive.

-

More Marston Philosophies, here we go:

Marston's view on submission largely pertained to the law, that humans are inherently submissive and law-abiding, and a deviant in society was an "aggressor" who would not submit to the law. (Personally, I think he failed to take into account people largely obey the law because there is punishment if they don't )

And he believed that women are inherently more submissively, and therefor would lead a better world if put in-charge. (Of course Marston was a doctor trapped in the technological limits and certain ideologies of his time and I don't think nature vs nurture was as prevalent a theory as it is today.)

That was his big picture, anyway.

[John Venus]

He also explored the concept of an actual misandrist society through Queen Clea to show what a society like that would actually be like as opposed to Themyscira which he tried to present as a more enlightened society (mind controlling girdles aside).

Marston wasn't perfect. Our understanding of society, race, gender, sexuality is constantly evolving. Ideally WW should always be at the forefront representing our current best understanding of the topic instead of being cut off at the knees or twisted into something more 'marketable'.

[I'm a Fish]

Marston also commonly had Wonder Woman fight female villains.

I think Marston's approach was almost above men and women and looked to society itself as the issue. His approach to Wonder Woman was always "girls won't want to be girls if traits associated with felinity are viewed negatively" which would in tern extent to society itself since men would also not look at feminine traits as a negative, hence Steve enjoying to cook, (a trait that was associated with women only back then) ect. So, I think he was dabbling in the nature vs nurture debate weather he realized it or not.

As for the Venus Girdles, no doubt they were problematic. IMO, I think Marston's intent for to them was less, "mind control" and more inline with his ideology that "human are innately subservient" and the Girdles just helped them to realized that, but that can still come across as gaslighting, so I think the execution was still a mess.

[Jim Kelly]

On the sword, it is a phallic object. A lasso is yonic. I'm not saying this was intentional, but once you have devices like the lasso, tiara and bracelets that can be viewed as female then my artistic sensibilities prefer that to having Wonder Woman do stuff with swords that so many men do. It helps to underline the fact that she's a woman and distinct from the male lot.

It's as if male writers are on automatic pilot--it's so much a part of how they think that they just automatically put in these devices that pierce, shoot, explode, point. But if they examined their thinking a little they might understand that these objects aren't the only option. Give her a net instead of a lance.

As far as Marston's kink--I think if it is Grant Morrison's kink in THE INVISIBLES or Alan Moore's kink in PROMETHEA, everyone is good with that. For some reason, this old professor in the quaint olden days expressing his kink in WONDER WOMAN flusters folks. Maybe we don't like to imagine our grandparents having fetishes--but we're cool with whacko Brits doing the same.

[Agent Z]

On the sword, it is a phallic object. A lasso is yonic. I'm not saying this was intentional, but once you have devices like the lasso, tiara and bracelets that can be viewed as female then my artistic sensibilities prefer that to having Wonder Woman do stuff with swords that so many men do. It helps to underline the fact that she's a woman and distinct from the male lot.

It's as if male writers are on automatic pilot--it's so much a part of how they think that they just automatically put in these devices that pierce, shoot, explode, point. But if they examined their thinking a little they might understand that these objects aren't the only option. Give her a net instead of a lance.

This makes about as much sense as people saying a woman isn't a real woman if she has large muscles or short hair.

And I suppose all these female writers who give their characters swords and guns are also thinking like men.

If you think using a pointy weapon makes Diana less distinct from men, I think that says more about your sensibilities and is something you may want to rethink.

As far as Marston's kink--I think if it is Grant Morrison's kink in THE INVISIBLES or Alan Moore's kink in PROMETHEA, everyone is good with that. For some reason, this old professor in the quaint olden days expressing his kink in WONDER WOMAN flusters folks. Maybe we don't like to imagine our grandparents having fetishes--but we're cool with whacko Brits doing the same.

What makes you think Morrison and Moore haven't gotten flack for that too?