Wonder Woman Controversial Opinions Part 2

[HestiasHearth]

I think everyone (aside from Grant Morrison) agrees that it should be left in the past.

But the bondage wasn't just a Golden Age thing. In the 60s and 70s they were still using it all the time. 1/4 of the Wonder Woman covers have her tied up.

Bit I do think Diana's fighting style should be about dominating others, like in Greco Roman wrestling (instead of attacking). Which I supposefits the idea of submission, though it isn't a kink

I agree 100 %. I mean, it makes perfect sense, not just because she wields a lasso, for crying out loud, but because subduing/restraining/geting under control WITHOUT killing/shedding blood is a thematically appropriate concept for a character that is allegedly an emissary of peace and love. Not saying that Diana can't be loving AND fiercely capable of killing IF she had to, but based on my understanding of what her mission is according to Marston, she should not be fighting people (especially humans) left and right like she did in that atrocious Snydercut scene where she massacred a roomful of human men who stood no chance against her.

[Restingvoice]

That 90s black bondage outfit would be more acceptable for me if she is still into bondage

[Gaius]

That 90s black bondage outfit would be more acceptable for me if she is still into bondage

Who says she isn't?

[bardkeep]

how do people feel about the bondage in Golden Age Wonder Woman these days?

I don't think it's a coincidence that none of the writers who seem hung up on the whole "loving submission" thing are women. And the writers who do choose to explore it often cherry-pick it, e.g. Brian Azzarello putting in a lot of weird little allusions to it when his overall depiction of the character is generic violent warrior lady. Grant Morrison's Earth One is heinous but at least it emphasizes pacifism.

On that note, in general I find the persistent ideological attachment to Marston kinda baffling and frustrating. The bondage stuff was clearly just fetish fuel and all of the rules/"philosophies" he came up with to justify it were complete nonsense, plus his whole vision of women's supremacy was patronizing at best and misogynistic at worst. People are happy to let go of some of the more problematic, dated elements of other characters (e.g. Shang-Chi and the countless other characters with super racist origins). No one's insisting that Superman shouldn't fly and should be kind of a jerk in a perpetual "love triangle" with Clark and Lois or that Batman should be cruising around in the Batplane brandishing guns because that's what their creators intended. Why is Wonder Woman an exception to all of that? And on a similar note, why does every writer feel the need to unnecessarily shoehorn her into World War II? That said, if "Marston is the blueprint" is the only way to nix Daddy Zeus and convince writers to stop making her a generic hot-headed warrior woman and the Amazons man-killing savages...I'm conflicted and mostly just wish Perez could fill that role instead.

I was def happy to see Kelly Sue DeConnick say she went into Historia rejecting Marston when she's taking a feminist angle and clearly isn't gonna go to the opposite extreme. Considering the quality of the first issue and what she's said about her vision for it, I really hope she gets to write the entire arc she has planned so it can serve as a new definitive story for Wonder Woman/the Amazons.

[Gaius]

I don't think it's a coincidence that none of the writers who seem hung up on the whole "loving submission" thing are women. And the writers who do choose to explore it often cherry-pick it, e.g. Brian Azzarello putting in a lot of weird little allusions to it when his overall depiction of the character is generic violent warrior lady. Grant Morrison's Earth One is heinous but at least it emphasizes pacifism.

On that note, in general I find the persistent ideological attachment to Marston kinda baffling and frustrating. The bondage stuff was clearly just fetish fuel and all of the rules/"philosophies" he came up with to justify it were complete nonsense, plus his whole vision of women's supremacy was patronizing at best and misogynistic at worst. People are happy to let go of some of the more problematic, dated elements of other characters (e.g. Shang-Chi and the countless other characters with super racist origins). No one's insisting that Superman shouldn't fly and should be kind of a jerk in a perpetual "love triangle" with Clark and Lois or that Batman should be cruising around in the Batplane brandishing guns because that's what their creators intended. Why is Wonder Woman an exception to all of that? And on a similar note, why does every writer feel the need to unnecessarily shoehorn her into World War II? That said, if "Marston is the blueprint" is the only way to nix Daddy Zeus and convince writers to stop making her a generic hot-headed warrior woman and the Amazons man-killing savages...I'm conflicted and mostly just wish Perez could fill that role instead.

I was def happy to see Kelly Sue DeConnick say she went into Historia rejecting Marston when she's taking a feminist angle and clearly isn't gonna go to the opposite extreme. Considering the quality of the first issue and what she's said about her vision for it, I really hope she gets to write the entire arc she has planned so it can serve as a new definitive story for Wonder Woman/the Amazons.

Pretty much agree with this, especially in regards to WW2. It makes no sense, especially with the usual add-on of she then returns to Themyscira for some undisclosed amount of time and then has a redundant origin redux for modern times, and the thought process is never extended to Superman or Batman starting in the Great Depression.

[Primal Slayer]

Pretty much agree with this, especially in regards to WW2. It makes no sense, especially with the usual add-on of she then returns to Themyscira for some undisclosed amount of time and then has a redundant origin redux for modern times, and the thought process is never extended to Superman or Batman starting in the Great Depression.

1 is immortal. 2 aren't.....

[Agent Z]

I don't think it's a coincidence that none of the writers who seem hung up on the whole "loving submission" thing are women. And the writers who do choose to explore it often cherry-pick it, e.g. Brian Azzarello putting in a lot of weird little allusions to it when his overall depiction of the character is generic violent warrior lady. Grant Morrison's Earth One is heinous but at least it emphasizes pacifism.

On that note, in general I find the persistent ideological attachment to Marston kinda baffling and frustrating. The bondage stuff was clearly just fetish fuel and all of the rules/"philosophies" he came up with to justify it were complete nonsense, plus his whole vision of women's supremacy was patronizing at best and misogynistic at worst. People are happy to let go of some of the more problematic, dated elements of other characters (e.g. Shang-Chi and the countless other characters with super racist origins). No one's insisting that Superman shouldn't fly and should be kind of a jerk in a perpetual "love triangle" with Clark and Lois or that Batman should be cruising around in the Batplane brandishing guns because that's what their creators intended. Why is Wonder Woman an exception to all of that? And on a similar note, why does every writer feel the need to unnecessarily shoehorn her into World War II? That said, if "Marston is the blueprint" is the only way to nix Daddy Zeus and convince writers to stop making her a generic hot-headed warrior woman and the Amazons man-killing savages...I'm conflicted and mostly just wish Perez could fill that role instead.

I was def happy to see Kelly Sue DeConnick say she went into Historia rejecting Marston when she's taking a feminist angle and clearly isn't gonna go to the opposite extreme. Considering the quality of the first issue and what she's said about her vision for it, I really hope she gets to write the entire arc she has planned so it can serve as a new definitive story for Wonder Woman/the Amazons.

Well said.

[bardkeep]

1 is immortal. 2 aren't.....

IMO people get way too hung up on the immortal thing when in every other way Wonder Woman is probably the hardest possible character to write into the past without doing some major historical revisionism or ignoring some huge questions. It's one thing to have Captain America (street level, all-American white soldier man) punching Nazis in WW2, but it's another thing to have Wonder Woman (crazy powerful pagan woman from a very sapphic isolated immortal society) there - the "why didn't she stop it?" concern inevitably comes up and it's honestly kinda lazy to ignore the identity politics and social consequences. If a writer doesn't want to deal with any of that, they can easily just push up the timeline of her debut without losing anything.

On that note, I would absolutely love to see more stories that explore the idea of a woman with godlike powers, radical views, and no concept of modern social constructs like race or sexual orientation intervening in historical events, but the shared universe puts the kibosh on it in main continuity. And it makes me sad that the only elseworlds story to explore it is mind-bogglingly regressive, delights in its depiction of graphic violence against women, and doesn't feature a single woman or person of color on the creative team (can you tell I hate Earth One?).

[Gaius]

1 is immortal. 2 aren't.....

Maybe not as common as Wonder Woman but Superman has been frequently depicted as immortal (or least so long-lived it's a meaningless distinction if he isn't). He is obviously allowed to move his starting point upwards because there's nothing about it intrinsic to the 1930s and it completely upends his entire supporting cast who are not immortal. Which is true for WW also.

And even then similar to what bardkeep said, WB/DC itself is clearly not going to go into the nitty-gritty of superpowered characters interacting in WW2 like Moore did the Watchmen characters in Vietnam. The most they'll go is Diana tossing around some Panzers.

[Robanker]

I don't think it's a coincidence that none of the writers who seem hung up on the whole "loving submission" thing are women. And the writers who do choose to explore it often cherry-pick it, e.g. Brian Azzarello putting in a lot of weird little allusions to it when his overall depiction of the character is generic violent warrior lady. Grant Morrison's Earth One is heinous but at least it emphasizes pacifism.

On that note, in general I find the persistent ideological attachment to Marston kinda baffling and frustrating. The bondage stuff was clearly just fetish fuel and all of the rules/"philosophies" he came up with to justify it were complete nonsense, plus his whole vision of women's supremacy was patronizing at best and misogynistic at worst. People are happy to let go of some of the more problematic, dated elements of other characters (e.g. Shang-Chi and the countless other characters with super racist origins). No one's insisting that Superman shouldn't fly and should be kind of a jerk in a perpetual "love triangle" with Clark and Lois or that Batman should be cruising around in the Batplane brandishing guns because that's what their creators intended. Why is Wonder Woman an exception to all of that? And on a similar note, why does every writer feel the need to unnecessarily shoehorn her into World War II? That said, if "Marston is the blueprint" is the only way to nix Daddy Zeus and convince writers to stop making her a generic hot-headed warrior woman and the Amazons man-killing savages...I'm conflicted and mostly just wish Perez could fill that role instead.

I was def happy to see Kelly Sue DeConnick say she went into Historia rejecting Marston when she's taking a feminist angle and clearly isn't gonna go to the opposite extreme. Considering the quality of the first issue and what she's said about her vision for it, I really hope she gets to write the entire arc she has planned so it can serve as a new definitive story for Wonder Woman/the Amazons.

If you're ever in my neck of the woods, I will buy you a drink for this post.

Her origin should slide in placement with Clark and Bruce, and she should outlive them (I'm of the mind that Clark should age in lockstep with humans; time should be one of the things he has no advantage over).

[Koriand'r]

The bolded text is wrong. There is a whole issue of story dedicated to the mechanics and included an indisputable example. Do yourself a favor and check out WW#21 for the details. Perez and Berger laid a solid foundation for implementing the Marston idea of her being Invincible Yet Human. Later writers (excluding Messner-Loebs who had carte blanc to quietly reboot the character her gear and her verse--he kept the bracelets indestructible quality but removed their protective powers) would further refine the details (such as how durable is she when not wearing them).




We can continue chatting after you check it out. No productive conversation is possible while you are missing this part of the data set. You can probably find the full issue online. There is another issue whose letter column further discusses it and points to her statement in WW#18 after her fall stating what the bracelets do in terms of latent protective powers.

You are right that the Blessing of Olympus contributes to her durability. The connection to Gaea provides for her limitless strength and grants her the power of renewal (read: healing factor). However there are components that work to prevent the need to rely on those restorative powers or her Amazon healing arts and training. The protections of Amalthea are among them

Thanks for this post! I re-read WW 21 for the first time in 20 years and it was really good! It also made me more aware of how stupid the Daddy Zeus origin is, if she had to have a father it should have been Heracles. He and Hippolyta had real chemistry and it just makes more sense. Beyond that Darkseid really needs his comeupance for the multiple times he's destroyed Olympus. Wonder Woman's gods are little more than punching bags at this point and that does her entire mythos a disservice.

[Koriand'r]

I don't think it's a coincidence that none of the writers who seem hung up on the whole "loving submission" thing are women. And the writers who do choose to explore it often cherry-pick it, e.g. Brian Azzarello putting in a lot of weird little allusions to it when his overall depiction of the character is generic violent warrior lady. Grant Morrison's Earth One is heinous but at least it emphasizes pacifism.

On that note, in general I find the persistent ideological attachment to Marston kinda baffling and frustrating. The bondage stuff was clearly just fetish fuel and all of the rules/"philosophies" he came up with to justify it were complete nonsense, plus his whole vision of women's supremacy was patronizing at best and misogynistic at worst. People are happy to let go of some of the more problematic, dated elements of other characters (e.g. Shang-Chi and the countless other characters with super racist origins). No one's insisting that Superman shouldn't fly and should be kind of a jerk in a perpetual "love triangle" with Clark and Lois or that Batman should be cruising around in the Batplane brandishing guns because that's what their creators intended. Why is Wonder Woman an exception to all of that? And on a similar note, why does every writer feel the need to unnecessarily shoehorn her into World War II? That said, if "Marston is the blueprint" is the only way to nix Daddy Zeus and convince writers to stop making her a generic hot-headed warrior woman and the Amazons man-killing savages...I'm conflicted and mostly just wish Perez could fill that role instead.

I was def happy to see Kelly Sue DeConnick say she went into Historia rejecting Marston when she's taking a feminist angle and clearly isn't gonna go to the opposite extreme. Considering the quality of the first issue and what she's said about her vision for it, I really hope she gets to write the entire arc she has planned so it can serve as a new definitive story for Wonder Woman/the Amazons.

I disagree, I love World War II and Wonder Woman's placement in it. Personally I'm so loyal to what Marston envisioned because unlike Superman and Batman's creators he was actually trying to do something besides telling adventure stories for children and collecting a check.

[Agent Z]

I disagree, I love World War II and Wonder Woman's placement in it. Personally I'm so loyal to what Marston envisioned because unlike Superman and Batman's creators he was actually trying to do something besides telling adventure stories for children and collecting a check.

That's an offensive oversimplification of Superman and Batman's creators.

[Alpha]

That's an offensive oversimplification of Superman and Batman's creators.

The creators of Superman might have had slightly larger aspirations, but the creators of Batman definitely didn't

[Robanker]

That's an offensive oversimplification of Superman and Batman's creators.

Superman's creators? Absolutely. Batman's creators? Half of them. I'd say it's more accurate to Bob Kane than not. I don't know enough about Bill Finger's aspirations with Batman to say it wasn't just about telling good stories, which itself isn't something to disparage. But Kane? Guy wanted to be a socialite. It was always about money and fame with that dude.