Best and Worst of DC Rebirth

[Uncanny Mutie]

give Superman a new costume (the best costume in Superman history, imho)

YES!!! I'm still disappointed that they brought the trunks back. The Superman Reborn costume was the BEST way to retain the classic look and slightly update him to make him look sleeker and less silly; the belt was just big enough that it had just the right amount of red and yellow in it to break up all the blue. It EASILY rendered the big red trunks obsolete, but DC didn't have the balls to stick with the look and they brought the trunks back VERY shortly thereafter.

[KC]

See, stuff like that was so few and far between, that I remember reading these things specifically and thinking, "Nice try, but it will soon be forgotten once he's (Venditti) done writing the characters." ESPECIALLY the Kyle/Soranik thing, where she literally left Kyle scared for life. I can see all future artists drawing a battle damaged, half-shirtless Kyle with ZERO scars on his chest or upper torso, and the writers paired with them not even referencing it. I guess time will tell...

This is still all stuff that can (and should in my opinion) be drawn on by writers. And the reason why there was not more of this kind of stuff is it needed to be built up and added into the ongoing story.

[SiegePerilous02]

Wonder Woman : Be it Greg Rucka or RObinson, this book as been utter rubbish and terrible stories since Rebirth. Rucka was especially pathetic in the way he shat on the New 52 continuity and nothing he introduced made for an interesting story, neither "Diana the nympho who's crazy" in the present, nor "Princess Diana the Super-Sugary" in Year One.

yeah, nothing in the book supports that reading.

[ZeroBG82]

Don't read a ton of DC, but for me...

Best:

Deathstroke - Hands down DC's best Rebirth book, for my money. Priest kills it. And I say this as someone who didn't like the title character coming in. Still don't, honestly, but Priest has made him interesting. I love the focus on his family, especially Rose and Joey, who have become two of my favorite DC characters. Complex characters in complex relationships doing bad things. I honestly can't recommend this run enough.

Red Hood and the Outlaws - I enjoyed some of the New 52 run, but Lobdell hit his stride with the Dark Trinity. This is still the best Jason has been written since Winnick brought him back, and Artemis and Bizarro were just delicious icing on the cake. It has lost a little steam since the solo Red Hood direction set in (though the new costume is growing on me, slowly) but it's still remarkably solid month in and month out.

Nightwing - The Seeley run. I loved this book. It felt like a, not necessarily natural, but well designed successor to Grayson. Jumped ship with Seeley, and from the sounds of things since not a moment too soon.

Aquaman - Nothing sensational here, just solid, solid storytelling. And occasionally breathtaking art.

The worst:

Teen Titans - Just a total dud. I liked the idea, putting Damian front and center in the franchise, but this book was awful. Honestly, like both of the two preceding volumes. It maybe wasn't New 52, Lobdell era bad, but it was bad. Though the Glass run currently underway has been a lot better, and is one of the few titles I've been picking up from DC lately.

Blue Beetle - This character hasn't gotten a good book since way back in the One Year Later, post-Infinite Crisis age. Such a shame, as it's a brilliant character with a great design.

Though, moving past Rebirth, there have been some great titles of late. Bendis' Young Justice is fun. Not groundbreaking, not stellar, but genuinely and sincerely fun. It's unashamed of being lighthearted even when it's going dark. It feels like a worthy successor to the original run. Naomi was brilliant. Seriously, only six issues, A MUST READ.

[Korath]

yeah, nothing in the book supports that reading.

"I was with Superman because it was easy."

That's blatantly not only a low shot at what came before, but also something only a terrible person would say. And I'll always take it as "I was with Superman because the sex was easy" because that's how I read that kind of statement. And to have Clark replaced so easily by Steve "blander than white" was also hard to get.

But I've come to peace with the fact that, short of runs who actually own the toxic elements of the Wonder Woman mythos has created by Marston well. I just plain dislike Wonder Woman and her corner of the DCU. She is just not a great character, especially not a feminist one.

But she's great for sexists, misandrists and segregationists, that's for sure.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

"I was with Superman because it was easy."

That's blatantly not only a low shot at what came before, but also something only a terrible person would say. And I'll always take it as "I was with Superman because the sex was easy" because that's how I read that kind of statement. And to have Clark replaced so easily by Steve "blander than white" was also hard to get.

I'm sorry, but that is...absurd. Its completely inconsistent with anything Rucka wrote. It certainly wasn't his intention to have Diana say that she was only with Superman for sex. What she obviously meant was that being with Superman was "easy" because it was easier to be in a relationship with someone who could understand her perspective because he was also in a similar situation.

And you know what? That's exactly how they framed their relationship in the New 52. Their very first kiss was the product of them bonding over the fact that they both felt alone in the world.

Though, you can probably take comfort in the fact that that conversation's been wiped from the record since Wonder Woman and Superman's entire relationship has been wiped from continuity.

But I've come to peace with the fact that, short of runs who actually own the toxic elements of the Wonder Woman mythos has created by Marston well. I just plain dislike Wonder Woman and her corner of the DCU. She is just not a great character, especially not a feminist one.

But she's great for sexists, misandrists and segregationists, that's for sure.

Actually, Wonder Woman is a feminist character. You know what's not feminist? Portraying the only known all-female society as a bunch of murderous sex-pirates. That takes on a whole other level of awful when one remembers that the ancient Greeks actually used the notion of a barbaric and violent Amazon society as a propaganda tool to try and keep women down in society. Marston's portrayal of the Amazons as peaceful and functional was meant as a rebuke of that notion, flipping the script on the sexists who meant to use the Amazons as an example of why women shouldn't be in charge.

[Korath]

Actually, Wonder Woman is a feminist character. You know what's not feminist? Portraying the only known all-female society as a bunch of murderous sex-pirates. That takes on a whole other level of awful when one remembers that the ancient Greeks actually used the notion of a barbaric and violent Amazon society as a propaganda tool to try and keep women down in society. Marston's portrayal of the Amazons as peaceful and functional was meant as a rebuke of that notion, flipping the script on the sexists who meant to use the Amazons as an example of why women shouldn't be in charge.

yes, creating a worse sexist society and isolating it entirely from the outside world and painting it has perfect is feminism. Give me a break. That's an atrocious mockery of what feminism is - or inclusiveness, or xenophilia. I don't give a **** about what Marston goal was. He failed to do that by creating such a society. If his Amazons had been a perfect society ruled by women, who were perfectly equals to men and just judged better at dealing with the political life, I would agree that he would have destroyed the ancient Greek myths. But he didn't, he just turned it on its head and somehow it makes that feminism ?

Well, not in my book. Paradise Island, its whole basis, is rotten to the core. One can't be a warrior culture and pacifist, even comprised entirely of women. One can't be a segregationist society and open-minded and tolerant. One can't essentialize a whole gender and pretend to be feminist.

I also find the constant shots at the pagan Greek Pantheon deeply insulting. it's not the Pantheon which had women literally created from men and portrayed as inferior because of it, and the source of all evil, it's Monotheistic religions. The Greek Pantheon had incredibly important Goddesses such as Demeter, Aphrodite, Artemis, Athena, even Hera and Hestia (who had darker elements, like all the male Gods); they had the Muses, the Moirai, Hecate, Nyx, Nemesis, Ananke, Hemera, Gaia... and many other female mythological figures. What are their equivalents in the type of religion Diana never take offense with and does nothing to break their hold on modern civilization's vision of the female body and their rights ?

Sure, some sorties are problematic in today's world, but the Greek Pantheon's history span at least a thousand years, if not more, and we've only got fragments of it, glimpses of the Athenian vision of the Pantheon, mainly. And none of their myths is as terrible as the Genesis for the female condition.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

yes, creating a worse sexist society and isolating it entirely from the outside world and painting it has perfect is feminism. Give me a break. That's an atrocious mockery of what feminism is - or inclusiveness, or xenophilia. I don't give a **** about what Marston goal was. He failed to do that by creating such a society. If his Amazons had been a perfect society ruled by women, who were perfectly equals to men and just judged better at dealing with the political life, I would agree that he would have destroyed the ancient Greek myths. But he didn't, he just turned it on its head and somehow it makes that feminism ?

You really don't get it, do you? Well, for one, Marston didn't "create" the Amazons. The idea of them existed in ancient Greek myths. However, again, the Amazons were used as a propoganda tool by the ancient Greeks. They portrayed the Amazons as barbaric and dysfunctional in order to say "look, women need strong men around to keep them in line, otherwise they run amok like this." A lot of ancient Greek literature communicated the same theme. So, yes, flipping that on its head is feminist.

Nobody bats an eye when men are portrayed as wholly independent from women, so why is it suddently "sexist" to portray a society of women that doesn't need men? Also, by portraying the New 52 Amazons as barbaric murdering psychopaths, Azzarello actually played into that same message that the Greeks were trying to communicate all those milennia ago.

Well, not in my book. Paradise Island, its whole basis, is rotten to the core. One can't be a warrior culture and pacifist, even comprised entirely of women. One can't be a segregationist society and open-minded and tolerant. One can't essentialize a whole gender and pretend to be feminist.

Well you do realize the Amazons of Pre-Flashpoint actually weren't the "segregationists" you paint them as, right? There were several instances of them welcoming outsiders.

But again, the New 52 Amazons were NOT pacifists. They regularly went around murdering random sailors after seducing them.

I also find the constant shots at the pagan Greek Pantheon deeply insulting. it's not the Pantheon which had women literally created from men and portrayed as inferior because of it, and the source of all evil, it's Monotheistic religions. The Greek Pantheon had incredibly important Goddesses such as Demeter, Aphrodite, Artemis, Athena, even Hera and Hestia (who had darker elements, like all the male Gods); they had the Muses, the Moirai, Hecate, Nyx, Nemesis, Ananke, Hemera, Gaia... and many other female mythological figures.

I'm just telling you the facts. There's a bunch of examples of sexist and mysoginistic messaging sprinkled all throughout Greek myth. So, it shouldn't be surprising that a lot of those goddesses you mentioned were either subjegated by their male counterparts or were enablers of the male-dominated society. For example, did you know that the origin of Medusa was basically Athena turning a girl into a monster as punishment for getting raped by Poseidon?? The Bacchanae, the constant times that Zeus fathered children by raping random women, etc. I could go on and on.

What are their equivalents in the type of religion Diana never take offense with and does nothing to break their hold on modern civilization's vision of the female body and their rights ?

...What? Diana serves as a feminist role model by being a badass warrior who can kick ass but prefers to communicate via peace and love.

Sure, some sorties are problematic in today's world, but the Greek Pantheon's history span at least a thousand years, if not more, and we've only got fragments of it, glimpses of the Athenian vision of the Pantheon, mainly. And none of their myths is as terrible as the Genesis for the female condition.

I'd argue that it is absolutely equally terrible. An entire pantheon of male gods who go around raping women and face no repurcussions for it is nothing to be proud of.

[Korath]

You really don't get it, do you? Well, for one, Marston didn't "create" the Amazons. The idea of them existed in ancient Greek myths. However, again, the Amazons were used as a propoganda tool by the ancient Greeks. They portrayed the Amazons as barbaric and dysfunctional in order to say "look, women need strong men around to keep them in line, otherwise they run amok like this." A lot of ancient Greek literature communicated the same theme. So, yes, flipping that on its head is feminist.

Marston created the DC version of the Amazons. Flipping the ancient propaganda about the Amazons that Athenians pushed is hardly feminism if it's to replace it with equally as bad depiction of a society.

Men have been portrayed as wholly independent from women since the beginning of time, so why is it suddently "sexist" to portray a society that doesn't need men? Also, by portraying the New 52 Amazons as barbaric murdering psychopaths, Azzarello actually played into that same message that the Greeks were trying to communicate all those milennia ago.

In which widely known cultural element are men depicted as living secluded from all women and thus having created a perfect society ? And since the beginning of time, men have been portrayed as independent from women ? Now, that's just pure straw-man argument. In most of history's records, men have indeed liked to hold the lion share of the glory and depicted women in an unflattering light, most of the time. But to my knowledge, they also never pretended that society would be better without women in it, at least not prior to the rise of Monotheism and its concept of sin, which was ascribed almost entirely on the woman body.

I also guess all those matriarchal societies which existed and even those who still do -albeit battered by modernity- just never were ? It's pathetically wrongheaded to pretend that our societies, where men and women mingle, with all the terrible acts of the former over the latter, equates a fundamentally sexist society which entirely excludes one half of the human species and paint them as the sole source of all woes and affliction. If you're unable to see it, I don't know what to tell you.

Well you do realize the Amazons of Pre-Flashpoint actually weren't the "segregationists" you paint them as, right? There were several instances of them welcoming outsiders.

But again, the New 52 Amazons were NOT pacifists. They regularly went around murdering random sailors after seducing them.

Oh really ? Did they or did they not remain largely secluded from "Man's world ? Did they or did they not had a rule forbidding any man on their island for the longest period of their history ? And yes, the New 52 Amazons were brutal and savages. like any warrior culture is ! And they were sexists like any culture which would excludes one half of the population from their land for the sole crime of being born a man would be ! That's the correct way to depict the Amazons. They are not some beacon on a hill. They are a rotten to the core society which refuses to admit that no matter what Heracles and his men did to them, rejecting the other half of Humanity make them just as bad.

I'm just telling you the facts. There's a bunch of examples of sexist and mysoginistic messaging sprinkled all throughout Greek myth. So, it shouldn't be surprising that a lot of those goddesses you mentioned were either subjegated by their male counterparts or were enablers of the male-dominated society. For example, did you know that the origin of Medusa was basically Athena turning a girl into a monster as punishment for getting raped by Poseidon?? The Bacchanae, the constant times that Zeus fathered children by raping random women, etc. I could go on and on.

Yes, the Greek (and generally the Pagan) Gods and Goddesses are petty and violent and troubled. Do you know why ? Because unlike the Monotheistic figure of God, they are not outside of the Universe. They are born from it, they have flaws and because they have flaws, they have messages to teach us regarding ourselves. They are not some omnipotent entity who is supposedly all Love and yet nuke cities who don't meet His criteria of what a society should be. You also conveniently forget that Apollon and Poseidon were punished for plotting against Zeus by being sent as servants to the King of Troy for a year. The mightiest beings serving mortals, to earn a pardon for their crimes. Yes, Zeus's constant rapes and eloping are terrible today, but in the Ancient World, they served as a way to explain some kinship between cities, rulers and ethnic groups. For instance, when Massalia was founded, Greeks and Gauls started to say that the latter were descendants of Heracles, because they were phihellenistic.

The Pagans Pantheons are not almighty. They are not all-knowing. They are to be appeased, so one can learn their many lessons. And most importantly, they are part of this world and it means that protecting it and supporting bountiful life on it is pleasing to them. Those are fundamentals elements which are never -or almost never- depicted in Wonder Woman stories, because it's far more important to give all the negative traits associated with God to old Zeus. It's easier to have been berated that the one who's actually the culprit for modern western society's prejudice against women.

...What? Diana serves as a feminist role model by being a badass warrior who can kick ass but prefers to communicate via peace and love.

That's actually true. But what does she do to confront the root of sexism, misogyny and the likes in today's society when she isn't scapegoating male Greek Gods ?

I'd argue that it is absolutely equally terrible. An entire pantheon of male gods who go around raping women and face no repurcussions for it is nothing to be proud of.

For starter, the Greek Pantheon is just as full of Goddesses doing terrible things to people - or not, depending on the occasion, just like the male Gods can be quite different depending of which stories were are talking. And yes, the Ancient World civilizations, especially around the Mediterranean basin, are hardly example of appeased and equal relationships between the genders. But it wasn't as much the case elsewhere, in the more "barbaric" lands of the Northern and Western and Eastern expanses. And they are not the root of today's prejudices toward women, or people of color, or LGBT+ people. Yet, in comics (and other medias), Pagan Pantheons are almost always depicted in a terrible light, without much nuance or substance, especially when it comes to Gods compared to Goddesses.

And that's also perpetuating prejudices and biased depictions of masculinity and femininity.

[Agent Z]

Oh really ? Did they or did they not remain largely secluded from "Man's world ? Did they or did they not had a rule forbidding any man on their island for the longest period of their history ?

For all of the pre-Flashpoint timeline, Themysicra was open to everyone. Yes they had a segregationist society (which was forced upon them by the Olympians) which ended after Steve crashed on their shores.

And no, staying in your own space and avoiding all the colonization and conquest certain other countriesl were engaging in does not make you “just as bad”.

Yes, the Greek (and generally the Pagan) Gods and Goddesses are petty and violent and troubled. Do you know why ? Because unlike the Monotheistic figure of God, they are not outside of the Universe. They are born from it, they have flaws

You seem to have trouble admitting that misogyny was one of those flaws.

They are not some omnipotent entity who is supposedly all Love and yet nuke cities who don't meet His criteria of what a society should be. You also conveniently forget that Apollon and Poseidon were punished for plotting against Zeus by being sent as servants to the King of Troy for a year.

So your argument that the Greek Pantheon weren’t misogynist is that Apollo and Poseidon were punished for plotting against the male ruler of the pantheon while Poseidon got away with raping a young girl in a goddess’ temple?

The mightiest beings serving mortals, to earn a pardon for their crimes. Yes, Zeus's constant rapes and eloping are terrible today, but in the Ancient World, they served as a way to explain some kinship between cities, rulers and ethnic groups.

Take a good look at what you just wrote here and really think about the implications of it.

The Pagans Pantheons are not almighty. They are not all-knowing. They are to be appeased, so one can learn their many lessons.

What lessons?

And most importantly, they are part of this world and it means that protecting it and supporting bountiful life on it is pleasing to them.

And raping and murdering people is necessary to this how exactly?

Those are fundamentals elements which are never -or almost never- depicted in Wonder Woman stories, because it's far more important to give all the negative traits associated with God to old Zeus.

It seems to me like your issue is less that the Greek gods are written as flawed in the WW comics but that these comics committed some grave sin by calling out Zeus’ crimes.
I mean by your own admission the Greek gods are not meant to be perfect, so why is the comic pointing that out an issue? Why condemn monotheistic religions for misogyny but insist the Greek pantheon gets a pass?

It's easier to have been berated that the one who's actually the culprit for modern western society's prejudice against women.

The WW comics have never once claimed that Zeus was responsible for western society’s sexism. I really have no idea where the hell you are getting this idea from.

That's actually true. But what does she do to confront the root of sexism, misogyny and the likes in today's society when she isn't scapegoating male Greek Gods ?

Quite a lot. Rescuing women from slavery and war torn nations. Providing shelter to persecuted women. Serving as an ambassador.
And it bares repeating, that she does not blame male Greek gods for sexism. The only sexism she calls them out on is their own.
In fact, Zeus, Heracles and Ares (to a lesser extent) are the only male Greek gods consistently portrayed as misogynist in the WW comics.

For starter, the Greek Pantheon is just as full of Goddesses doing terrible things to people - or not, depending on the occasion, just like the male Gods can be quite different depending of which stories were are talking. And yes, the Ancient World civilizations, especially around the Mediterranean basin, are hardly example of appeased and equal relationships between the genders. But it wasn't as much the case elsewhere, in the more "barbaric" lands of the Northern and Western and Eastern expanses. And they are not the root of today's prejudices toward women, or people of color, or LGBT+ people. Yet, in comics (and other medias), Pagan Pantheons are almost always depicted in a terrible light, without much nuance or substance, especially when it comes to Gods compared to Goddesses.

I’d argue that outside of Azzarello’s run, the WW comics have a pretty flattering light of pagan pantheons compared to other media.

[Korath]

I seriously will not answer again with a quote war, because Wonder Woman fans are just too unbearable to me, especially with your constant hypocrisy. I'll just answer to that bit :

Take a good look at what you just wrote here and really think about the implications of it.

The implications are those are myths from thousands of years ago. Using them to avoid admitting that Wonder Woman's Paradise Island is a sexist, misandrist and segregationist society, no matter the reason, is terrible. That it's used to promote that kind of society in a good light and to scream bloody abuse when they are depicted as they should be (violent, sexist and xenophobic) based on the very nature of their society is abhorrent, and if you can't stand the fact that yes, three thousands years old myths are often terrible when it comes to gender equality, that's your right. That's also my right to say that it doesn't change the fact that the foundations of Wonder Woman are atrocious, even in this light.

[manwhohaseverything]

Medusa's story was never narrated to me with Poseidon and athena as "good" guys. Medusa was always portrayed as sympathetic characters whose life became tragedy because of gods(btw if i remember correctly medusa and athena were lovers many versions. Athena Misunderstood medusa, got jealous and punished her) just like arachne. there is wierd tension between gods and humans in these greek stories that are antagonistic in nature unlike monotheistic religion where man is a sinner and should be sub serviant/repent.Greek stories are have always struck me that it promoted the "rebellion" against the father.i mean, it was a titan that gave humans fire.

And as for zeus, Poseidon.. Etc getting away with rapes. If gods are obstacles, they will need narrative tools to show how they are bad like joker shooting barbera and killing jason, griffith raping casca.. Etc. I am not condoning the usage of such devices. But, people must understand many folktales are also for entertainment. Which means catharsis and tragedy are part of it.And greek heroes have mostly antagonistic relationship with gods. Also,we must consider that Humans in the greek narratives never get away with the same action "gods" does for example incest. So human rapists in Greek mythology are generally villains (Tereus and Thyestes) and, unlike the gods, typically come to bad ends, even in the case of the hero little Ajax.

I am not denying that there might be misogyny in these tales. But, i don't know whether these tales are inherently that. I am not nearly educated on these tales to say that with authority.

[SiegePerilous02]

"I was with Superman because it was easy."

That's blatantly not only a low shot at what came before, but also something only a terrible person would say. And I'll always take it as "I was with Superman because the sex was easy" because that's how I read that kind of statement. And to have Clark replaced so easily by Steve "blander than white" was also hard to get.

You're the only person I've seen take it that way because there is nothing on the page that supports that reading. Saying a relationship was easy does not mean a person was in it for an easy lay. Again there is nothing in that statement, so that is radical interpretation of the text reinforced by dislike of your ship of choice being over.

Maybe it was a low shot at what came before, but writing Steve as a bitter douche in the SM/WW comic was also a low shot. And the romance was a low period for both of them anyway. No good comes from pairing WW up with either Batman or Superman.

The implications are those are myths from thousands of years ago. Using them to avoid admitting that Wonder Woman's Paradise Island is a sexist, misandrist and segregationist society, no matter the reason, is terrible. That it's used to promote that kind of society in a good light and to scream bloody abuse when they are depicted as they should be (violent, sexist and xenophobic) based on the very nature of their society is abhorrent, and if you can't stand the fact that yes, three thousands years old myths are often terrible when it comes to gender equality, that's your right. That's also my right to say that it doesn't change the fact that the foundations of Wonder Woman are atrocious, even in this light.

Who says the Amazons "should" be depicted that way? The thought processes that went into those original myths were sexist and the whole point of the Wonder Woman mythos is to subvert them.

What is it about a society of former slaves and rape victims that carved out a little piece of the world for themselves to help each other heal and live in freedom that bothers you so much? It's the same as what the X-Men are going through now, "did you expect us to just take this **** forever?" The WW franchise since Marston has repeatedly both called out the sexism of the old myths and pointed out how the Amazons, often encouraged by Wonder Woman herself, have the option of re-opening contact with the outside world. Which they end up doing. There is nothing smart or interesting about cutting out all the nuance of their decisions to make them one note caricatures who spit on the ground every time the word "musk" is uttered. Seriously that's dumb as ****.

Like I don't get what is so offensive to you about the Amazons, but you defend Zeus a serual adulterer and domestic abuser within his own myths. And in some interpretations, a rapist.

[Korath]

What is it about a society of former slaves and rape victims that carved out a little piece of the world for themselves to help each other heal and live in freedom that bothers you so much? It's the same as what the X-Men are going through now, "did you expect us to just take this **** forever?" The WW franchise since Marston has repeatedly both called out the sexism of the old myths and pointed out how the Amazons, often encouraged by Wonder Woman herself, have the option of re-opening contact with the outside world. Which they end up doing. There is nothing smart or interesting about cutting out all the nuance of their decisions to make them one note caricatures who spit on the ground every time the word "musk" is uttered. Seriously that's dumb as ****.

Like I don't get what is so offensive to you about the Amazons, but you defend Zeus a serual adulterer and domestic abuser within his own myths. And in some interpretations, a rapist.

I believe that safe spaces, once they become long-term locations instead of places where victims can come and go, is what is so offensive with Paradise Island.

That the Amazons needed space and time to deal with the assault by Heracles and his men is perfectly fine and understandable. That they then built a whole society out of it, consistently presented as inherently superior to the outside world because there is no men here, however, is a whole other thing entirely, especially with the blatant overtone of misandrism (the name "Man's World" is blatant enough for me to prove it). It promotes isolationists and segregationists tendencies.

If it wasn't men who were excluded, but Blacks, or women, or Eastern-Asians, or even just Danish peoples, it would always be depicted as an abhorrent society, no matter its achievements in civil life or technology. Yet, it get a pass because men are, indeed, abusing their position and society and have built very toxic sub-cultures and even simply cultural elements which lead to the death of women (more than one hundred women were killed since 2019 started, in France, because of toxic masculinity, to be blunt). But it doesn't make Paradise Island acceptable in my book.

Either we apply the same principles and values to everyone, while taking into consideration the circumstances which can explain an action at an individual level (a woman killing her husband because he's spend years hitting and threatening her should obviously face far more leniency in court than a man killing his recent ex-girlfriend because he got angry about their broke up); or those values and principles mean nothing. I would consider an ethnically pure society abhorrent if it was depicted as superior to a multi-ethnic one (especially an all-white society, because the implications would be too damn obvious, but it's even better to say it); I would consider an all-male society depicted as superior compared to a mixed society abhorrent. So to do I consider an all-female society superior to a mixed one abhorrent.

I must stress that a matriarchal society doesn't bother me at all, even if it's depicted as superior because the only thing which changes is who has the political power and almost every matriarchal societies that I know off have afforded far more right and importance to men than our patriarchal societies do to women.

[SiegePerilous02]

I believe that safe spaces, once they become long-term locations instead of places where victims can come and go, is what is so offensive with Paradise Island.

That the Amazons needed space and time to deal with the assault by Heracles and his men is perfectly fine and understandable. That they then built a whole society out of it, consistently presented as inherently superior to the outside world because there is no men here, however, is a whole other thing entirely, especially with the blatant overtone of misandrism (the name "Man's World" is blatant enough for me to prove it). It promotes isolationists and segregationists tendencies.

If it wasn't men who were excluded, but Blacks, or women, or Eastern-Asians, or even just Danish peoples, it would always be depicted as an abhorrent society, no matter its achievements in civil life or technology. Yet, it get a pass because men are, indeed, abusing their position and society and have built very toxic sub-cultures and even simply cultural elements which lead to the death of women (more than one hundred women were killed since 2019 started, in France, because of toxic masculinity, to be blunt). But it doesn't make Paradise Island acceptable in my book.

Either we apply the same principles and values to everyone, while taking into consideration the circumstances which can explain an action at an individual level (a woman killing her husband because he's spend years hitting and threatening her should obviously face far more leniency in court than a man killing his recent ex-girlfriend because he got angry about their broke up); or those values and principles mean nothing. I would consider an ethnically pure society abhorrent if it was depicted as superior to a multi-ethnic one (especially an all-white society, because the implications would be too damn obvious, but it's even better to say it); I would consider an all-male society depicted as superior compared to a mixed society abhorrent. So to do I consider an all-female society superior to a mixed one abhorrent.

I must stress that a matriarchal society doesn't bother me at all, even if it's depicted as superior because the only thing which changes is who has the political power and almost every matriarchal societies that I know off have afforded far more right and importance to men than our patriarchal societies do to women.

Funnily enough, Azzarello depicted an all male society as being superior to a female one. At the very least, it was more peaceful and less hostile than the Amazons.

The story of the Amazons going to Paradise Island is not one that is designed to be permanent. Diana's origin story is always the beginning of change for them, she leaves the island for a world she's never known and inspires them to let outsiders on the island. It is always a gradual change, because how can it not be? The Amazons are not obligated to "fix" the world after it harmed them, but she convinces them to try anyway and many of them come around to it on their own. The men who came there by accident before that, such as Steve, have places to go home to so they are not obligated to let them live there.

I am critical of the George Perez run, but he did a great job with Eris in the Feast of Five story arc, where the Amazons let outsiders (including men) onto their shores and were just a susceptible to the golden apples of discord as everyone else. Jimenez had the two Amazon tribe go to war against each other, it was an incredibly gray concept, and then they came together to make Paradise Island better than before and allow outsiders access. Morrison's take isn't popular either, but he at least took the time to show how the outside world harmed them (Azzarello didn't) to show why they have the view they do, and they don't leave the island to harm innocent men or chuck babies off cliffs. And Diana calls them out for isolating themselves, but also correctly says she cannot force them to change, they have to want it themselves. So nobody wants the Amazons to be "perfect" (a thought that didn't exist until Azzarello, as if that was the criticism) or to not realize they need to stop being isolated, but reducing the complexities and removing all positive aspects of them is a step too far. And unnecessary, and not really any more truthful.