New WW Creative Team: Becky Cloonan, Michael Conrad and Travis Moore

[BiteTheBullet]

It's more than fair for you to feel that way, I just don't care. And I hope fans don't stop supporting the book while interesting stories are being told just because they think she isn't strong enough.

If she keeps getting disrespected in the power department, then that will be the status quo soon.

It does seem that you only think good stories can be told if they tone down her powerset.

[Gaius]

When was Diana's head chopped off recently?? Did Zach Snyder take over the WW book and I missed it?

[Alpha]

It does seem that you only think good stories can be told if they tone down her powerset.

Cmon dude. Don't twist my words. I never said anything of the sort.

[BiteTheBullet]

Cmon dude. Don't twist my words. I never said anything of the sort.

You don't seem to advocate for her full assortment of powers. You have given heaps and heaps of praise on the Wonder Woman 84 movie despite all the flaws and depowering of the character throughout until the end which resulted in a very lackluster fight with the Cheetah.

You have frequently sited a good story at the expense of her powers such as the current arc in the comics.

I think you argued that Diana didn't job out to Aquaman when she clearly did in the WW2 JS movie. A quick decisive loss in water, and then a long fight on land in which Trevor had to rescue her with a car. Again, I think you stated that the story was good so who cares if she was depicted as less than what she should be.

It does seem you absolutely don't mind a less than powerful Wonder Woman which is fine if that is what you like.

I never minded the Lynda Carter Wonder Woman, for instance, and I know she was not at the levels that George Perez set her at. But then again, it was her own self contained universe and she wasn't competing against other superheros.

But the bar was set back in the 80's with her reboot and her gifts from the gods, and that is what she should be, powerful, far above the street level nonsense she has been enduring, both in and outside of her books.

For the current writers, it is problematic that they start Diana out as an amnesia victim who somehow doesn't have any of her powers. This type of story (trope) seems to be used quite often, so even if the current writers are 'hitting it out of the park' as some here have described, it is still a bit telling that they had to start off like this.

But, if you truly like a powerful Wonder Woman post Perez era and I have been misreading your posts, then I am sorry that it comes across that way for me.

[Alpha]

It does seem you absolutely don't mind a less than powerful Wonder Woman which is fine if that is what you like.

Yes. Which is very different from what you were claiming about me. I do think Wonder Woman can be absurdly powerful in a good story, but I'm usually satisfied with her power levels because what I care about is her being interesting in interesting stories.

I never minded the Lynda Carter Wonder Woman, for instance, and I know she was not at the levels that George Perez set her at.

What impressive feats did Diana have during the Perez run that displayed her overwhelming strength?

[SonOfBaldwin]

You don't seem to advocate for her full assortment of powers. You have given heaps and heaps of praise on the Wonder Woman 84 movie despite all the flaws and depowering of the character throughout until the end which resulted in a very lackluster fight with the Cheetah.

You have frequently sited a good story at the expense of her powers such as the current arc in the comics.

I think you argued that Diana didn't job out to Aquaman when she clearly did in the WW2 JS movie. A quick decisive loss in water, and then a long fight on land in which Trevor had to rescue her with a car. Again, I think you stated that the story was good so who cares if she was depicted as less than what she should be.

It does seem you absolutely don't mind a less than powerful Wonder Woman which is fine if that is what you like.

I never minded the Lynda Carter Wonder Woman, for instance, and I know she was not at the levels that George Perez set her at. But then again, it was her own self contained universe and she wasn't competing against other superheros.

But the bar was set back in the 80's with her reboot and her gifts from the gods, and that is what she should be, powerful, far above the street level nonsense she has been enduring, both in and outside of her books.

For the current writers, it is problematic that they start Diana out as an amnesia victim who somehow doesn't have any of her powers. This type of story (trope) seems to be used quite often, so even if the current writers are 'hitting it out of the park' as some here have described, it is still a bit telling that they had to start off like this.

But, if you truly like a powerful Wonder Woman post Perez era and I have been misreading your posts, then I am sorry that it comes across that way for me.

I've come to understand that the consistent and persistent depowering of Wonder Woman in the various media forms is linked directly to the idea that the concept of "superheroes" is rooted in male power fantasy. In particular, patriarchal male power fantasy--in which maleness is always seen as dominant in every respect: physical strength, intellectual acuity, leadership, political strategy, athletic ability, combat prowess, etc.

This fantasy is inextricably tied to an unhealthy dose of misogyny and sexism (not to mention anti-queer/anti-trans bigotry).

I can't remember the last time I read a comic book or saw a movie/TV show featuring Wonder Woman where she wasn't depowered strength-wise so as not to make, say, Superman look "weak" by patriarchal standards; where her wisdom of Athena wasn't erased so that say, Batman could have all the answers and all the strategy and all the solutions, leaving Wonder Woman to be either chastised for being too brutish in her approach or mansplained to because she was depicted as insufferably, unbelievably naïve and unknowledgeable (irrespective of how long she's been in operation). All of this is the creators of such media talking directly to who they believe is their base: men who would be intimidated or feel emasculated by a woman's excellence, by her perceived ability to outfight or out think or outshine a man.

Here you have an immortal Amazon, blessed with gifts by goddesses, who has been alive for over 3,000 years; and all that time, she has been learning and training and perfecting her gifts such that she (and Nubia) is the best of her people--people who, by the way, are themselves extraordinary. She comes to Patriarch's World during World War I or World War II (depending on the source material), and has thus been operating as a superhero and diplomat for somewhere between 82 and 107 years, and with all of that experience under her belt, she is *still* written into situations with the bold, if unspoken, assumption/assertion that even those with significantly less experience, power, and skill are her superiors (especially if they are men).

Dr. Marston predicted that this would be Wonder Woman's fate if left to other hands and other minds; that, in the end, "blood-curdling masculinity" would win out and any attempt to have Wonder Woman actually challenge the patriarchal status quo, to have her actually be better than her male compatriots (which, if she were a man, most would accept this as "normal") would be met with fear, anger, and resentment, followed by attempts to "put her in her place" by any means necessary.

Also: It doesn't strike anyone as odd AF that Diana's female friendships have all but disappeared and her relationships to the women and girls in her family are relatively nonexistent? That isolation strategy is one of the telltale signs of a patriarchal agenda and a patriarchal imagination (irrespective of the gender of the person who holds it). Gail Simone already let us know that there was an actual agenda, too.

I've been terribly displeased with Wonder Woman media for a very long time (I find my woman empowerment media elsewhere--y'all should read FAR SECTOR). We won't get to see a lot of Diana in Kelly Sue DeConnick and Phil Jimenez's HISTORIA, but I do know that what we do see will be devoid of those terrible features (patriarchy and the male gaze).

[Alpha]

First of all, SINCE WHEN IS DIANA 3000 YEARS OLD IN COMICS. You guys keep bringing this stuff up but I don't remember ever seeing in anynplace except in interviews with Zack Snyder.

Secondly, I have no doubt that some people have a conscious or unconscious bias against women being physically intimidating. A good example of this lies in how few people actually appreciate a buff Wonder Woman.

But her power levels aren't inherently sexist. Hawkman has many lifetimes of experience in fighting that go all the way back to ancient Egypt, and yet he has never been shown as a better fighter than Batman. This is because these characters are written in terms of popularity, and of speciality. Barry Allen is a forensic scientist and Clark Kent is an investigative reporter, but in most Justice League mysteries Batman is the actual detective. Batman would be useless to the team without his technology and strategy, so they downplay the mental qualities of others to keep Batman important. Superman is portrayed as the strongest person on the league because he is the flagship character and his main gimmick lies in his super strength. Wonder Woman isn't as popular as Batman or Superman, and that's why she is put on an inferior level to them. If Diana had the most profitable books and merchandise DC would put her in a superior role. Of course DC is also the main reason why Wonder Woman is less successful so it's kind of a circular logic.

I also don't know where you get the idea that Diana's female friendships have been abandoned. For most of the last 10 years Diana had a significant female character helping her out. Whether it was Zola, or Aztec, or Etta. You can still criticize the writing of those relationships, but they exist.

And you're totally right about DC's fear of Diana challenging the patriarchy, but it's not by making her less powerful than you want, it's by not letting her have stories about actual gender discrimination. Diana's stories should be socially challenging, but DC doesn't want a transgressive character.

[Natamaxxx]

If she keeps getting disrespected in the power department, then that will be the status quo soon.

It does seem that you only think good stories can be told if they tone down her powerset.

Isn’t there a whole other thread for this tedious argument?

[I'm a Fish]

I think people are also forgetting about the backup issues which reestablished Hestia, Aphrodite, Athena, Dimeter and Artemis as the Amazon's patron goddesses and Hippolyta and Philippus as a couple (and also the Kanga's )

I understand it's not in the present Diana and that she's a young teen and maybe that's disappointing for some, but it is a cannon story that has nothing to do with the greater DC universe. I generally try to avoid theorizing, but it is possible the backup is a soft retcon of sorts. We'll just have to wait and see.

[Gaius]

I've come to understand that the consistent and persistent depowering of Wonder Woman in the various media forms is linked directly to the idea that the concept of "superheroes" is rooted in male power fantasy. In particular, patriarchal male power fantasy--in which maleness is always seen as dominant in every respect: physical strength, intellectual acuity, leadership, political strategy, athletic ability, combat prowess, etc.

This fantasy is inextricably tied to an unhealthy dose of misogyny and sexism (not to mention anti-queer/anti-trans bigotry).

I can't remember the last time I read a comic book or saw a movie/TV show featuring Wonder Woman where she wasn't depowered strength-wise so as not to make, say, Superman look "weak" by patriarchal standards; where her wisdom of Athena was erased so that say, Batman could have all the answers and all the strategy and all the solutions, leaving Wonder Woman to be either chastised for being too brutish in her approach or mansplained to because she was depicted as insufferably, unbelievably naïve and unknowledgeable (irrespective of how long she's been in operation). All of this is the creators of such media talking directly to who they believe is their base: men who would be intimidated or feel emasculated by a woman's excellence, by her perceived ability to outfight or out think or outshine a man.

Here you have an immortal Amazon, blessed with gifts by goddesses, who has been alive for over 3,000 years; and all that time, she has been learning and training and perfecting her gifts such that she (and Nubia) is the best of her people--people who, by the way, are themselves extraordinary. She comes to Patriarch's World during World War I or World War II (depending on the source material), and has thus been operating as a superhero and diplomat for somewhere between 82 and 107 years, and with all of that experience under her belt, she is *still* written into situations with the bold, if unspoken, assumption that even those with significantly less experience, power, and skill are her superiors (especially if they are men).

Dr. Marston predicted that this would be Wonder Woman's fate if left to other hands and other minds; that, in the end, "blood-curdling masculinity" would win out and any attempt to have Wonder Woman actually challenge the patriarchal status quo, to have her actually be better than her male compatriots (which, if she were a man, most would accept this as "normal") would be met with fear, anger, and resentment, followed by attempts to "put her in her place" by any means necessary.

Also: It doesn't strike anyone as odd AF that Diana's female friendships have all but disappeared and her relationships to the women and girls in her family are relatively nonexistent? That isolation strategy is one of the telltale signs of a patriarchal agenda and a patriarchal imagination (irrespective of the gender of the person who holds it). Gail Simone already let us know that there was an actual agenda, too.

I've been terribly displeased with Wonder Woman media for a very long time (I find my woman empowerment media elsewhere--y'all should read FAR SECTOR). We won't get to see a lot of Diana in Kelly Sue DeConnick and Phil Jimenez's HISTORIA, but I do know that what we do see will be devoid of those terrible features (patriarchy and the male gaze).

I'm not saying I disagree for the most part since I've felt the same way with stuff like the DCAU or the average Justice League run but not for nothing, JLD is a good book if you want to see some stuff of Diana in the leadership role and with a female relation with Zatanna.

[WonderLight789]

First of all, SINCE WHEN IS DIANA 3000 YEARS OLD IN COMICS. You guys keep bringing this stuff up but I don't remember ever seeing in anynplace except in interviews with Zack Snyder.

Secondly, I have no doubt that some people have a conscious or unconscious bias against women being physically intimidating. A good example of this lies in how few people actually appreciate a buff Wonder Woman.

But her power levels aren't inherently sexist. Hawkman has many lifetimes of experience in fighting that go all the way back to ancient Egypt, and yet he has never been shown as a better fighter than Batman. This is because these characters are written in terms of popularity, and of speciality. Barry Allen is a forensic scientist and Clark Kent is an investigative reporter, but in most Justice League mysteries Batman is the actual detective. Batman would be useless to the team without his technology and strategy, so they downplay the mental qualities of others to keep Batman important. Superman is portrayed as the strongest person on the league because he is the flagship character and his main gimmick lies in his super strength. Wonder Woman isn't as popular as Batman or Superman, and that's why she is put on an inferior level to them. If Diana had the most profitable books and merchandise DC would put her in a superior role. Of course DC is also the main reason why Wonder Woman is less successful so it's kind of a circular logic.

I also don't know where you get the idea that Diana's female friendships have been abandoned. For most of the last 10 years Diana had a significant female character helping her out. Whether it was Zola, or Aztec, or Etta. You can still criticize the writing of those relationships, but they exist.

And you're totally right about DC's fear of Diana challenging the patriarchy, but it's not by making her less powerful than you want, it's by not letting her have stories about actual gender discrimination. Diana's stories should be socially challenging, but DC doesn't want a transgressive character.

It is. Very obvious that it is.

Her relationship with women for the most part has not been very meaningful. Since new 52. Men took over a lot of her background and origin.

Then they should stop writing her. Because i bet they don't want a mediocre character either. And that is what they have turned her into. A mediocre character.

[Nyssane]

It is. Very obvious that it is.

Her relationship with women for the most part has not been very meaningful. Since new 52. Men took over a lot of her background and origin.

Then they should stop writing her. Because i bet they don't want a mediocre character either. And that is what they have turned her into. A mediocre character.

Please stop derailing threads. We get it, you're unhappy with the direction DC is going with Wonder Woman. We don't need to see it in every single thread.

This thread is specifically about Cloonan, Conrad, and Moore's run. If you want to discuss how weak you think Diana is in the three issues we've gotten so far, then go for it. Don't bring in drama from other threads.

[WonderLight789]

Please stop derailing threads. We get it, you're unhappy with the direction DC is going with Wonder Woman. We don't need to see it in every single thread.

This thread is specifically about Cloonan, Conrad, and Moore's run. If you want to discuss how weak you think Diana is in the three issues we've gotten so far, then go for it. Don't bring in drama from other threads.

I'm talking about more than power. Just like all the people here that started talking before i joined. Take a look at the posts before me before you judge me. Thank you.

[Alpha]

Then they should stop writing her. Because i bet they don't want a mediocre character either. And that is what they have turned her into. A mediocre character.

You're not asking for Diana to be transgressive though. Making her more powerful doesn't make her more transgressive or more of a challenge to our culture. We have plenty of stories starring a women that are the most powerful hero in their stories. Everything else about Diana is what should make her special and challenging of the world.

[WonderLight789]

You're not asking for Diana to be transgressive though. Making her more powerful doesn't make her more transgressive or more of a challenge to our culture. We have plenty of stories starring a women that are the most powerful hero in their stories. Everything else about Diana is what should make her special and challenging of the world.

My post was not just about power level.