How can sexism in WW be faced?

[Alpha]

They're wouldn't turn Flash into a thief with a plasma gun. Yet they did the equivalent to Diana despite her being in an overall good state.

[Agent Z]

When they added they turnex Diana into a barbarian with a sword she was in a veey different place from Aquaman before Prter David.

In the 2000s Diana's strength kept being shown fighting and defeating other power houses and she had plenty of good runs. Everything about the character was working in comics. They didn't do it to salvage an underselling character like with Aquaman. They did it to one of the well selling characters. That's because Dan Diddio and Geoff Johns looked at her and didn't think a woman like her, the best selling female charcharacter, wasn't respected enough unless she became a barbarian with a sword.

Diana has never been one of DC's biggest sellers even before the New 52. She most certainly was not in a good state before the reboot with stuff like Amazons Attack and JMS's own reboot attached to her name.

They're wouldn't turn Flash into a thief with a plasma gun. Yet they did the equivalent to Diana despite her being in an overall good state.

If they thought it would make him sell more, they would have.

I would also like to point out that Diana being being aggressive and barbaric does not require use of the sword. She was written this way in the Justice League animated series and to a lesser extent by Jeph Loeb. Scapegoating the sword is ignoring the actual problems Wonder Woman has had as a female character for decades. The character was written in a more provably sexist way before the sword became a regular part of her arsenal. See Dennis O'Niel's run for example, which even he was embarrassed by and was hated by women and feminists for its regressive writing.

[Alpha]

Diana has never been one of DC's biggest sellers even before the New 52. She most certainly was not in a good state before the reboot with stuff like Amazons Attack and JMS's own reboot attached to her name.

wwcomp.jpg

Diana's sales have been basically the same in every period of the last 15 years. JMS was literally a reboot of her character that had no impact on the larger world and could easily be dropped at any time. This is totally different from someone like Aquaman in the 90s. DC had no reason to think that Wonder Woman needed to change weapons and personality.

I would also like to point out that Diana being being aggressive and barbaric does not require use of the sword.

I never made that argument. I'm just talking about both issues at the same time because they come from the same insecurities.

[Agent Z]

wwcomp.jpg

Diana's sales have been basically the same in every period of the last 15 years. JMS was literally a reboot of her character that had no impact on the larger world and could easily be dropped at any time. This is totally different from someone like Aquaman in the 90s. DC had no reason to think that Wonder Woman needed to change weapons and personality.

Diana has historically had trouble breaking the 40k range and her sales in the 90s and 2000s were particularly mediocre for what was supposed to be one of DC's most popular character and their biggest female hero.

https://comicbookinvest.com/2017/03/...-womans-sales/

The reason we got the Perez reboot was because her sales were so pathetic.

https://thanley.wordpress.com/2013/0...erez-relaunch/

DC had damn good reason to think there was something wrong with the way they were writing Diana that she was selling so poorly. Whether they made things better or worse is another story.

I never made that argument. I'm just talking about both issues at the same time because they come from the same insecurities.

As I've said, it's easy to scapegoat the sword as a problem but even then it has nothing to do with sexism at the end of the day. The issues with the sword boil down to aesthetics, a subjective issue for fans. It has nothing to actually do with Diana's personality or if the story actually is giving an offensive portrayal of women. I once again refer you to the O'Niel run which was critically panned by women and feminists despite in theory being more like what certain people think Wonder Woman should be like.

[Alpha]

Nothing you wrote has anything to do with what I presented. The Perez reboot has nothing to do with why DC decided to reboot her after Infinite Crisis, nor why they rebooted her during the JMS era, nor why they rebooted her during the new 52 and gave her a sword. The article you gave even mentions that Wonder Woman never hit bottom in the runs that came after Perez.

The sword is definitely not about aesthetics for fans, it's totally out of character for Diana to carry around a sword, and it makes no thematic sense.

The O'Neill run also has nothing to do with why DC rebooted Diana in the new 52 and gave her a constant sword.

Finally, I never said that women using a sword is offensive, so stop changing my argument. I said that a character that spent the 2000s fighting Superman and humiliating Batman didn't need a sword in order to seem strong, yet Geoff Johns gave her one none the less and changed her personality in the same manner.

Somehow he believed that the strongest female hero in the DC universe didn't seem imposing enough. How is that possible?

[Agent Z]

Nothing you wrote has anything to do with what I presented. The Perez reboot has nothing to do with why DC decided to reboot her after Infinite Crisis, nor why they rebooted her during the JMS era, nor why they rebooted her during the new 52 and gave her a sword. The article you gave even mentions that Wonder Woman never hit bottom in the runs that came after Perez.

The sword is definitely not about aesthetics for fans, it's totally out of character for Diana to carry around a sword, and it makes no thematic sense.

The O'Neill run also has nothing to do with why DC rebooted Diana in the new 52 and gave her a constant sword.

Finally, I never said that women using a sword is offensive, so stop changing my argument. I said that a character that spent the 2000s fighting Superman and humiliating Batman didn't need a sword in order to seem strong, yet Geoff Johns gave her one none the less and changed her personality in the same manner.

Somehow he believed that the strongest female hero in the DC universe didn't seem imposing enough. How is that possible?

And now you're moving the goal posts. You were the one who brought up Diana's sales. I pointed out they have historically been very weak, hence the reason DC might have felt the need for a change in direction. You keep arguing that it was motivated by sexism when the real truth is that Diana was not selling well and they needed something to boost her sales, using a similar trick they have done with male characters. I don't even know why you're singling Johns out for this in the first place since this was clearly something DC as a whole wanted and Johns wasn't even the first person to write her like this.

Furthermore, Diana never won a fight against Superman in the 2000s and she only humiliated Batman in one story. Notably she was beaten by Superman in League of One and The Witch & The Warrior, barely survived her battle against him in Sacrifice and once again got stomped by Mongul in Infinite Crisis. Even her being the strongest female in DC history is up for debate when Power Girl and Supergirl exist and have both been stated and shown to be stronger than her. And this wasn't even a new thing either. This went all the way back to the 70s where Superman vs Wonder Woman established Diana could never beat Clark unless he was holding back.

You ask why Johns felt Diana wasn't imposing enough? Look at how she was being handled and you'll get your answer. Johns has a lot of faults as a writer. Writing Wonder Woman in a sexist way is not one of them. The sword isn't a problem or betrayal of the character just because you keep saying it is, especially when even Marston himself had the Amazons using swords.

[Alpha]

Well this is dull so I'll move on to some other topic. See you bud

[WonderLight789]

Diana has historically had trouble breaking the 40k range and her sales in the 90s and 2000s were particularly mediocre for what was supposed to be one of DC's most popular character and their biggest female hero.

https://comicbookinvest.com/2017/03/...-womans-sales/

The reason we got the Perez reboot was because her sales were so pathetic.

https://thanley.wordpress.com/2013/0...erez-relaunch/

DC had damn good reason to think there was something wrong with the way they were writing Diana that she was selling so poorly. Whether they made things better or worse is another story.







As I've said, it's easy to scapegoat the sword as a problem but even then it has nothing to do with sexism at the end of the day. The issues with the sword boil down to aesthetics, a subjective issue for fans. It has nothing to actually do with Diana's personality or if the story actually is giving an offensive portrayal of women. I once again refer you to the O'Niel run which was critically panned by women and feminists despite in theory being more like what certain people think Wonder Woman should be like.

WW was having mediocre sales. Because the writing in most runs was mediocre. just like it has been for the most part since 2011. The problem was not fixed at all. It got worse actually. They should feel lucky that she can sell in the 30k range with the amount of messy writing and editorial interference that have been harming the book for many years. They have never allowed the character and verse to settle. And another reason is they never pushed her lore. They never put effort to give her more exposure and development. So she could never build a following as strong as BM or SM. The 2 main problems remain the same. well 3. Sexims is another one. It is very obvious they have always had a problem with a female character being as strong as SM. Being openly queer, feminist, and anti certain aspects of the patriarchal society. Ironic. Because in the 40s she was one of the best sellers. That was a time where she was actually allowed to be what she was meant to be. In a much more conservative society, WW was more original, powerful and interesting than in 2021.

[WonderLight789]

And now you're moving the goal posts. You were the one who brought up Diana's sales. I pointed out they have historically been very weak, hence the reason DC might have felt the need for a change in direction. You keep arguing that it was motivated by sexism when the real truth is that Diana was not selling well and they needed something to boost her sales, using a similar trick they have done with male characters. I don't even know why you're singling Johns out for this in the first place since this was clearly something DC as a whole wanted and Johns wasn't even the first person to write her like this.

Furthermore, Diana never won a fight against Superman in the 2000s and she only humiliated Batman in one story. Notably she was beaten by Superman in League of One and The Witch & The Warrior, barely survived her battle against him in Sacrifice and once again got stomped by Mongul in Infinite Crisis. Even her being the strongest female in DC history is up for debate when Power Girl and Supergirl exist and have both been stated and shown to be stronger than her. And this wasn't even a new thing either. This went all the way back to the 70s where Superman vs Wonder Woman established Diana could never beat Clark unless he was holding back.

You ask why Johns felt Diana wasn't imposing enough? Look at how she was being handled and you'll get your answer. Johns has a lot of faults as a writer. Writing Wonder Woman in a sexist way is not one of them. The sword isn't a problem or betrayal of the character just because you keep saying it is, especially when even Marston himself had the Amazons using swords.

Statements mean nothing. Many statements say WW is equal to SM. And yet most people would point out that feats show otherwise.

What feats do Powergirl and Supergirl have above WW? Those women depend more on scaling than current WW. I still have to see the so amazing power feats of those 2 female kryptonians. And it says a lot if one writer would give them an edge over WW. Because that they are from the same race as the male top gun of DC. Not because they earned it or because they have the actual catalogue of feats.