Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 187
  1. #46
    The Last Dragon Perseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    She never does that in the movies. Do we have to keep bringing this up in discussions where it isn't relevant?

    Alpha's take is basically their own idea for how Diana fights and is at best an oversimplification.
    Right on the money here.
    Zaldrīzes Buzdari Iksos Daor

  2. #47
    Leftbrownie Alpha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    5,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    She never does that in the movies. Do we have to keep bringing this up in discussions where it isn't relevant?
    Do you remember in Batman V Superman when Bruce is investigating Diana Prince and discovers a photo of Wonder Woman in World War 1? This is what Zack Snyder was going to use before Patty Jenkins insisted in shooting her own photo.



    You might notice that Diana is holding a bunch of severed heads. So you are technically right when you say that Zack didn't release a version of the movie where that happened, but he did intend to. And when you combine that with the scene where she smiles while fighting Doomsday, you get a clear picture of how much his version of Diana enjoyed lethal battle.

    Alpha's take is basically their own idea for how Diana fights and is at best an oversimplification.
    As per my assesment of Diana seeking domination, not attacking:
    You are right about it being my own personal interpretation. But I've always stated that the best version of Wonder Woman's characterization was for the most part the Marston era. And go read those stories and you'll see why I defend that she wants to overpower, not main her enemies. The one good thing about Marston's bondage kink is that he used it with consistency as a way for Diana to finish a dispute.

    And not for nothing, people here love that quote from the Gail Simone run that supports my take
    ”Don't kill if you can wound, don't wound if you can subdue, don't subdue if you can pacify, and don't raise your hand at all until you've first extended it.”
    (though her actual stories ended up portraying Diana as much more agressive than most writers do)
    Last edited by Alpha; 07-07-2022 at 10:03 PM.

  3. #48
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34,014

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Do you remember in Batman V Superman when Bruce is investigating Diana Prince and discovers a photo of Wonder Woman in World War 1? This is what Zack Snyder was going to use before Patty Jenkins insisted in shooting her own photo.



    You might notice that Diana is holding a bunch of severed heads. So you are technically right when you say that Zack didn't release a version of the movie where that happened, but he did intend to.
    And then decided not to after being talked out of it. Directors and writers leave ideas on the cutting room floor all the time. Diana doesn't carry around people's heads in the movies. That should be the end of it but this keeps getting brought up for some reason.

    And when you combine that with the scene where she smiles while fighting Doomsday, you get a clear picture of how much his version of Diana enjoyed lethal battle.
    That smile was apparently improvised by Gadot so I'd "blame" that on her rather than Snyder. And the funny thing is that I recall a lot of people who otherwise hated BvS liking that moment in spite of what it implies.

    This conversation started due to one user losing it over Diana being shown with a sword on a cover and assuming that her story in Dark Crisis would be about her being overly violent and aggressive despite us having no preview pages or the synopsis giving a clue as to what her personality would be like.

    As per my assesment of Diana seeking domination, not attacking:
    You are right about it being my own personal interpretation. But I've always stated that the best version of Wonder Woman's characterization was for the most part the Marston era. And go read those stories and you'll see why I defend that she wants to overpower, not main her enemies. The one good thing about Marston's bondage kink is that he used it with consistency as a way for Diana to finish a dispute.
    Imagine how he'd have written her if he wasn't into bondage.

    No disrespect to the man and people who like his contributions, but I can't find this all that admirable. I maintain that Marston gets a pass due to him being feminist by the standards of the 1940s and if Wonder Woman were made today he'd have been looked at with more scrutiny. Bayonetta is basically Marston's Wonder Woman as a video game character and she is far from immune to criticism. I respect that he created Diana and no one can take that for him, but his writing of her has not aged well (and I'd argue set the precedent for a lot of bad decisions that would befall Diana which necessitated the first reboot).

    And not for nothing, people here love that quote from the Gail Simone run that supports my take
    ”Don't kill if you can wound, don't wound if you can subdue, don't subdue if you can pacify, and don't raise your hand at all until you've first extended it.”
    (though her actual stories ended up portraying Diana as much more agressive than most writers do)
    "If" being the key word that you seem to be ignoring here. Simone wrote Diana as using heavy force within reason but did not remove it as an option altogether. Aside from the arc about Diana becoming unnecessarily bloodthirsty when the lasso was stolen (which was supposed to be seen as a horrible thing anyway), Diana was not the psycopath she was portrayed as by Frank Miller or the Injustice writers. We can't just act as if every instance of Diana using violence - something every superhero including her has relied on - is uncharacteristic of her if we want to properly identify the moments were she is written poorly.
    Last edited by Agent Z; 07-07-2022 at 11:25 PM.

  4. #49
    Leftbrownie Alpha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    5,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    Bayonetta is basically Marston's Wonder Woman as a video game character and she is far from immune to criticism. I respect that he created Diana and no one can take that for him, but his writing of her has not aged well (and I'd argue set the precedent for a lot of bad decisions that would befall Diana which necessitated the first reboot).
    (My answer is gonna be long, but i hope it is interesting to you. Sorry)

    I never played Bayonetta and I'm not at all familiar with it's style or themes. I would love to hear more about it if you would like to delve into that, and why you think it resembles the problems and strengths with Marston's work in Wonder Woman.

    Based on the images I saw of Bayonetta I'm going to assume that you are talking about objectification and sexual exploitation of the female characters. I apologize if that's not what you meant.

    In that regard, I disagree with any belief that Marston was objectifying these characters. He didn't put Diana or any of the amazons into situations where their sexual qualities were present to captivate a male audience. Heck, look at some of the outfits Steve wore at times. Barely more than what Diana had on in the same story or at times way less.



    Even though Marston enjoyed bondage in his private life, his use of that in his stories was about the female characters (and often enough the male characters) confronting their own sense of empowerment whenever they were subjgated and unleashing their determination to assert their own freedom. Most of the time when Diana was tied up, she was the one that had to free herself. And when she did relly on other women or Steve, it wasn't about others having tge right to determine when she could be free, it was about her allies defending her rights. I think the same applies to when the other heroic characters were tied up. And when the villains were the ones tied up, it was about them being too dangerous and the worthy authorities taking away their power for the good of society.

    Having said all of that, I still think the bondage kink was weird and Grant Morrison made a big mistake when he brought it back for Earth One (except for Volume 2, it used it in an interesting way)

    I'm not an originalist. I don't believe the creators should dictate what a characters turns into. It's cool that Stan Lee and Kirby decided to create Black Panther and Wakanda, but there's nothing about their ideas in the 60s that we need anymore. Bob Kane's intentions for Batman are totally outdated. Captain America is a way better character now than he was when Kirby and Simon created him.
    The reason why I look back at Marston is because he had much better ideas than almost any writer that took over Wonder Woman since. A lot of those good ideas need to be updated and upgraded, but their basis is something we need today (along with many things that female and male writers contributed along the decades). We still don't have worldbuilding as good as the Marston run, only Phil Jimenez and Steve Orlando came close.

    I'm also curious about what parts of his Wonder Woman writing you think didn't age well and what precedent you feel he set for others than ended up making the reboot a necessity (I might not even disagree, but I want to understand why you think so)

    "If" being the key word that you seem to be ignoring here. Simone wrote Diana as using heavy force within reason but did not remove it as an option altogether. Aside from the arc about Diana becoming unnecessarily bloodthirsty when the lasso was stolen (which was supposed to be seen as a horrible thing anyway), Diana was not the psycopath she was portrayed as by Frank Miller or the Injustice writers. We can't just act as if every instance of Diana using violence - something every superhero including her has relied on - is uncharacteristic of her if we want to properly identify the moments were she is written poorly.
    But what I've always said wasn't that Diana was unwilling to attack others, but her goal is always to subdue. That's my point. She is a wrestler, ehose goal is to dominate. And when she can't dominate without attacking, she attacks as much as she needs to, and no more than that. She can maim others when it's actually necessary, even kill, but that's always the last option before you extend all your options in restraining them. The thing is that Diana should be more than capable of restraing most of her enemies, even if it requires a huge amount of effort. But she's an amazon, so she is ready to push herself to her limit, if it exists at all.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Alpha; 07-08-2022 at 01:17 AM.

  5. #50
    Astonishing Member Stanlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    4,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Do you remember in Batman V Superman when Bruce is investigating Diana Prince and discovers a photo of Wonder Woman in World War 1? This is what Zack Snyder was going to use before Patty Jenkins insisted in shooting her own photo.



    You might notice that Diana is holding a bunch of severed heads. So you are technically right when you say that Zack didn't release a version of the movie where that happened, but he did intend to. And when you combine that with the scene where she smiles while fighting Doomsday, you get a clear picture of how much his version of Diana enjoyed lethal battle.


    As per my assesment of Diana seeking domination, not attacking:
    You are right about it being my own personal interpretation. But I've always stated that the best version of Wonder Woman's characterization was for the most part the Marston era. And go read those stories and you'll see why I defend that she wants to overpower, not main her enemies. The one good thing about Marston's bondage kink is that he used it with consistency as a way for Diana to finish a dispute.

    And not for nothing, people here love that quote from the Gail Simone run that supports my take
    ”Don't kill if you can wound, don't wound if you can subdue, don't subdue if you can pacify, and don't raise your hand at all until you've first extended it.”
    (though her actual stories ended up portraying Diana as much more agressive than most writers do)
    Alpha is very much onto something there. That was kind of the point of the dominant force element. This is further driven home when he revised the patent to reflect the Stronger than-- and Swifter than-- as opposed to just equaling. Written well, Diana will use a physical contest to hone skill or something until the foe is subdued and then rehabilitation or healing can occur. Gail Simone used this idea in her GL Khund story. Before that Rucka used it in Truth or Dare versus Zoom and a haughtier form of it in WW221 versus Brother Eye where she lets her foe land a strike to prove a point.

    She can physically deal with just about anything; the outcome of a battle is never in question or the point. The point and the story is in what happens after the fighting stops and the dialogue begins. She's here to change the world and show us a better way if we would just let her.

    So yeah Alpha is just about spot on with the Dominance thing, which does not imply lethality.

    That's my humble opinion

  6. #51
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34,014

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    (My answer is gonna be long, but i hope it is interesting to you. Sorry)

    I never played Bayonetta and I'm not at all familiar with it's style or themes. I would love to hear more about it if you would like to delve into that, and why you think it resembles the problems and strengths with Marston's work in Wonder Woman.

    Based on the images I saw of Bayonetta I'm going to assume that you are talking about objectification and sexual exploitation of the female characters. I apologize if that's not what you meant.
    I was referring to the sexual objectification of the character, yes. She even has a heavy BDSM theme just like Wonder Woman originally had. Some have defended Bayonetta's portrayal by arguing that she owns her sexuality, while others claim that this is bunk.

    In that regard, I disagree with any belief that Marston was objectifying these characters. He didn't put Diana or any of the amazons into situations where their sexual qualities were present to captivate a male audience. Heck, look at some of the outfits Steve wore at times. Barely more than what Diana had on in the same story or at times way less.



    Even though Marston enjoyed bondage in his private life, his use of that in his stories was about the female characters (and often enough the male characters) confronting their own sense of empowerment whenever they were subjgated and unleashing their determination to assert their own freedom. Most of the time when Diana was tied up, she was the one that had to free herself. And when she did relly on other women or Steve, it wasn't about others having tge right to determine when she could be free, it was about her allies defending her rights. I think the same applies to when the other heroic characters were tied up. And when the villains were the ones tied up, it was about them being too dangerous and the worthy authorities taking away their power for the good of society.
    I don't think you can really say the characters weren't really objectified given the inherently sexual nature of BDSM.

    The reason why I look back at Marston is because he had much better ideas than almost any writer that took over Wonder Woman since. A lot of those good ideas need to be updated and upgraded, but their basis is something we need today (along with many things that female and male writers contributed along the decades). We still don't have worldbuilding as good as the Marston run, only Phil Jimenez and Steve Orlando came close.
    I disagree.


    I'm also curious about what parts of his Wonder Woman writing you think didn't age well and what precedent you feel he set for others than ended up making the reboot a necessity (I might not even disagree, but I want to understand why you think so)
    This quote by Marston comes to mind:

    Not even girls want to be girls so long as our feminine archetype lacks force, strength, and power. Not wanting to be girls, they don't want to be tender, submissive, peace-loving as good women are. Women's strong qualities have become despised because of their weakness. The obvious remedy is to create a feminine character with all the strength of Superman plus all the allure of a good and beautiful woman.

    Emphasis mine. Marston's idea of what constitutes a "good woman" is pretty outdated by modern standards and given some of the rather sexist stories we got in the Silver Age, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume some of them were a result of people following this mindset.


    But what I've always said wasn't that Diana was unwilling to attack others, but her goal is always to subdue. That's my point. She is a wrestler, ehose goal is to dominate. And when she can't dominate without attacking, she attacks as much as she needs to, and no more than that. She can maim others when it's actually necessary, even kill, but that's always the last option before you extend all your options in restraining them. The thing is that Diana should be more than capable of restraing most of her enemies, even if it requires a huge amount of effort. But she's an amazon, so she is ready to push herself to her limit, if it exists at all.
    I can agree about Diana only using the necessary amount of force. I guess I just don't particularly care for the type of description you use because it seems you're a bit too hung up on emphasizing Marston's bdsm use. And while I agree that Diana should only use the necessary amount of force, I've also seen fans vilify her when she does anything more than tying people up with the lasso even when that has been shown to be useless as an option. And that isn't even getting into comments that call her "mannish" for using a sword, hitting people, killing people, etc.

    I hope you can see my point clearly.

  7. #52
    Leftbrownie Alpha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    5,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    I don't think you can really say the characters weren't really objectified given the inherently sexual nature of BDSM.
    It wasn't actual BDSM. It was just characters getting tied up by enemies and sometimes allowing themselves to be restrained with dignity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    I respect that he created Diana and no one can take that for him, but his writing of her has not aged well (and I'd argue set the precedent for a lot of bad decisions that would befall Diana which necessitated the first reboot).
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    This quote by Marston comes to mind:

    Not even girls want to be girls so long as our feminine archetype lacks force, strength, and power. Not wanting to be girls, they don't want to be tender, submissive, peace-loving as good women are. Women's strong qualities have become despised because of their weakness. The obvious remedy is to create a feminine character with all the strength of Superman plus all the allure of a good and beautiful woman.
    You said your disagreement was about how Marston wrote Wonder Woman. So Marston's quotes seem irrelevant since iirc he never wrote any story where Diana submited herself to a man. She only ever submited herself to other dignified women. There were many stories where villains tied Diana up, and she never accepted this, always freeing herself eventually. In fact, iirc it was Marston that established the rule that if Diana was tied up by a man she would lose her powers, to warn all women that you should never let a man restrain you, because any man that wants to restrain you will abuse you.

    So I don't see how any Marston story emphasized the idea that Women should be dominated by men. Steve Trevor never restrained Diana, nor the General Darnell.

    In any case, even if we judge things not on the stories but by his quotes, he was the creator of the DISC method of psychological classification. This was his definition of Submission: warm and voluntary acceptance of the need to fulfill a request. This isn't about the more common meaning of being dominated.

    The actual problematic part was his appeal to gender essentialism, though the stories themselves didn't really portray men and women as having absolutists inherent characteristics.

    I can agree about Diana only using the necessary amount of force. I guess I just don't particularly care for the type of description you use because it seems you're a bit too hung up on emphasizing Marston's bdsm use.
    When I talk about subdue it's about wrestling, not about BDSM. Dominating your enemy is also about wrestling.

    If" being the key word that you seem to be ignoring here. Simone wrote Diana as using heavy force within reason but did not remove it as an option altogether. Aside from the arc about Diana becoming unnecessarily bloodthirsty when the lasso was stolen (which was supposed to be seen as a horrible thing anyway), Diana was not the psycopath she was portrayed as by Frank Miller or the Injustice writers. We can't just act as if every instance of Diana using violence - something every superhero including her has relied on - is uncharacteristic of her if we want to properly identify the moments were she is written poorly.
    My problem with how Gail Simone wrote Diana is that she often showed Diana excited to attack and mock her enemies. Which is fine for other characters, but I don't think most versions of Wonder Woman enjoy hurting and humiliating others, even if they are evil. Most of the time she was agressive because she had to be, it was a need and duty. It was something undesirable for her that she did none the less.
    Last edited by Alpha; 07-08-2022 at 03:19 PM.

  8. #53
    Astonishing Member Stanlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    4,167

    Default

    The quote is often misquoted lacking the article "a" in front of Superman

  9. #54
    Fantastic Member VonHammersmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    440

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    My problem with how Gail Simone wrote Diana is that she often showed Diana excited to attack and mock her enemies. Which is fine for other characters, but I don't think most versions of Wonder Woman enjoy hurting and humiliating others, even if they are evil. Most of the time she was agressive because she had to be, it was a need and duty. It was something undesirable for her that she did none the less.
    Cloonrad’s Wonder Woman is like that too, there’s a meanness to her that’s so un-Wonder-Woman like to me. I think it’s the writer’s, or rather, the comic book content creator’s voice rubbing off on her.

    It’s not just that CB content creators aren’t very skilled at writing, they’ve also got certain modern sensibilities that…are a bit dodgy to say the least. And not only do they impart them to WW, they claim she's quote unquote "all about" those things. It's not a great time to be alive

  10. #55
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34,014

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stanlos View Post
    The quote is often misquoted lacking the article "a" in front of Superman
    How is that relevant?

  11. #56
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34,014

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    It wasn't actual BDSM. It was just characters getting tied up by enemies and sometimes allowing themselves to be restrained with dignity.
    Again, you cannot divorce from the fact that the author was clearly into BDSM and using the stories as an excuse to insert his kinks into his writing.



    You said your disagreement was about how Marston wrote Wonder Woman. So Marston's quotes seem irrelevant since iirc he never wrote any story where Diana submited herself to a man. She only ever submited herself to other dignified women. There were many stories where villains tied Diana up, and she never accepted this, always freeing herself eventually. In fact, iirc it was Marston that established the rule that if Diana was tied up by a man she would lose her powers, to warn all women that you should never let a man restrain you, because any man that wants to restrain you will abuse you.
    Here's a thought balloon line from issue #3 of the Marston run:

    "If girls want to be slaves there’s no harm in that. The bad thing for then is submitting to a master or to an evil mistress like Paula! A good mistress could do wonders with them!"

    Oh and let's not forget Marston's charming response to a female editor who had an issue with the amount of women getting tied or chained up in Marston's work.

    "OF COURSE I WOULDN’T EXPECT MISS ROUBICEK TO UNDERSTAND THIS…HAS BEEN IN COMICS ONLY 6 MONTHS OR SO, HASN’T SHE?"

    https://bust.com/entertainment/19600...nderwoman.html



    So I don't see how any Marston story emphasized the idea that Women should be dominated by men. Steve Trevor never restrained Diana, nor the General Darnell.
    Marston was quoted as telling his editors that "women liked being submissive". It shouldn't matter if he showed them being bound by men or women more. The man clearly had some very troubling views regarding gender.

    In any case, even if we judge things not on the stories but by his quotes, he was the creator of the DISC method of psychological classification. This was his definition of Submission: warm and voluntary acceptance of the need to fulfill a request. This isn't about the more common meaning of being dominated.
    According to what I've read, the DISC theory doesn't have any scientific validity.

    When I talk about subdue it's about wrestling, not about BDSM. Dominating your enemy is also about wrestling.
    See again my above quote. Even leaving that aside, calling Diana a wrestler isn't any more accurate than calling Batman one just because they both occasionally use wrestling moves. Hell, most wrestling moves Diana uses could be lethal with her strength when used against human or less durable opponents.


    My problem with how Gail Simone wrote Diana is that she often showed Diana excited to attack and mock her enemies.
    Like when?

  12. #57
    Incredible Member bardkeep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Posts
    754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    The reason why I look back at Marston is because he had much better ideas than almost any writer that took over Wonder Woman since. A lot of those good ideas need to be updated and upgraded, but their basis is something we need today (along with many things that female and male writers contributed along the decades). We still don't have worldbuilding as good as the Marston run, only Phil Jimenez and Steve Orlando came close.
    We got a modernized take on Marston's style of storytelling and world-building and it was All-Star Superman. The wacky sci-fi and magical realist elements; the lack of fighting; the erudition, curiosity, and fundamental goodness of the lead hero; the focus on pacifism, compassion, and reforming enemies over violence; the emphasis on inspiring others to do good; etc.

    In general the "ideal" characterization of Superman today falls in line with a lot of what Marston was trying to do, while modern Wonder Woman often acts a lot like Golden Age Superman (haughty, fists-first, punitive). Probably because the public can't handle a character who pushes back against the violent, toxically masculine way of doing things AND is a woman...

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    I'm also curious about what parts of his Wonder Woman writing you think didn't age well and what precedent you feel he set for others than ended up making the reboot a necessity (I might not even disagree, but I want to understand why you think so)
    Other than the requisite WW2-era racism that all Golden Age comics had?

    The bondage kink isn't just something you can hand-wave away as a concession - it was a HUGE part of the GA WW comics. Nearly every story led to a completely unnecessary bondage/BDSM scenario that went way beyond what was symbolically significant, and it was woven into the fabric of the character (e.g. "Aphrodite's Law," which is an extremely creepy, gross weakness). It also came with the constant romanticization and/or trivialization of slavery, which is ridiculously problematic by today's standards. Just look at what I said above about All-Star Superman and compare that to how badly Morrison fumbled WW: Earth One when they were specifically trying to go back to Marston - the bondage themes were so all-consuming that it's hard to see anything past it.

    But even without the bondage elements, the biggest thing is just that she was a soapbox for an infantilizing, male gazey view of female supremacism embodied by Marston's Amazons. It's utterly inaccessible to me as a woman. Kelly Sue DeConnick said in an interview that one of the big reasons why she didn't like Marston's take is because "a pedestal is just a different kind of box," and I think she was dead on.

    I agree that there were a lot of great things Marston was doing with the character that have been sadly lost. She should be, as you put it, a wrestler rather than a fighter who always subdues instead of fighting and aims to reform. She should be curious and fundamentally anti-establishment and her world should be as gay and gender-bendy and weird and vibrant as the publishers will let it be. It's deeply unfortunate that the character has been de-politicized, masculinized, and sterilized.

    But I do think Perez's take (+ stories that follow his), while VERY different, is arguably more intersectional and certainly resonates more with me. His Amazons aren't just an ideal but actual, flawed people, a culture working to build itself up after trauma at the hands of their oppressors, and it makes Diana's story about both healing and liberation. It's more nuanced and it speaks to all marginalized people rather than just addressing the surface-level gender politics that primarily interested Marston, plus Perez approached it all in a way that feels real and personal rather than clinical and propagandist. Arcs like The Circle and scenes like the Amazons returning to Man's World for the first time in millennia and removing their gauntlets are way more powerful than any hamfisted speech or fetishized bondage imagery. It's also why Historia is shaping up to be my favorite WW story of all time and why I really really hate Daddy Zeus/n52.

  13. #58
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34,014

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bardkeep View Post
    We got a modernized take on Marston's style of storytelling and world-building and it was All-Star Superman. The wacky sci-fi and magical realist elements; the lack of fighting; the erudition, curiosity, and fundamental goodness of the lead hero; the focus on pacifism, compassion, and reforming enemies over violence; the emphasis on inspiring others to do good; etc.

    In general the "ideal" characterization of Superman today falls in line with a lot of what Marston was trying to do, while modern Wonder Woman often acts a lot like Golden Age Superman (haughty, fists-first, punitive). Probably because the public can't handle a character who pushes back against the violent, toxically masculine way of doing things AND is a woman...
    I'm not sure about that. Female characters seem to face backlash for any reason, but it seems like if a woman who isn't as good at fighting as a man and is more stereotypically feminine gets less controversy than a woman just as ludicrously good at violence as a man, if not more. You only need to look at the reaction to Kevin Feige saying that Captain Marvel is more powerful than Hulk and Thor. Or hell, almost any shonen manga or anime series where the strongest woman is never allowed to be superior to a male.

    If a female character is better than a guy without controversy it will have to be with some caveat, like being a villain, not being the main protagonist or needing to be conventional attractive. The idea that a woman can be a good fighter and still be an idealistic paragon comparable to Superman or Captain America without being called a "mary sue" or whatever stupid term the internet comes up with is still seen as impossible.

  14. #59
    Leftbrownie Alpha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    5,275

    Default

    I wasn't arguing whether the DISC method was valid. I was explaining his definition of women being much more submissive. I will cite again his definition of Submission: warm of voluntary acceptance of the need to fulfill a request. When he talked about being submissive he wasn't saying "willing to be exploited", he was saying women were much more open and kind in doing things for others when they need it. But they wouldn't be easily disuaded for their goals and wouldn't willingly do something that the other person doesn't need, just for their pleasure. I don't see why this is problematic. The only problematic part is how he described this as if each gender had inherent qualities and aptitudes, instead of it being a individual characteristic that is formed out of a societal expectation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    Again, you cannot divorce from the fact that the author was clearly into BDSM and using the stories as an excuse to insert his kinks into his writing.
    But the stories don't contain any BDSM. No characters are being tied up in erotic situations. It's still weird, but it isn't erotic. Or more importantly, it's not exploitative. Thes stories are all about how women shouldn't let themselves be exploited, certainly not by men. And that women should only serve other women if they are kind, trustworthy and dignified. That's how he viewed submission. The willingness and openess to giving a service to someone that needs it.

    Here's a thought balloon line from issue #3 of the Marston run:
    "If girls want to be slaves there’s no harm in that. The bad thing for then is submitting to a master or to an evil mistress like Paula! A good mistress could do wonders with them!"
    Why is that sexist? She's saying you shouldn't be a slave to any master (man) or evil woman (like the villain Paula).
    Oh and let's not forget Marston's charming response to a female editor who had an issue with the amount of women getting tied or chained up in Marston's work.
    "OF COURSE I WOULDN’T EXPECT MISS ROUBICEK TO UNDERSTAND THIS…HAS BEEN IN COMICS ONLY 6 MONTHS OR SO, HASN’T SHE?"
    Hadn't seen that before. Definitely an A-hole and douche thing to say. But I'm not sure that was about her gender. Maybe it was, but it seems to me to be a writer with a big Ego being anmoyed at someone without much experience criticizing him.
    Marston was quoted as telling his editors that "women liked being submissive". It shouldn't matter if he showed them being bound by men or women more. The man clearly had some very troubling views regarding gender.
    Yeah I agree he had troubling views. His gender essentialism is very problematic. And even his obsession with the restraing and servecing part of BDSM is frankly weird to me although I can be compassionate to people who like that in their inner lives, and Marston certainly didn't seem to humiliate his partners nor be agressive with them I don't even think we know if it was him that tied up his wife and his lover, or if his wife tied him up and their lover. Maybe we do know that and I'm wrong.

    See again my above quote. Even leaving that aside, calling Diana a wrestler isn't any more accurate than calling Batman one just because they both occasionally use wrestling moves. Hell, most wrestling moves Diana uses could be lethal with her strength when used against human or less durable opponents.
    You said you might perhaps agree with my description of Diana's morality in combat, but you disliked my use of BDSM terminology. But I wasn't using BDSM terminology, I was using Wrestling terminology. Even if you don't think Diana should use those fighting techniques, it's helpful to use that terminology when describing how she thinks about combat.
    I'm trying to explain why I think Dominating her enemy, and subduing them, restraining them is a good way to describe her using non violent formd of combat until that doesn't work and she has to hurt them little so they grow weaker and more easily restrained.


    Like when?
    Let's leave the Gail Simone debate for another time, otherwise this gets too confusing.

  15. #60
    Leftbrownie Alpha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    5,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bardkeep View Post
    We got a modernized take on Marston's style of storytelling and world-building and it was All-Star Superman. The wacky sci-fi and magical realist elements; the lack of fighting; the erudition, curiosity, and fundamental goodness of the lead hero; the focus on pacifism, compassion, and reforming enemies over violence; the emphasis on inspiring others to do good; etc.

    In general the "ideal" characterization of Superman today falls in line with a lot of what Marston was trying to do, while modern Wonder Woman often acts a lot like Golden Age Superman (haughty, fists-first, punitive). Probably because the public can't handle a character who pushes back against the violent, toxically masculine way of doing things AND is a woman...
    I had never thought avout that, and I thnk it's a really freaking interesting thought. I think you are right. Hell, in the Marston era, the huge world out there in space was a huge part of Diana's adventures, and she was constantly travelling to space and other dimensions. Nowadays she rarely ever does, it's always about olympus and gods, and greek monsters, or human terrorists and wars.

    And she really does act like GA Superman in a lot of unpopular modern takes. That's totally true wow.

    I think there's only one thing you missed. The other thing Marston did was show Diana as someone that was in fact challenging the world one woman at the time. The Holliday Girls were the prime example. Diana wasn't just fighting for you rights, she was daring you and pushing you to challenge yourself and be the most awesome person you can be. She was taking the Holliday girls on scientifical researches around the world, training them physically, and there were lots of moment where she defended her philosophy.

    Other than the requisite WW2-era racism that all Golden Age comics had?

    The bondage kink isn't just something you can hand-wave away as a concession - it was a HUGE part of the GA WW comics. Nearly every story led to a completely unnecessary bondage/BDSM scenario that went way beyond what was symbolically significant, and it was woven into the fabric of the character (e.g. "Aphrodite's Law," which is an extremely creepy, gross weakness). It also came with the constant romanticization and/or trivialization of slavery, which is ridiculously problematic by today's standards. Just look at what I said above about All-Star Superman and compare that to how badly Morrison fumbled WW: Earth One when they were specifically trying to go back to Marston - the bondage themes were so all-consuming that it's hard to see anything past it.

    But even without the bondage elements, the biggest thing is just that she was a soapbox for an infantilizing, male gazey view of female supremacism embodied by Marston's Amazons. It's utterly inaccessible to me as a woman. Kelly Sue DeConnick said in an interview that one of the big reasons why she didn't like Marston's take is because "a pedestal is just a different kind of box," and I think she was dead on.
    We were just talking about gender, that's why I didn't bring up the racism

    People were constantly getting tied up yes, but it wasn't a constant reference to bondage games. Most of the time it was just about being exploitated. And even the bondage games that there are rarely sensual, and I don't think they are ever one sided, about women only. After all, Marston was showing that men themselves should learn compliance and serving dignified people.

    I agree that there were a lot of great things Marston was doing with the character that have been sadly lost. She should be, as you put it, a wrestler rather than a fighter who always subdues instead of fighting and aims to reform. She should be curious and fundamentally anti-establishment and her world should be as gay and gender-bendy and weird and vibrant as the publishers will let it be. It's deeply unfortunate that the character has been de-politicized, masculinized, and sterilized.

    But I do think Perez's take (+ stories that follow his), while VERY different, is arguably more intersectional and certainly resonates more with me. His Amazons aren't just an ideal but actual, flawed people, a culture working to build itself up after trauma at the hands of their oppressors, and it makes Diana's story about both healing and liberation. It's more nuanced and it speaks to all marginalized people rather than just addressing the surface-level gender politics that primarily interested Marston, plus Perez approached it all in a way that feels real and personal rather than clinical and propagandist. Arcs like The Circle and scenes like the Amazons returning to Man's World for the first time in millennia and removing their gauntlets are way more powerful than any hamfisted speech or fetishized bondage imagery. It's also why Historia is shaping up to be my favorite WW story of all time and why I really really hate Daddy Zeus/n52.
    Of course I agree with the first paragraph entirely.
    As for the second paragraph, I totally agree that Perez made the amazons far more earthly and personal, instead of being apostles for an ideology.

    The problem is that Perez's vision of the world was that we would much better off if someone was able to pacify us. All we needed was nurturing and peace. This was specially true of his take on Diana.

    And the reason why i dislike this is because he didn't write stories where it was important to challenge yourself to be your most spectacular self. Diana wasn't challenging the world, she was pacifying it. Pacifism and Nurturing.

    The amazons had gone through terrible trauma, and now all they wanted was peace. They didn't need to evolve, they didn't need to create all the amazing technologies and challenges they had in the Marston-Hummel era.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •