Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 187
  1. #61
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34,004

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    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.
    I'd say the last sentence pretty much sums up why it's problematic as well as why it isn't seen as scientifically valid.


    Why is that sexist? She's saying you shouldn't be a slave to any master (man) or evil woman (like the villain Paula).
    Being a slave is by definition submitting yourself to master. The act of slavery itself is inherently evil, there is no such thing as a "good" slave master.

    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 took issue with the term largely because it seemed to be only to emphasize the bdsm stuff. I can take it or leave it, it's people's obsession with this comic's bdsm roots that frankly just annoy me because it seems to be an albatross around Diana's neck.

    I'm not against Diana using subduing techniques. My argument is that this does not reflect the entirety or even majority of her fighting style.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    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.
    Peace and evolution are not mutually exclusive. The Perez run specifically points out that one can instigate the other.
    Last edited by Agent Z; 07-09-2022 at 02:01 AM.

  2. #62
    Leftbrownie Alpha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    5,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    I'd say the last sentence pretty much sums up why it's problematic as well as why it isn't seen as scientifically valid.
    Yes gender essentialism is a problem in Marston's speech. His definition of submission isn't problematic or sexist, and his reasoning for why people should be submissive isn't problematic

    Once again, his definition of submission is voluntary and warm acceptance of the need to fulfill a request. It's being supportive, giving a service that someone needs.

    He distinguished between Submission and Compliance. His definition of compliance is fearful adjustment to a superior force. He wasn't saying women were this, or that anyone should be.

    Being a slave is by definition submitting yourself to master. The act of slavery itself is inherently evil, there is no such thing as a "good" slave master.
    But it's not a sexist thought balloon.

    And I agree that using the term and imagery if slavery was awful, Marston really shouldn't have used the words slavery and submission because it's distasteful (at the very least) and can easily be misinterpreted, as I believe you have.

    I took issue with the term largely because it seemed to be only to emphasize the bdsm stuff. I can take it or leave it, it's people's obsession with this comic's bdsm roots that frankly just annoy me because it seems to be an albatross around Diana's neck.
    You thought it seemed to imply that, but it wasn't. It was a reference to the combat mentality in wrestling.

    And you are right that the majority of Wonder Woman fights aren't about subduing the enemy. And I think that's a problem, because that's not my Wonder Woman, and it certainly isn't Marston's Wonder Woman, nor William Messner-Loebs' Wonder Woman, nor is it Steve Orlando's Wonder Woman, and it shouldn't be Greg Rucka's Wonder Woman based on how talks about her, but he often enough wrote her as agressive in combat, with brief and good exceptions.

    Peace and evolution are not mutually exclusive. The Perez run specifically points out that one can instigate the other.
    Yup peace and evolution (or even challenging youself and others) aren't mutually exclusive. But he didn't write Wonder Woman as enthusiastically challenging herself and her allies, nor did he write the amazons as a civilization that challenged itself to evolve. That's my problem.

  3. #63
    Incredible Member bardkeep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Posts
    754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    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.
    Marston was very open about the erotic elements though. See this quote:

    "The only hope for peace is to teach people who are full of pep and unbound force to enjoy being bound... Only when the control of self by others is more pleasant than the unbound assertion of self in human relationships can we hope for a stable, peaceful human society... Giving to others, being controlled by them, submitting to other people cannot possibly be enjoyable without a strong erotic element."

    With that he had the intention of "sex love training" that was all about conditioning arousal by bondage so readers would be more receptive to and enthusiastic about it. That is...really not good, especially considering he was targeting children.

    And I agree that it wasn't JUST women, but it was definitely disproportionate and things like the Aphrodite's Law weakness are just outright misogynistic. Also it doesn't change the fact that one of his explicit intentions behind his comics was bondage porn. All of that has aged really, really poorly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    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.
    Greg Rucka kind of addressed your point about pacifism during a scene in his first run where Diana is debating with Ares - he's explaining that he's rebranded as a god of conflict and tells her, "Peace brings nothing but stagnation." Diana replies with this Spinoza quote: “Peace is not the absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition of benevolence, confidence, justice.” Maybe not quite the point Marston was making, but basically acknowledging that the peace she espouses is an active state rather than passive one and building the mindset of self-improvement into her mission.

    That said, I agree that Perez making the Amazons technologically backwards was a misguided choice and even though his run/mythos are definitive in my mind, his doe-eyed Diana definitely isn't. Ideally I think there's something between the two, and I like that Phil Jimenez was kinda going for it. Granted, GA comics weren't exactly nuanced or subtle, but a fundamental issue with Marston was the limits of his compassion - he really focused on changing the mindset of the oppressor, and he acknowledged the amount of un-learning that needs to happen on all sides for progress, but he was never totally compassionate toward the oppressed. Every woman (and every marginalized person in general) is fundamentally dealing with trauma, and the laser focus on challenge without nurturing is very paternalistic in a way that I don't love.

    Either way I think it's just about what parts of the character you connect with. I'm very drawn to the exploration of healing and liberation from cycles of trauma; some are very drawn to the idea of inspiring individual confidence and boldness. I also don't think those two things are mutually exclusive but we rarely see that middle ground.

  4. #64
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34,004

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    Yup peace and evolution (or even challenging youself and others) aren't mutually exclusive. But he didn't write Wonder Woman as enthusiastically challenging herself and her allies, nor did he write the amazons as a civilization that challenged itself to evolve. That's my problem.
    I don't see it that way.

  5. #65
    Leftbrownie Alpha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    5,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bardkeep View Post
    Marston was very open about the erotic elements though. See this quote:

    "The only hope for peace is to teach people who are full of pep and unbound force to enjoy being bound... Only when the control of self by others is more pleasant than the unbound assertion of self in human relationships can we hope for a stable, peaceful human society... Giving to others, being controlled by them, submitting to other people cannot possibly be enjoyable without a strong erotic element."
    I was gonna say that none of that sound erotic to me, until the last sentence when he explicitely said that erotism is what made that consensual restraint enjoyable. If that's what he said than thay must be what he intended.

    What I will say is that I often go back to read random stories from his run, and I still don't see anything erotic about them. So I guess that what he considered "porn" just doesn't seem like porn to me. Now I'm wondering if there's anyone out there that looks at those stories and is stimulated in an erotic manner. I guess Grant Morrison does.

    And I agree that it wasn't JUST women, but it was definitely disproportionate and things like the Aphrodite's Law weakness are just outright misogynistic. Also it doesn't change the fact that one of his explicit intentions behind his comics was bondage porn. All of that has aged really, really poorly.
    Aphrodite's law is a message worth thinking about, but covered in a unideal metaphor. I definitely don't want it back, but I'm not troubled by it. That's me though and I can understand why it bothers others.

    Greg Rucka kind of addressed your point about pacifism during a scene in his first run where Diana is debating with Ares - he's explaining that he's rebranded as a god of conflict and tells her, "Peace brings nothing but stagnation." Diana replies with this Spinoza quote: “Peace is not the absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition of benevolence, confidence, justice.” Maybe not quite the point Marston was making, but basically acknowledging that the peace she espouses is an active state rather than passive one and building the mindset of self-improvement into her mission.
    The fact that peace isn't just about inaction but instead something you have to constantly work towards maintaining doesn't address my problem with "Perez' crusade to pacifying the world".

    Look at someone like Vanessa Kapatelis. Even though she is a written very intimately, and Diana is a great friend to her, it doesn't equal the project Diana was following with the Holliday Girls. Diana helped Vanessa overcome find security, self knowledge, maturity and solace. Which is good. But she didn't challenge Vanessa

    Despite all the people that felt Cassie Sandsmark was a superficial and inferior replacement, I would argue Diana tried to challenge Cassie fae more than she did with Vanessa, even before she became Wonder Girl.

    Granted, GA comics weren't exactly nuanced or subtle, but a fundamental issue with Marston was the limits of his compassion - he really focused on changing the mindset of the oppressor, and he acknowledged the amount of un-learning that needs to happen on all sides for progress, but he was never totally compassionate toward the oppressed. Every woman (and every marginalized person in general) is fundamentally dealing with trauma, and the laser focus on challenge without nurturing is very paternalistic in a way that I don't love.
    I might have to look back at those stories from that perspective, do I think they are paternalistic. You might be right, I don't know yet

    Either way I think it's just about what parts of the character you connect with. I'm very drawn to the exploration of healing and liberation from cycles of trauma; some are very drawn to the idea of inspiring individual confidence and boldness. I also don't think those two things are mutually exclusive but we rarely see that middle ground.
    And I want both things. I feel like all that fans clamor for is the nurturing side of Diana, and ignore her ability to challenge her friends to be bold, not just in a physical manner, but also by pushing them intelectually, spiritually and emotionally. She should help them get out of their comfort zone (if they consent)

  6. #66
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34,004

    Default

    And you are right that the majority of Wonder Woman fights aren't about subduing the enemy. And I think that's a problem, because that's not my Wonder Woman, and it certainly isn't Marston's Wonder Woman, nor William Messner-Loebs' Wonder Woman, nor is it Steve Orlando's Wonder Woman, and it shouldn't be Greg Rucka's Wonder Woman based on how talks about her, but he often enough wrote her as agressive in combat, with brief and good exceptions.
    I haven't read a single instance where Rucka had Diana be unnecessarily aggressive against an opponent she could otherwise easily subdue. Using force is itself an act of aggression anyway and even when she was fighting to kill she showed relative restraint. It feels like you're villifying his Diana simply because she doesn't act exactly like Marston's version.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    I was gonna say that none of that sound erotic to me, until the last sentence when he explicitely said that erotism is what made that consensual restraint enjoyable. If that's what he said than thay must be what he intended.

    What I will say is that I often go back to read random stories from his run, and I still don't see anything erotic about them. So I guess that what he considered "porn" just doesn't seem like porn to me. Now I'm wondering if there's anyone out there that looks at those stories and is stimulated in an erotic manner. I guess Grant Morrison does.
    Some people may not find something erotic but that doesn't mean the intent wasn't there. I know some readers who don't find the rubber spine poses that were so common in the 90s and 2000s appealing but that doesn't mean they weren't there for titillation. I'm surprised this is new information to you since Marston was very open about this stuff and it comes up almost every time he is discussed. It's practically a running gag.



    And I want both things. I feel like all that fans clamor for is the nurturing side of Diana, and ignore her ability to challenge her friends to be bold, not just in a physical manner, but also by pushing them intelectually, spiritually and emotionally. She should help them get out of their comfort zone (if they consent)
    With all due respect, you seem to be far too caught up with the methodology rather than the results. it also feels like you're making Perez's message far more sinister than it actually is.
    Last edited by Agent Z; 07-10-2022 at 02:51 AM.

  7. #67
    Leftbrownie Alpha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    5,275

    Default

    Sinister? There's nothing sinister about Perez wanting people to love themselves and each other. Of course it's a good thing.

    But Wonder Woman was way more than that in the 40s, and there's no reason why she shouldn't be more than that today. She should help the world be full of love, and work to constantly maintain peace, but she should also agitate people, push them, to be bold with themselves.

    In the GA she was turning the Holliday Girls into new amazons. She would takr them on a research the learn about atoms, and then Queen Atomia would appear out of nowhere and they would have to fight her. And she would take them on training sessions, teaching them how to lift heavy things, swim really well, defend themselves from bullets. And she would talk about war, gender, love, etc. And she would disagree with them, but she would also listen to them

    A good example for me is how Diana should be among her teammates. She wouldn't just help Superman grieve, she would ask him what purpose he thinks he serves in life and if he is doing everything he wants to do, or just what others will accept of him. She wouldn't just tell him he's great and that she's sorry he has a hard time (though she would also do that).

  8. #68
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34,004

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post

    A good example for me is how Diana should be among her teammates. She wouldn't just help Superman grieve, she would ask him what purpose he thinks he serves in life and if he is doing everything he wants to do, or just what others will accept of him. She wouldn't just tell him he's great and that she's sorry he has a hard time (though she would also do that).
    That would be a horrible thing to say to someone who is grieving.

  9. #69
    Leftbrownie Alpha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    5,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    That would be a horrible thing to say to someone who is grieving.
    What are you talking about? I was talking about how she would help Superman in different instances. Those werre distinct events

  10. #70
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34,004

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpha View Post
    What are you talking about? I was talking about how she would help Superman in different instances. Those werre distinct events
    A good example for me is how Diana should be among her teammates. She wouldn't just help Superman grieve, she would ask him what purpose he thinks he serves in life and if he is doing everything he wants to do, or just what others will accept of him. She wouldn't just tell him he's great and that she's sorry he has a hard time (though she would also do that).
    You made it sound as if Diana would be saying all this while talking to a grieving Superman, which would make her seem incredibly insensitive and callous to a person in distress.

    Even then, a Diana who talks like this all the time can easily come across as smug, condescending and insufferable, which is exactly how she's viewed by a number of people already.

  11. #71
    Leftbrownie Alpha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    5,275

    Default

    Hum okay, so you dislike that particular suggestion, then focus on the examples I gave about the Holliday Girls

  12. #72
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,246

    Default

    Wonder Woman and the rest of the JL will be back by Dark Crisis #5:


  13. #73

    Default

    Really hope they're not going to try passing that stupid new outfit as her official costume going forward. Diet screaming chicken armor.

    Anyway...we all knew the League would be back. Whoopti-whoop. Can't wait for the big splash panel and Diana doing nothing of value for the rest of the series.

    Waste of time.

  14. #74
    Ultimate Member Gaius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Occupied Klendathu
    Posts
    12,881

    Default

    It definitely won't stick around anymore than the dumb blue highlights from Death Metal did, I wouldn't worry lol.

  15. #75
    Fishy Member I'm a Fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    The Ocean
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    What was the purpose of this event again?
    ~I just keep swimming through these threads~

Posting Permissions

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