Thoughts on Wonder Woman killing Maxwell Lord

[WonderLight789]

Mine as well. It's simply maintaining practices so commonplace they don't even always register as problematic. Once it's recognized and policies/practices are changed, you can hopefully start to work it out of the system. That's the basic idea anyway, from what I recall of those classes.



I'm obviously not saying anyone should respect the sexist opinions that shaped Diana's history. But all the stories and characters that made us love her are part of that same history. We can respect the character's journey and what she's grown into without condoning the sexism that played a role in shaping it, or allowing that attitude to continue. We can respect the work by good creators and the world/s they built. Do right by her with quality stories and strong roles in major events, put quality talent on her. That's what will drive the remnants of sexism out of the franchise, not saying she can bench press as much as somebody else.



Yeah them and everybody else. DC's heavy handed editorial happens to everyone. Remember the stories during the New52 that came out of the Bat office? Nightmarish. DC has absolutely screwed over Diana more than the others, and they definitely struggle to understand her more than the rest, but we can't lay the blame for that entirely on sexism either. Once upon a time, yeah obviously it was. Not even all that long ago really. But a lot of it now isn't sexism, it's just basic incompetence. That's worthy of its own derision, but not the "sexism" label.



And what's inherently sexist about Diana being stronger than every other hero on the planet, all the men included, except one? We know the people who originally made the choice were sexist yes, but the idea that there's one person stronger than her and it just happens to be a dude, on its own, isn't. It'd only be sexism if he was stronger *because* he was male. That was the case, then. Is it the case now? Is DC, now, really saying Diana's not stronger only because she's a woman? Because I don't know if I buy that. And if Diana's not #2 now because of sexism, then why is it a problem?



Because in real life you can get rid of the people, change the policy, and start fresh (again, just simplifying for discussion). You can't do that with these characters. Change your policy, hire quality people of diverse and varied backgrounds and opinions, do all the right things at the office, and you still have characters shaped during less enlightened times. Seems to me we don't fix that just by saying Diana has better stats. We fix that by doing a better job of writing the character. The video game style semantics of power ranking is an illusion. Everyone at DC gets a crown to wear, "best at X" and otherwise it's just narrative. Diana's always as strong/fast/durable as the story needs her to be. Her strength level isn't a problem, it's when her strength level is handled poorly because she's a woman that it becomes an issue.



Clearly I've always come down on the "spiritually" side of it. Marston started off with the idea to call her Suprema or however he spelled it, and likely intended a 1:1 basis when he first started, but since Diana ended up with skills, resources, and powers Clark didn't have, and he had things she'd didn't, I'd guess everyone settled on the idea of "different but equal." So that's the approach I take with her. I'm less interested in whether she's exactly as strong as some guy from a totally different franchise and more interested in seeing the unique elements she brings to the table used to their fullest. I demand that she be equally capable, not that she do all the exact same things the exact same way.



Which was what, twenty five years ago or more? Back when Berganza was still kicking around? Assuming my memory is correct and DC did put actual effort into rectifying their poor choices, Phil would've been long before that. Unless this is a more recent development I missed? In any case, it seems DC changed their mind on this and embraced Diana's "best warrior" crown. They went overboard with that for a while (still do sometimes), but policy seems to have changed since Phil. I don't give DC any points for being so heavy handed on warrior woman, but I do give them points for putting the crown squarely on her head.

If she is number 2 because of the sexism of the past, then it is still sexist. And DC themselves put themselves in that position, by saying WW is equal to SM so many times. Well, put your money where your mouth is then. Also she is not secind strongest. These days aquaman matches her and even surpasses hger in strength feats and when they have fought. And that is jusr one of many other examples of characters being stronger than her these days. Sexism. And why don't you take this conversation to the thread about ppossible signs of sexism? or the power level one?

[Rightoya]

Mine as well. It's simply maintaining practices so commonplace they don't even always register as problematic. Once it's recognized and policies/practices are changed, you can hopefully start to work it out of the system. That's the basic idea anyway, from what I recall of those classes.

But then keeping Wonder Woman weaker for traditional reasons would be an example of institutionalized sexism, wouldn't it be?

I'm obviously not saying anyone should respect the sexist opinions that shaped Diana's history. But all the stories and characters that made us love her are part of that same history. We can respect the character's journey and what she's grown into without condoning the sexism that played a role in shaping it, or allowing that attitude to continue. We can respect the work by good creators and the world/s they built. Do right by her with quality stories and strong roles in major events, put quality talent on her. That's what will drive the remnants of sexism out of the franchise, not saying she can bench press as much as somebody else.

Yeah them and everybody else. DC's heavy handed editorial happens to everyone. Remember the stories during the New52 that came out of the Bat office? Nightmarish. DC has absolutely screwed over Diana more than the others, and they definitely struggle to understand her more than the rest, but we can't lay the blame for that entirely on sexism either. Once upon a time, yeah obviously it was. Not even all that long ago really. But a lot of it now isn't sexism, it's just basic incompetence. That's worthy of its own derision, but not the "sexism" label.

And what's inherently sexist about Diana being stronger than every other hero on the planet, all the men included, except one?

But i don't know anything where it was actually important that Wonder Woman is weaker than Superman that is worthy to get respected, on the contrary that were very often very disrespectful portrayals of Wonder Woman.

I think it is a combination of incompetence and institutionalized sexism in modern times, and a few times maybe even active sexism or other active malicious practices.

That we are talking about a female character who got specifically created to be not weaker than specifically that man as a proto-feminist symbol against sexism, but they did it anyway for 100% sexist reasons. Marston was not ambigious about that in any way:

“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.”

― William Moulton Marston

We know the people who originally made the choice were sexist yes, but the idea that there's one person stronger than her and it just happens to be a dude, on its own, isn't. It'd only be sexism if he was stronger *because* he was male.

That was the case, then. Is it the case now? Is DC, now, really saying Diana's not stronger only because she's a woman? Because I don't know if I buy that. And if Diana's not #2 now because of sexism, then why is it a problem?

But that is the reason why he was stronger, and we know that.

I still don't get this idea that there is secretly a different not sexist reason now, which reason should that even be, and why did DC never told anyone?

Because in real life you can get rid of the people, change the policy, and start fresh (again, just simplifying for discussion). You can't do that with these characters. Change your policy, hire quality people of diverse and varied backgrounds and opinions, do all the right things at the office, and you still have characters shaped during less enlightened times.

Seems to me we don't fix that just by saying Diana has better stats.

We fix that by doing a better job of writing the character. The video game style semantics of power ranking is an illusion. Everyone at DC gets a crown to wear, "best at X" and otherwise it's just narrative. Diana's always as strong/fast/durable as the story needs her to be. Her strength level isn't a problem, it's when her strength level is handled poorly because she's a woman that it becomes an issue.

It sounds a lot easier to me to just change a silly decision like making the fictional character Wonder Woman weaker than the fictional character Superman, than to getting rid of several real people, changing several policies, and starting fresh as an entire company.

But we fix that specific sexist decision from the past by just doing that.

But doing other things also better gets not in any way hindered by that easy fix, or what am i missing?

Clearly I've always come down on the "spiritually" side of it. Marston started off with the idea to call her Suprema or however he spelled it, and likely intended a 1:1 basis when he first started, but since Diana ended up with skills, resources, and powers Clark didn't have, and he had things she'd didn't, I'd guess everyone settled on the idea of "different but equal." So that's the approach I take with her. I'm less interested in whether she's exactly as strong as some guy from a totally different franchise and more interested in seeing the unique elements she brings to the table used to their fullest. I demand that she be equally capable, not that she do all the exact same things the exact same way

Which was what, twenty five years ago or more? Back when Berganza was still kicking around? Assuming my memory is correct and DC did put actual effort into rectifying their poor choices, Phil would've been long before that. Unless this is a more recent development I missed?

In any case, it seems DC changed their mind on this and embraced Diana's "best warrior" crown. They went overboard with that for a while (still do sometimes), but policy seems to have changed since Phil. I don't give DC any points for being so heavy handed on warrior woman, but I do give them points for putting the crown squarely on her head.

Yeah, but DC is clearly far too incompetent for that even f they would get rid of the institutionalized sexism problem, and the whole skill idea for example was almost always just an irrrelevant excuse. So it needs something much easier and more clear-cut, like if Superman can bench-press the Earth and Wonder Woman can just bench press the Venus, Wonder Woman is explicitly faster than Superman.

That the editorial did not even stepped in to stop obviously disrespectful trash like this during Rebirth 2018 as just 1 of many examples:



tells me that the problem most certainly not disappeared 20 years ago.

How did they gave her that crown by never showing anything that would even make her the best warrior, and showing far less impressive skill portrayals than 20 years ago if at all? Best warrior is just another vague term without even defining what it means to be a warrior, and i definitively have a much easier time to believe that she is the best warrior after looking at these full fights:





than after looking at basically anything she did since and including flashpoint, but even back than i would say the likes of Karate Kid or Cassandra Cain were at least the best unarmed warriors of DC, and would bet there were also more impressive armed warriors.

[Guy_McNichts]

Which was what, twenty five years ago or more? Back when Berganza was still kicking around? Assuming my memory is correct and DC did put actual effort into rectifying their poor choices, Phil would've been long before that. Unless this is a more recent development I missed? In any case, it seems DC changed their mind on this and embraced Diana's "best warrior" crown. They went overboard with that for a while (still do sometimes), but policy seems to have changed since Phil. I don't give DC any points for being so heavy handed on warrior woman, but I do give them points for putting the crown squarely on her head.

Well, there's still making Zeus her father and the source of her power. That extends beyond the New 52. I still remember, during the summer when her first movie came out and was a huge hit, if you were to pick up an issue of Wonder Woman, you were likely to find Zeus fighting Darkseid while Diana literally sits on the sideline thinking about how amazing it is to have him as a father.
Speaking of that dismal time...lest we forget her twin brother, who they tried to push as more powerful than her with better armor.

And just the fact that, though they may say Diana is the "best warrior," they tend not to show it in any convincing way.

Things may have changed since Jimenez's time, but let's not pretend DC isn't still looking for any opportunity or excuse to remind audiences that Diana is below the big boys and/or dependent on the men in her life.

[Ascended]

But then keeping Wonder Woman weaker for traditional reasons would be an example of institutionalized sexism, wouldn't it be?

Maybe? I don't know, that's the question I'm looking at. I don't think serialized fiction can work the same way real institutionalism does because the characters will bring their history with them no matter what, you can't get rid of it like you can bad employees or policy. DC can say Diana is stronger, but that won't actually get rid of anything. Nobody will forget what's been on the page just because DC puts that crown on her head. Fire someone like Berganza and their behavior and policy goes out the door with them, but we can't change our memories of the stories we've read, and those are what define the characters. So yeah, DC can say Diana's stronger, but I don't know if that actually tackles the real problem, or would even accomplish anything at all. I think it just sounds good, but doesn't actually do anything.

But i don't know anything where it was actually important that Wonder Woman is weaker than Superman

I don't think I've ever read a story where that mattered either. It matters as far as DC's crowns go, and there's minor marketing elements there and it helps with navigating the DCU in a way, but that's it. So since it's never really mattered much in the fiction what does changing it accomplish? Put the "strong" crown on Diana's head and all you're giving her is bragging rights the story itself never pays attention to, which is mostly all those crowns are anyway. That's not going to improve her stories or make old ones somehow better, and bad stories are the real issue are they not?

I think it is a combination of incompetence and institutionalized sexism in modern times, and a few times maybe even active sexism or other active malicious practices.

Even if I'm right and DC has started to make the right changes, that process doesn't happen quickly so I'm sure there's still chunks of institutionalism in the mix and I'm sure the office wasn't purged of every small person, some almost certainly slipped through the cracks. Fixing institutional bigotry is a long and difficult effort. I'm giving DC hypothetical points for starting the process, assuming they actually did like I think I remember hearing, but that doesn't mean the effort is finished.

But we fix that specific sexist decision from the past by just doing that.

Does it actually fix anything? Will people look at Diana differently? Will her stories improve? Will her history really change? Will she gain more fans? Her strength isn't the problem, at best it's a symptom of the real disease, at worst it's a distraction.

Let's say I'm wrong here, which I could be. Let's say tomorrow DC says that Diana is the strongest. What changes? How are her stories better for it? If I'm wrong tell me where things will improve because she has that crown. Does DC suddenly understand her, because she can bench press just a tiny bit more? Will that make them put smarter creators on the book who are a better fit? If I'm not reading her book right now, what about her wearing that crown is going to make me start buying again?

So it needs something much easier and more clear-cut, like if Superman can bench-press the Earth and Wonder Woman can just bench press the Venus, Wonder Woman is explicitly faster than Superman.

I've suggested tweaking Diana's powerset to better accomplish this, it does not go over well. Too many of her fans are obsessed with this one thing. I've suggested giving her basically every power she's ever had back plus a few others pulled from similar myths, leaning into the unique skills and traits she has, all of it deeply rooted in her own history and archetypes, none of actually taking away anything she currently has, but if she's not wearing the "strong" crown nothing else matters to some of these folks.

And for the record I didn't want her wearing the "warrior" crown anyway. I thought there were better options. For a time, between the "army nurse" origins of Diana Prince and stuff like the purple ray and Diana's natural inclination towards diplomacy and reconciliation, I wanted to see her wearing the "healer" crown; the person who is best at saving the body *and* the spirit. Seemed apt for the hero who, back in the day, made a habit of helping villains rehabilitate and had the coolest medical tech in comics. Not a "doctor" but the hero who heals wounds of all kinds, y'know? Somebody gets hurt in a fight she'll zap him with a ray and heal him yeah, but she'd also be the one negotiating peace agreements between waring nations, ending feuds between mothers and daughters, stuff like that. Kinda gave up on the idea when I realized it didn't look as good on a splash page.

That the editorial did not even stepped in to stop obviously disrespectful trash like this during Rebirth 2018 as just 1 of many examples:

And someone else could post a panel where Diana's awesome. Those do exist. And I'm not arguing that the quality has improved drastically, merely that sexism doesn't appear to be as much a motivator as it was and trying to beat the rest of it out of the franchise by giving her the "strong" crown is not going to accomplish the goal, it's just feel-good theatrics. And as I recall, a lot of the moments where Diana gets to showcase her combat prowess and show why she deserves that crown got decried by her own fans as too much "warrior woman." Takeaway seems to be that her fans will only accept the "strong" crown on her head, and that's just not gonna happen. At best she and Clark could both wear it and be officially tied for #1. That'd probably be fine but I get the feeling it wouldn't really make anyone happy unless it came with higher quality stories and better treatment, and those aren't actually related things. One does not require the other.

[WonderLight789]

Maybe? I don't know, that's the question I'm looking at. I don't think serialized fiction can work the same way real institutionalism does because the characters will bring their history with them no matter what, you can't get rid of it like you can bad employees or policy. DC can say Diana is stronger, but that won't actually get rid of anything. Nobody will forget what's been on the page just because DC puts that crown on her head. Fire someone like Berganza and their behavior and policy goes out the door with them, but we can't change our memories of the stories we've read, and those are what define the characters. So yeah, DC can say Diana's stronger, but I don't know if that actually tackles the real problem, or would even accomplish anything at all. I think it just sounds good, but doesn't actually do anything.



I don't think I've ever read a story where that mattered either. It matters as far as DC's crowns go, and there's minor marketing elements there and it helps with navigating the DCU in a way, but that's it. So since it's never really mattered much in the fiction what does changing it accomplish? Put the "strong" crown on Diana's head and all you're giving her is bragging rights the story itself never pays attention to, which is mostly all those crowns are anyway. That's not going to improve her stories or make old ones somehow better, and bad stories are the real issue are they not?



Even if I'm right and DC has started to make the right changes, that process doesn't happen quickly so I'm sure there's still chunks of institutionalism in the mix and I'm sure the office wasn't purged of every small person, some almost certainly slipped through the cracks. Fixing institutional bigotry is a long and difficult effort. I'm giving DC hypothetical points for starting the process, assuming they actually did like I think I remember hearing, but that doesn't mean the effort is finished.



Does it actually fix anything? Will people look at Diana differently? Will her stories improve? Will her history really change? Will she gain more fans? Her strength isn't the problem, at best it's a symptom of the real disease, at worst it's a distraction.

Let's say I'm wrong here, which I could be. Let's say tomorrow DC says that Diana is the strongest. What changes? How are her stories better for it? If I'm wrong tell me where things will improve because she has that crown. Does DC suddenly understand her, because she can bench press just a tiny bit more? Will that make them put smarter creators on the book who are a better fit? If I'm not reading her book right now, what about her wearing that crown is going to make me start buying again?



I've suggested tweaking Diana's powerset to better accomplish this, it does not go over well. Too many of her fans are obsessed with this one thing. I've suggested giving her basically every power she's ever had back plus a few others pulled from similar myths, leaning into the unique skills and traits she has, all of it deeply rooted in her own history and archetypes, none of actually taking away anything she currently has, but if she's not wearing the "strong" crown nothing else matters to some of these folks.

And for the record I didn't want her wearing the "warrior" crown anyway. I thought there were better options. For a time, between the "army nurse" origins of Diana Prince and stuff like the purple ray and Diana's natural inclination towards diplomacy and reconciliation, I wanted to see her wearing the "healer" crown; the person who is best at saving the body *and* the spirit. Seemed apt for the hero who, back in the day, made a habit of helping villains rehabilitate and had the coolest medical tech in comics. Not a "doctor" but the hero who heals wounds of all kinds, y'know? Somebody gets hurt in a fight she'll zap him with a ray and heal him yeah, but she'd also be the one negotiating peace agreements between waring nations, ending feuds between mothers and daughters, stuff like that. Kinda gave up on the idea when I realized it didn't look as good on a splash page.



And someone else could post a panel where Diana's awesome. Those do exist. And I'm not arguing that the quality has improved drastically, merely that sexism doesn't appear to be as much a motivator as it was and trying to beat the rest of it out of the franchise by giving her the "strong" crown is not going to accomplish the goal, it's just feel-good theatrics. And as I recall, a lot of the moments where Diana gets to showcase her combat prowess and show why she deserves that crown got decried by her own fans as too much "warrior woman." Takeaway seems to be that her fans will only accept the "strong" crown on her head, and that's just not gonna happen. At best she and Clark could both wear it and be officially tied for #1. That'd probably be fine but I get the feeling it wouldn't really make anyone happy unless it came with higher quality stories and better treatment, and those aren't actually related things. One does not require the other.

What would change for Diana if she was made stronger? A lot. Being portrayed as not a helpless ant next to superman would be a great improvement for her current situation. Also nobody cares about DC saying she is the strongest or the best warrior. Tast's just lipservice and we have plenty of it. We care about them actually showing the things they claim. Put their money where their mouth is. Which is what they don't do. When was the last time WW wasn't easily destroyed by superman or a superman villain in a canon comic or a big project like that jl movie? When was the last time that the so called greatest warrior in DC, actually showed great combat technique in battle? When was the last time that her skills made any difference in a battle?

Also again. In a world where aquaman can match her and beat her in strength, she is not second strongest. So she doesn't even have that. And the things that could help her compensate that like skills and gear never really make a difference, so yes. DC still treats her badly and in a sexist way.

[marhawkman]

An issue with Diana's powers relative to Superman is less the literal one-to-one scaling, but the function and purpose in the story.
To put it another way, if we are to call Wonder Woman equal to Superman, do we mean that literally or essentially?

To use video game balance as an example...
You have a game with multiple characters to play as. Say one has high stats in offensive power, but is low in defense or speed. Meanwhile, there's another character who has high speed, but a low attack power. In the grand scheme, the two characters are effectively equal...you can easily beat the game with either one of them...but they have particular strengths/weaknesses.

I imagine that is what most Wonder Woman fans want in regard to her and Superman.
Though I know some want exact one-to-one equal, "If Superman can lift this much and move this fast, Diana must therefore lift the exact same and be just as fast," I think the majority who want her to be Superman's equal want it in the sense of "They have strengths and weaknesses that balance out."
Ultimately, if Superman can prevail in the story, Diana should be able to even if it's not in the same manner. Like how you can easily beat the game with either character, there should be nothing either of them can't overcome.

The problem is too many creators in DC have crafted stories that go out of their way to demonstrate in no uncertain terms, "If Superman can't prevail, NO ONE can...least of all Wonder Woman."
"If Superman turned evil, NO ONE can stop him...certainly not Wonder Woman."
"If Superman's not around, EVERYONE dies...Diana the first to drop."

That goes beyond "Superman is the strongest hero because that's his gimmick and we have to preserve it." That's "Wonder Woman has her place and we'll be damned if it threatens our boys in any way."
Look no further than Phil Jimenez revealing, when he wanted to establish Diana is the best fighter, the editors insisted she can only be the best fighter *on the ground*

Even the thing she should be best at comes with an asterisk.

I don't care if Superman can lift a 1000 tons while Diana can only lift 999 tons. That's arbitrary and semantics.
I do care about stories where Diana can hit guys like Mongul or Steppenwulf with everything she has and still fail...only for Superman to swoop in and beat them with ease. I care when Wonder Woman's function in the DC universe is to be the 'close, but not quite good enough' hero.

And the fact she so often falls into that role does stem from sexism on some level.


The real solution, if you refuse to portray them as equals, is to keep them in separate universes so they can both be all they can be within their own contexts. That way Superman can be the one and only that the Earth depends on. Diana can be the best and strongest woman she was created to be.
Some people might call that merely being the big fish in a small pond, but if putting said fish in the ocean means chaining it to the bottom and refusing to feed it...yeah, the small pond might be better.

To "try" and divert this bac to the original topic... WW saved Superman from Max Lord. All this useless kibitzing about power scaling doesn't change that.

[DABellWrites]

The film pretty much canonized the Zeus origin in the public eye, regardless of what sort of damage control and retconning the comics try to do. "Daughter of Zeus" is her standard byline these days - it's completely supplanted the defining maternal narrative.

There's also the stubbornness of the sword/shield, which I think is just an extension of the issue - removing the things that make her unique, obscuring or removing her core themes, and suiting her to a more palatable archetype, i.e. the generic "proud warrior race guy except female." I don't mind her using the sword when the occasion calls for it, but when it's the staple of her aesthetic it tends to define her characterization.

But I'll give you current comics continuity, where the lack of stories that actually have anything to say just comes down to bad/mediocre writing. At least we have Historia, which IMO is exactly the type of story WW exists to tell.



That's how institutional -isms work, though. Social structures and cultural narratives develop to accommodate and instill biases, and over time those biases become ubiquitous and so thoroughly woven into the fabric of our culture that they're invisible. And it doesn't change on its own. This example is gonna seem really hyperbolic given the context but just look at how much racial segregation persists in the US - the most literal, obvious factors enforcing it (Jim Crow laws) were repealed in the '60s but that doesn't mean racism is no longer the problem.

That may be a stupidly complex explanation for a subject so inane, I'm just saying that's how culture operates. Biases are unconsciously ingrained on both structural and individual levels. The fact that she's perpetually 2nd isn't just an isolated fact now that overt sexism isn't quite as rampant as it used to be.

I'm sure if you were to do a poll most people don't know Diana's origins like they do Spider-Man, Superman, and Batman.