Wonder Woman and The Better Girl Principle.

[brettc1]

Interesting points. But with regard to the mentors at least, the point is not that the female protagonist is tutored by men, but rather that all her significant mentoring is done by men. In other words, that women are incapable of producing the kind of mature outcome you correctly identify.

I see a value to talking about this. It does identify a certain prejudice in our thinking. After all, how many male heroes are raised with female mentors? We could talk about social norms that make this unlikely in our current society, but even in works of fiction dealing with fantasy, futuristic events or alien cultures, the overwhelming tendency is for mentor to be male. The idea of a Luke Skywalker being trained by a Bernadette Kenobi seems as remote a possibility now as it would have 30 years ago. Even on the Jedi Council of the Prequel movies, only ten years old, everybody who says something of value is a male.

The paradigm here is pretty apparent.

Male heroes are trained by male mentors.

Female heroes are mostly trained by male mentors.

A very few female heroes are trained by female mentors.

There are no male heroes who have been trained by female mentors. At least none I can think of, which means if there are any they must make up a very small percentage.

What would have been really cool in the previous continuity is having a character like Tom Tresser trained by Amazons.

[chlj1]

As I said, her Anazon training is not absent but her training with Ares is given more weight.

The one page above where they share space is one of about four pages where she is shown with the Amazons at all. The rest of the book is about the training she gets from the god of War. Training she will need to defeat the big bad. She also takes command of the Amazons not as Queen but as War God. Add to that the act of Zeus blood and the overwhelming source of most of her power is men.

When she meets up with Lennox he also becomes a mentor figure. As does Hermes for a time. Both these men give her help on numerous occasions, as do Orion and Hephaestus.

Breaking the book down, here are the women appearing so far and their status as to how they contribute to the story

Zola - positive, rarely helpful.
Hippolyta - positive, removed after issue 4
Aleka - negative, hates Diana and men
Amazons - negative man hating feminazis
Hera - negative, jealous to point of murdering Sirraca's mother, becomes nicer hanging with Diana
Strife - negative, manipulative, nasty, stick thin party girl
Hades daughters - negative, bloodthirsty Daddy's girls
Persephone - negative, helpless victim
Artemis - negative for most of the run, tries to kill Diana twice, stands in her brothers shadow
Cassandra - negative, murders, tortures
Aphrodite - neutral
Sirraca - initially negative, becomes positive

I have to agree with you!! The reboot of WW has going out of the way to make the female characters negative!! WW birth was a gift from the gods!! Now she's the product of an affair with a marry man. In WW past comics and even her solo Dvd she always stood against war, now she is the god of war. Reading preview from her future stories she will become what she fought against, a blood thirsty, murdering war God!! This has confirmed my theory, that DC and the writer of her solo comics planned all long to make her into a dark character a anti-hero, a anti-hero outside of the DC hero world!! Not really a part of the big three!! She may become a foe for all the heroes in the DC world a dark force, maybe even a villain. Instead of being a positive symbol for women, she will become a negative symbol for women!! I guess a women can't be raised by women and mentor by women and be positive!! I agree that the male characters have been shown to be more important to WW development as a person than any of the women characters!!

[Silvanus]

Making people better is not a uniquely feminist trait. That would be a humanist.

It's not uniquely feminist, no, But when a woman's particular brand of "bettering" others consists, in large part, of helping women discover their strength and independence (as Wonder Woman does with Hera, for instance, or with Etta in the old days), she's doing some work that feminists value and with which they identify. I didn't think this claim would be controversial; clearly, Wonder Woman became a feminist icon early on , and clearly, part of that is because the character inspired both fictional and real women to defy stereotypes and become what they wanted to be, whether that conformed with gender expectations or not. To the degree that she helps men step away from stereotypically male attitudes (as I think she has tried to do with Orion and Hades), that's also work that many feminists would identify with, since there are many feminists who think that patriarchy's overly rigid gender roles have been bad for men, too.

The point with the goddesses is negated by the fact that they appear in human form and are capable of change at all.

Complicated, perhaps, but not negated. First, note that several of Azz's and Chiang's redesigns have served to make the gods appear less human, or at least less like normal humans. Second, recall several important lines--Her'as about not being able to forgive even if she wants to, Ares (in the same issue, #4) about gods' fats being in the hands of mortals, Demeter's about nature's neutrality as to the character of those bringing in the harvest--remind us that the gods are constructs or representations, with limited freedom. There's no reason this has to mean that they can absolutely never change; cultural constructs do change over time, though they lag behind reality and may need a push. And being "the original crime family" doesn't make them flesh and blood; they're "original" as in protypical or archetypal.

Also, while I think we've agreed to disagree about the significance of the Amzons' role in Diana's combat training, I want to note that Diana herself disagrees with the claim that she has received no significant mentoring form women; she was very explicit, when she visited clay Hippolyta, in giving her mother credit for teaching her to be strong and independent. I think we saw some of that at the beginning of issue 0; despite her concern for Diana, Hippoltya let her stand on her own two feet and earn her celebration, according to Amazon tradition. Hera also gives her some decent advice about asserting her queenship in the most recent issue. Perhaps most importantly as a a defense against the "better girl" critique, in issue #4 Wonder Woman allows herself to be guided by Zola, who, because of a lack of family, has a clearer appreciation of the value of family, which lead Diana to want to reconcile with her mother and sisters. A "better girl" would never be guided int hat way her inferior, right?

By the way, I think a lot of the difference in our opinions of the book's treatment of women come down to our different reactions to Zola,the only (apparently) human woman in the book. Your reaction to her and mind are both valid reactions--neither is wrong--but, for what it's worth, here's how I see her: Since the beginning, her spunk and grit, while she's in way over her head, have made her the second most appealing character in the book. She's a young woman with some major issues that can't all be blamed on the gods, but she's also a survivor who has had to raise herself. And, while she's not "useful" in a conventional superhero sense (simply because she's an ordinary mortal contending with gods and goddesses) her perspective on family is useful to Diana in issue 4, and she's a loving mother (which I certainly consider useful), and and her incredible willingness to forgive someone who tried to kill her and her unborn baby has made her, I think, almost as "useful" as Diana herself in one of the biggest victories of the good guys in this book: the conversion of Hera.

Also - Diana doesn't call Strife a culturally invalid stereotype from a bygone age, she calls her a bitch.

Same difference. "Bitch," with all its connotations, is a stereotype that originated in a bygone age, though unfortunately it's still with us. If I could retroactively edit the book, I wouldn't have Diana use that word; but, even though I don't like it, I think it basically just reflects that Diana has a temper like all of us. Strife, after all, tells us that she "can't help [her]self; what's obvious if not that?" (Issue 12). She does have a "useful" side--not only does she rip Diana out of Hades belly, but she tells Diana the truth in issues 2-3, which was a needed act though carried out in a malicious way--but she can't helping stirring things up, because that's what she stands for.

I'm interested in seeing whether or not Strife has a positive moment in the end. To me, if the question is whether characters validate stereotypes, where they end up is usually more definitive then where they started out. In fact, if Hera hadn't started out as a walking stereotype, freeing her from stereotypical thinking wouldn't have been such a dramatic demonstration that these stereotypical attitudes and behaviors are not inevitable but can be, as it were, "bettered." And that's why Hera needed Wonder Woman and Zola, the better-er girls.

By the way, I agree with your criticisms of what seems to me to be anti-feminist propaganda by another poster. I'd say more, but I don't get the feeling it would be productive, or very much fun (though I've got nothing personal against the post, whose name I don't recognize). Arguing with you, on the other hand, is fun, even on those occasions when some of our arguments may not be all that productive.

Male heroes are trained by male mentors.

This is why Soule should let Superman take Wonder Woman up on her offer of training.

Aphrodite - neutral

She's pretty kind to Zola, though.

Persephone - negative, helpless victim

"Helpless victim," yes--but I found her to be a pretty sympathetic character. She seemed to actually care about Diana's feelings, when she could easily have been portrayed as bitter towards her successor.

Sirraca - initially negative, becomes positive

She's only "negative" for a total of less than one full issue, though.

[Silvanus]

n WW past comics and even her solo Dvd she always stood against war, now she is the god of war.

She was always a warrior or soldier for peace, against war, and that seems to be even more the case, at least in the present day, now that she's the god of war. Her first act as god of war was to spare her enemy, declaring that "there has been enough killing today." And in Superman/Wonder Woman, she explained that she hopes to use her role to end war or to at least make i more of a last resort. That may prove harder than she realizes, but for now, it's the kind of idealistic goal that we should want Wonder Woman to have, don't you think? Maybe you can think of this god of war as a peacekeeping force--ready for war, but dedicated to keeping the peace--and not as an invading army.

reading preview from her future stories she will become what she fought against, a blood thirsty, murdering war God!!

The solicit you're talking about is for a story that will supposedly happen five years from now, and she's not actually described as "blood thirsty" or "murdering." That solicit does say "her humanity [is] lost forever," as she prepares to make war on the goddess of revenge; but that's probably just the hyperbolic language of solicitations, because according to the solicits for that story's continuation in the same month, Superman will try to help her get her senses back. He'll probably succeed, since if she persisted in a war that would destroy the world, that would bring an early end to Futures End.

This has confirmed my theory, that DC and the writer of her solo comics planned all long to mke her into a dark character a anti-hero, a anti-hero outside of the DC hero world!! Not really a part of the big three!! She may become a foe for all the heroes in the DC world a dark force, maybe even a villain.

Your theory can't be confirmed by a solicit for a story set in a future--a future that will certainly not be realized "as is" in the monthly comics, because they can't spend five years telling stories that have already been spoiled. Even in that dreaded future, she's still hanging with the good guys as of this week's Futures End 2, as seen in the preview released today. And the September issues of WW and SM/WW will probably result not in her becoming an enemy, but in her being benched for awhile in that future, as other major heroes will also be benched, so that the weekly can have a rationale to continue focusing on its cast of less-used heroes.

So, I don't think you have to worry so much! It seems pretty clear that Wonder Woman is being confirmed as a hero for at least the next five years--and, the current weekly aside, it's likely that she'll continue to be a champion of peace for much, much longer than just five years.

[brettc1]

The whole idea of the purpose of war being to end conflict is ridiculous. Unless you plan to kill every man woman and child on the other side.

[Tangent Man]

Actually, anyone paying attention should know the whole trope is sexist, and not toward women. Shall we name the traits this "better girl" would exemplify, hmm?

Truthful, responsible, dedicated, hard-working, through which she's strong, capable, has both feet on the ground, protective of her loved ones aka caring/compassionate about others; self-sacrificing - yet not forgetting a healthy self-interest.

Notice a trend? These are not masculine traits, they are all MATURE traits. These are traits that do not belong to a gender, they are traits all good, mature human beings exemplify.

The "better girl" is not a man in a woman's body; she is a RESPONSIBLE ADULT.

Indeed, what good traits are there left for women if those are all masculine traits? Nurturing? I'm sorry, but it falls under caring and compassionate to others for me. Indeed, to use Kadniss they put on top of the article; the only reason she's not holding her Hunger Games mate and holding him all "feminine"-like is because she used his crush on her to escape a final fight with him and live. It's her very compassion and sense of responsibility that won't let her do that, because she knows it'll just tear open the wound she created by her actions.

Stop me if you notice a trend in the following feminist programs and tropes: White Ribbon, "the personal is the political", patriarchy theory, the Duluth model of domestic violence, complaining that men should stop other men performing "street harassment", Anita Sarkeesian and her ilk complaining while conning people out of money that the industry of mostly male creators should change games to fit her personal sensibilities, a feminist, from a group calling themselves skepchicks crying and leaving a skeptic con sparking anti-"bullying" regulations to protect women from evil men after a WOMAN wore a t-shirt saying, "I feel safe and welcome at TAM" and on the back "I'm a skeptic, not a 'skepchick', not a 'woman skeptic', just a skeptic."

If you've noticed yet; it's all about placing the blame on men and absolving themselves of any responsibility. In other words; they're immature, and expect men and society to somehow protect them from the consequences of their immaturity.

Immaturity; the opposite of the maturity that "the better girl" exemplifies. And then the trope is essentially aghast at a woman have male mentors, male friends, and isn't a woman isolated by other women, a woman that unlike the one writing the trope, isn't hateful of men. After all, if you aren't hateful of men, why the hell would you care there are positive men, and positive relationships between men and the female protagonist. But what is this hatefulness of men that's also projected on the "masculine", actually mature woman. A maturity the writer lacks. While at the same time, all her life has been told she is the equal and even superior of men; that merely her vagina means she's more spiritual, more moral, etc. etc.

Well, she considers herself a great woman with all kinds of great feminine traits. The traits she imagines in herself, she does not see in the way men are portrayed. She doesn't have them, she's a woman, feminine, so those traits must be masculine, they couldn't just possibly be simply "mature". Yet, at the same time, she's calls these masculine traits, "good traits", because well, all heroes and heroines in fiction carry these traits, they must be good. The result is actually a self-loathing that her own immature ego unable to take responsibility for her own short comings and grow demands she projects outward onto that other, men, that does exemplify those traits. And of course, all those women who do show the traits of a responsible adult, well clearly they must just be men in a woman's body, because a real woman, like her, has entirely different good traits, which she neglects to mention because she can't name them.

So there's actually no point in trying to fit or take Diana out of "the better girl"-trope, because the trope itself is inherently flawed. And one has to wonder; if feminism is rejecting traits of maturity for women as wrong because it is inherently masculine, are they actually misogynist?

No. You're not speaking for Feminism, you presented a reactionary stereotype of Feminism. Repeat after me: "Feminism is the belief that women are worth just as much as men." Not that Feminazi stereotype dominating the quote I'm answering. "Rejecting traits of maturity" would better characterize the men who shrilly bash Feminism.

FYI, Wonder Woman = Feminist Heroine.

[Silvanus]

The whole idea of the purpose of war being to end conflict is ridiculous. Unless you plan to kill every man woman and child on the other side.

It may be ridiculous. After all, we're human beings; we do ridiculous things! And war is an absurd enterprise.

But, ridiculous or not, stopping wars and other acts of aggression is often why people fight, or at least how they justify their fighting. In the real world, idealists (from H.G. Wells to Woodrow Wilson) called World War I the "war to end war." (To your point, WWI certainly didn't work out that way; but for those idealists, ending war was the goal). In the comics, Marston's Wonder Woman woman was fighting in a war to stop Hitler and his master Mars from spreading war. So ridiculous is the world that fighting to end an act of aggression can actually, in a particular set of the messed up circumstances that history hands us, be arguably the most reasonable thing to do, among the flawed choices available.

It probably makes more sense to say that the purpose of some wars, from the points of view of some warriors and soldiers, is to stop especially egregious conflicts and establish more just and durable peace in particular situations. Or that the purpose of a just war is to end an unjust war or stop it from getting out of control. But hedging and precision don't always work so well in slogans.

Wonder Woman is just trying to make the impossible ideal of a successful (but non-apocalyptic) war against war into a reality.

[brettc1]

It may be ridiculous, but it is often why people fight, or at least how they justify their fighting. We're human beings; we do ridiculous things! In the real world, idealists (from H.G. Wells to Woodrow Wilson) called World War I the "war to end war." (To your point, WWI certainly didn't work out that way; but for those idealists, ending war was the goal). In the comics, Marston's Wonder Woman woman was fighting in a war to stop Hitler and his master Mars from spreading war. So ridiculous is the world that fighting to end war can actual, in a particular set of the messed up circumstances that history hands us, be arguably the most reasonable thing to do, among the flawed choices available.

It probably makes more sense to say that the purpose of some wars, from the points of view of some warriors and soldiers, is to stop especially egregious conflicts and establish more just and durable peace in particular situations. Or that the purpose of a just war is to end an unjust war or stop it from getting out of control. But hedging and precision don't always work so well in slogans.

Winning a war does not secure the peace, as you so correctly observe in the case of WWI. Wilson and Welles were misguided by having the good fortune to be on the winning side, and therefore thinking their victory had secured their safety.

I think the writing behind Diana's statement in SM/WW is itself naïve. People who live in warzones know exactly what war is, and fight anyway, often because they must and sometimes just because they want something. To me it reflects a very western attitude that does not show an understanding of the third world population that comprises most of the planets people who live with war as a day to day occurrence.

[Silvanus]

Winning a war does not secure the peace, as you so correctly observe in the case of WWI. Wilson and Welles were misguided by having the good fortune to be on the winning side, and therefore thinking their victory had secured their safety.

Wells, I believe, came up with the term "war to end war" in 1914, around the beginning of the war, so he couldn't have been misled by victory; victory hadn't happened yet. He was naive and propagandistic, sure, in suggesting that the war would or could end all war; but, even though the chain of events leading up to WWI was a muddle, I'm not sure he was wrong to think that it was necessary, by that point, to fight to end that war on terms not dictated by the aggressors. A lot of the real mistakes, like leaving Germeny destitute and desperate, came later. Fighting back against militaristic aggression was not sufficient to secure the peace, but it may have been necessary.

I think the writing behind Diana's statement in SM/WW is itself naïve. People who live in warzones know exactly what war is, and fight anyway, often because they must and sometimes just because they want something. To me it reflects a very western attitude that does not show an understanding of the third world population that comprises most of the planets people who live with war as a day to day occurrence.

I don't think it's a problem that she says she would like to stop war and that if she can't, she'd like to make it "more of a last resort." In saying this part, she doesn't imply that people always fight for idealistic reasons, and she doesn't deny that people sometimes fight out of necessity or greed. She just wants to change that. Is that idealistic? Sure. Naive? Perhaps--but maybe Wonder Woman is right to believe it's possible, in this fictional world. It's certainly fantasy--but I don't find fantasy out of place in Wonder Woman. Wonder Woman's mission of peace from the goddesses in her original origin was a fantasy, too. Does it reflect a Western attitude? Probably, since the writers are Western. It's not necessarily ethnocentric for Western fiction writers to write like Westerners; they're just writing from their own perspective, just as non-Western writers should have the freedom to do.

I can see your point, though, about her statement that she has a chance to change the way war is perceived, and the implication that this is what will stop war or make it more of a last resort. I guess the question is, "perceived by whom"? If she means she will make starving people realize that they shouldn't fight war in hope of finding a way to feed themselves, I agree with you--that's naive and ethnocentric. If she means that she hopes to get Westerners to realize war is so terrible that it needs to be stopped even if stopping it includes the cost of a massive investment in ending world poverty, then I agree with her (i.e., with Soule).

[brettc1]

Wells, I believe, came up with the term "war to end war" in 1914, around the beginning of the war, so he couldn't have been misled by victory; victory hadn't happened yet. He was naive and propagandistic, sure, in suggesting that the war would or could end all war; but, even though the chain of events leading up to WWI was a muddle, I'm not sure he was wrong to think that it was necessary, by that point, to fight to end that war on terms not dictated by the aggressors. A lot of the real mistakes, like leaving Germeny destitute and desperate, came later. Fighting back against militaristic aggression was not sufficient to secure the peace, but it may have been necessary.



I don't think it's a problem that she says she would like to stop war and that if she can't, she'd like to make it "more of a last resort." In saying this part, she doesn't imply that people always fight for idealistic reasons, and she doesn't deny that people sometimes fight out of necessity or greed. She just wants to change that. Is that idealistic? Sure. Naive? Perhaps--but maybe Wonder Woman is right to believe it's possible, in this fictional world. It's certainly fantasy--but I don't find fantasy out of place in Wonder Woman. Wonder Woman's mission of peace from the goddesses in her original origin was a fantasy, too. Does it reflect a Western attitude? Probably, since the writers are Western. It's not necessarily ethnocentric for Western fiction writers to write like Westerners; they're just writing from their own perspective, just as non-Western writers should have the freedom to do.

I can see your point, though, about her statement that she has a chance to change the way war is perceived, and the implication that this is what will stop war or make it more of a last resort. I guess the question is, "perceived by whom"? If she means she will make starving people realize that they shouldn't fight war in hope of finding a way to feed themselves, I agree with you--that's naive and ethnocentric. If she means that she hopes to get Westerners to realize war is so terrible that it needs to be stopped even if stopping it includes the cost of a massive investment in ending world poverty, then I agree with her (i.e., with Soule).

The problem us many wars fought today happen simply for profit. In Africa whole populations are displaced and decimated in order for companies to have access to resources. In this case, war is not the last resort, it is just the most expedient option.

Similarly, I don't agree that WW1 was an inevitable outcome dictated solely by German aggression.

[Silvanus]

The problem us many wars fought today happen simply for profit. In Africa whole populations are displaced and decimated in order for companies to have access to resources. In this case, war is not the last resort, it is just the most expedient option.

Sure, and that's why making war "more of a last resort" is a good and necessary thing to attempt. And to "change the way war is perceived" (as Wonder Woman hopes to do) in the developed countries from which the multinational corporations involved draw many of their resources and personnel might be one way to build public pressure to make it more difficult for companies from doing such things. One thing I like about Diana's statement in SM/WW is that it is not absolute; she's not saying that she will necessarily be able to end all war or even make it an absolute last resort for everyone; her fall-back position is to make war "more of a last resort." It's relative.

Similarly, I don't agree that WW1 was an inevitable outcome dictated solely by German aggression.

Well, no, you could not agree [with me] that it was, because that absolute statement is not what I said. I noted that the chain of events leading to World War I was a muddle. Certainly, if you trace it back, there's plenty of blame on many sides. Still, by August 1914, there was a good argument to be made among the British that war was, in practice, necessary because it was the only feasible way to stop the other side's aggression. There's also just about always a pacifist argument to be made, and I respect it, but it's not the only ethical argument, in my view (and it certainly wasn't the only ethical argument in Marston's view, as you know, when it came to WWII.)

[BlackFeath]

The problem us many wars fought today happen simply for profit. In Africa whole populations are displaced and decimated in order for companies to have access to resources. In this case, war is not the last resort, it is just the most expedient option.

Similarly, I don't agree that WW1 was an inevitable outcome dictated solely by German aggression.

Yep...so couldn't she think exactly that she can put a finish to that kind of wars? The problem with these so called "war for peace" is exactly that they are not for peace but just for the interests of some countries and companies. I think what she meant (Soule meant xD) is that she would like to put a stop to all kind of wars, or if she can't to all, at least to this kind of wars which of course are not necessary at all. Now...whatever it does really exist a necessary and inevitable war or not, well...it is another thing...

If people were not exploited by few and didn't live in poverty in any country, then maybe, there wouldn't be a 'necessary' war. The problem with this 'necessary' is, I think, that sadly the people who hold the power and exploit the poors, if not with an act of force, won't ever give up their positions. It is not convenient for them. So...should those poor people just live like that without doing anything to better their conditions?


A war can become 'necessary' if something happens before that leads to that, and often it is not really 'necessary', but it is convenient for some that it is considered so, or the acts or the interests of some people, who don't want to give up their positions, make it becomes so, or more likely it is for both the reasons.


About WW1...I think too it wasn't just for the German aggression. War happened because there were Countries which had an interest in war, and it wasn't just Germany. They had already prepared alliances because they wanted to do so years before. The alliances in themselves were excuses to provoke other nations so a war could begin. And in fact almost always the final reason why a war begins is just an excuse too.

Talking again about Wonder Woman xD I think that with this new role of god of War, she will exactly do what she had before: she will be an Ambassador of Peace, and she will try to put an end to wars, sometimes even fighting, like she had in the past. The difference now is that she is the personification of 'war' and so maybe, she has other means through which to act to change its meaning (it depends on what the writers will do, of course). So...when we think about her as the god of war, I don't think we should see her as Ares was pre-52. I don't think that's what Azzarello or Soule mean at all.

The new vision of the god of war is not of a god who wants war, but that of the personification of something, war, that exists not because he/she wants to, but for an external reason, but upon which, at the same time, maybe he/she could have an influence. (Just like Apollo with the Sun. Apollo isn't the Sun, the Sun continued to exist after his death, and probably he couldn't even destroy it, but he could someway control it).
It seems to me that even Ares, after Diana changed him, and maybe even before, when he dreamed about passing the mantle to her, didn't like his role, and was looking for peace too.
Hera's final words to him, in a certain sense, could mean this:



It was not him who eluded peace, but peace which eluded him...
Anyway, he seemed sure that Diana could do better than him for some reasons. Maybe because she had already been able to change him?

[brettc1]

Peace is not sentient. You make peace. War could not make peace with himself.

The paid soldiers fighting wars of corporate greed in Africa and other third world countries know exactly what's it's like. So the different factions in the Middle East. Bizarrely she is talking about teaching people the true nature of war, but the iconic symbol on her hip that epitomises truth is not part of the equation.

It's also true that history is written by the victors. Every side in a war believes they are in the right and the other side are the ruthless aggressors. Hence Sun Tzu's teaching that war is a moral contest, and is won in the temples before it ever reaches the battlefield.

[GEMINUS1]

I can see how the current Wonder Woman run could border on this Trope. Before the reboot, Wonder Woman's power came from six goddesses (Gaea, Demeter, Athena, Aphrodite, Hestia, and Artemis) and one god (Hermes). Her Amazon training made her one of the worlds most formidable warriors and her iconic equipment was forged by Hephaestus, but empowered by goddesses. Essentially she was a Wonder Woman made by a cast of wonderful women, and three men (Hephaestus, Hermes, and I-Ching).

Now, her amazing power comes from her father, her training from Ares, and her equipment is all Hephaestus (when was the last time the Lasso was called the Lariat of Hestia?). The Amazons are backwards and deplorable, and there is no trace of her traditional mentor Athena, let alone her goddess Gaea. Also, her "soft" role as an Ambassador has been completely abandoned, while her warrior roots were accentuated. Is the inclusion of more men really the key to receiving critical acclaim?

[Tangent Man]

THANK you, Geminus!

I will admit that the notion of Wonder Woman as "The God of War" holds very subversive possibilities, the likes of which we've not seen since Marston! Diana traditionally fought for Peace--her historic paradox--and her brand of "War" would occur more on the ideological plane. We just need a writer less decompressed and smarter than Azz to maximize that theme.

Now, more than ever, would be a grand time for Morrison!