Wonder Woman #37 SPOILERS

[Primal Slayer]

It was an ok issue, still isn't pulling me fully in but I am not totally hating it. I don't really get the hate over Diana expressing herself, if people think that is whining, then I don't know what whining is. She stated the obvious and said how she doesn't have time to worry about it or whatever, she isn't trying to get sympathy from anyone, she isn't complaining just for the sake of complaining.

As far as the art goes....well I wish the guy over on JL was brought over here with his design. Didn't really get why Finch would put WW in a armored crop top and battle skirt. It's like you have to expose a certain amount of skin.

And I really wish that we didn't just randomly get introduced to a old crone who pops up out of nowhere and everyone acts like she has been there the entire time.

Donna Troys reintroduction to the New 52 will be interesting to say the least, one can only pray that it turns out decent.

[SonOfBaldwin]

It seems that the reviewer at Comicosity was not a fan of this issue:

“See, female nudity is comics is practically an altar that some fans worship at, as if having women keep their clothes on for more than an issue is someone antithetical to their nature. But it’s not something that bothers me in and of itself. I’ve seen some states of undress in comics that don’t make me cringe, that don’t feel bad, in the recent Bitch Planet #1 and Lazarus #2 from Image Comics.

So why are those OK, and not the set-up and execution of the same by Meredith and David Finch in this issue? Because the women in those two comics are not objects. They are subjects of their own story. They have personal agency.

[…] It’s not that I find the first appearance of Donna Troy in the New 52 to be a problem because she’s naked. Or because she’s potentially villainous. It’s because she (or any female character, honestly) is debuted as a literal empty shell — a tool — naked and hung as if on invisible meathooks. She is 100% an object without any personal ability to make choices, own her morals or values, or represent her own self-worth in terms with which she feels comfortable.

That’s human agency. And the luridly drawn figure on the final splash page of Wonder Woman #37 doesn’t have it.”

http://www.comicosity.com/review-wonder-woman-37/

[Vanguard-01]

It seems that the reviewer at Comicosity was not a fan of this issue:

“See, female nudity is comics is practically an altar that some fans worship at, as if having women keep their clothes on for more than an issue is someone antithetical to their nature. But it’s not something that bothers me in and of itself. I’ve seen some states of undress in comics that don’t make me cringe, that don’t feel bad, in the recent Bitch Planet #1 and Lazarus #2 from Image Comics.

So why are those OK, and not the set-up and execution of the same by Meredith and David Finch in this issue? Because the women in those two comics are not objects. They are subjects of their own story. They have personal agency.

[…] It’s not that I find the first appearance of Donna Troy in the New 52 to be a problem because she’s naked. Or because she’s potentially villainous. It’s because she (or any female character, honestly) is debuted as a literal empty shell — a tool — naked and hung as if on invisible meathooks. She is 100% an object without any personal ability to make choices, own her morals or values, or represent her own self-worth in terms with which she feels comfortable.

That’s human agency. And the luridly drawn figure on the final splash page of Wonder Woman #37 doesn’t have it.”

http://www.comicosity.com/review-wonder-woman-37/

Yeah, because Donna should've been magically created from a naked baby and came into being wearing a burkha and veil. That makes so much sense.

She was naked because it was a magical "birth." People are naked when they're born. Simple.

[Sacred Knight]

Completely disagree. She's debuted in the most technical terms as a baby, a newborn, naked baby. That's why she's naked when the adult version rises.

That's your human agency, she was magically altered and but was still at her core a brand new baby girl. And brand new baby girls are just as naked as brand new baby boys.

[numberthirty]

Completely disagree. She's debuted in the most technical terms as a baby, a newborn, naked baby. That's why she's naked when the adult version rises.

That's your human agency, she was magically altered and but was still at her core a brand new baby girl. And brand new baby girls are just as naked as brand new baby boys.

When you put it like this, that last page is even more creepy.

[Vanguard-01]

When you put it like this, that last page is even more creepy.

That a woman was "born" naked?

Most people are, you know?

[Sacred Knight]

I don't see it any different as seeing Kon's naked body in his tube through various filters to hide the private areas, when he was chronologically a few days to a few weeks old. Never saw any articles about how that wasn't okay. And he was more of a "shell" than Donna was here. In many instances the poor guy was brain dead.

[numberthirty]

That a woman was "born" naked?

Most people are, you know?

Sure. I'm not talking about that aspect of how it was done.


The woman on the last page is a pawn who was a baby just before climbing from the cauldron. The artist has an option as to how to present an innocent who is a pawn in someone's plan. To me, they choose the the worst possible of the options available.

[Vanguard-01]

Sure. I'm not talking about that aspect of how it was done.


The woman on the last page is a pawn who was a baby just before climbing from the cauldron. The artist has an option as to how to present an innocent who is a pawn in someone's plan. To me, they choose the the worst possible of the options available.

See Sacred Knight's Kon example.

This is nothing new in any fictional media.

[Dr. Poison]

When you put it like this, that last page is even more creepy.

How is this any worse that all of the nudity from the previous run where Diana was naked in issue #1, Hera strolled around in nothing but her peacock cape, and Strife was always sporting her revealing skank-dress?

[numberthirty]

How is this any worse that all of the nudity from the previous run where Diana was naked in issue #1, Hera strolled around in nothing but her peacock cape, and Strife was always sporting her revealing skank-dress?

Diana is an adult who is capable of deciding if she should sleep in the nude or not. Hera is a woman who has been fully grown for who knows how long. Same goes for Strife.


The woman on the final page of this issue was a baby when the issue started. A baby who is a pawn on someone's chess board.

[Dr. Poison]

Diana is an adult who is capable of deciding if she should sleep in the nude or not. Hera is a woman who has been fully grown for who knows how long. Same goes for Strife.


The woman on the final page of this issue was a baby when the issue started. A baby who is a pawn on someone's chess board.

And Donna is a being who is just being brought into the world. I was brought into the world naked. I'm guessing you were too? Did you expect the old hag and the blue-skinned woman to create Donna in costume?

[Vanguard-01]

Diana is an adult who is capable of deciding if she should sleep in the nude or not. Hera is a woman who has been fully grown for who knows how long. Same goes for Strife.


The woman on the final page of this issue was a baby when the issue started. A baby who is a pawn on someone's chess board.

I'm fairly certain that the scene is supposed to be creepy, anyway.

You're supposed to be creeped out that Donna has been brought into the New 52 as a pawn of evil. And you're supposed to cheer when Diana helps save Donna from evil and GIVES her that "human agency" we're going on about.

[numberthirty]

No one chose to draw me with my bits barely covered a couple of hours after that.

You?

[Lax]

It's just SUCH a tired and hackneyed stereotype of a woman who has too many responsibilities and is too emotionally imbalanced to handle her problems. So she goes on a crazy tirade to the nearest male figure whose job is to reinforce the idea that women are emotionally weak and possess the inability to face their problems while men are naturally well-balanced and have their sh** together.

It's a tragedy we see this from a feminist icon.

another good point. The stereotype here is insulting. I read 4 women solo books today, this was by far the worst. And 2 books there is something really bad going on
look the hell Batman is going on in eternal, and he is not whining.

I'm dropping this book. In less then two issues, we have Wonder Woman whining like a shrill shrew about how hard her life is to two male superheroes who tell her how to live her life.

Wonder Woman isn't a Whiner.

She deals with her problems with head up high and she doesn't have a meltdown on whatever poor soul is nearby.

I noticed this too. Always men that she whines and they help/try to help her.

I want the WW who deals with problems like a strong person again.

BREAKING POINT? who say something like this? wth

Perhaps it is best for men to stop trying to help women.