Diana As God of War

[Silvanus]

You don't see it?

Oh, I see what you're saying. I just don't agree.

Ares wasn't savage and bloodthirsty because he was too masculine, Ares was savage and bloodthirsty because he was a psycho.

It's not so much causative as it is definitional. War-like ferocity was, culturally, a defining trait of men; it was a big part of what the culture considered masculine. Escalate it to the extreme, and that's hypermasculine.

It would be like saying Hera was a vindictive shrew because she was hyper-feminine and that more masculinity would've reduced her pettiness.

"Hyperfemininity" would be an extreme form of traditionally feminine traits, like deference and passivity. I suppose you could argue that because acting like a "woman scorned" was stereotypically feminine behavior, Hera's exaggerated version of that behavior was, in a way, hyperfeminine. So what? That doesn't mean that all women are vindictive shrews any more than all men are bloodthirsty warriors. It just means that these roles and the associated traits were gendered by culture.

It's attaching the dysfunction as a trait of the gender as oppose to a trait of the person.

Ares isn't just a "person"; he's a god. As War, he represents an aspect of human life that has commonly been associated with masculinity. Do you think it's random that Ares represented the more bloodthirsty aspects of war while Athena represented less bloodthirsty aspects? I don't think that it is; I think that a male god represented bloodlust because bloodlust was considered masculine.

Athena was supposed to be the disciplined and strategic aspect of War in classic myth, so it's a pretty old idea to represent what modern feminism.

In this story, "god of war" was a male role, and when a woman takes on a previously male role and brings a new perspective, that is, generally speaking, pretty feminist. Moreover, it's often noted that Athena was the most androgynous of the goddesses, while Wonder Woman more emphatically brings traditionally feminine traits like tenderness and compassion to the role. I can't think, off-hand, of any myths that would clearly lead me to believe that Athena would, in her first act as War, have spared the First Born and declared "there has been enough killing today." More than Athena, Wonder Woman bring traditionally feminine qualities like compassion and mercy into the traditionally masculine arena of war--which certainly needs those qualities.

And even before she was god of war, Wonder Woman has always combined traditionally feminine traits with traditionally male traits, like the strength of a warrior. She defies that a person has to abide by the stereotypes of one gender. And that, of course, is one of the things that's great about her.

[Agent Z]

It's a fair question, and I do think that without the backstory in which Zeus rips the Firstbor from Hera's arms, something important would be missing. But, what would be missing? I don't think it would be mainly an explanation for the First Born's reasons. Sure, he was the primary antagonist, and his background needed some exposition. However, his awfulness didn't need to be mitigated; he's supposed to be an unmitigated monster.

I cared about that backstory mostly because it explained Hera's motivations and it helped to establish what a cruel patriarchy lurks in the background of the whole story. It was important for us to see how the queen got caught in a potential power struggle between the king and the prince; that's essential thematic background, and it helped to set up Hera's conversion.

Yes, Hera, like the Amazons, is just a supporting character. But Azz chose to focus his run on adding something to new to the Wonder Woman mythos, by adding another side to Diana's family and exploring her relationships with that side. The Amazons are in the background and are there primarily so that Diana can lead them towards reform (and, in my view, towards becoming a more authentically feminist society). By beginning the Amazons' reform, he sets up possibilities for showcasing how enlightened and heroic the Amazons can be; but he leaves that for someone else's run. For you, as a fan of the Amazons, that's not good; again, I get that. But it doesn't make the story anti-feminist.

I just don't see why it had to be one or the other? What would have been wrong about exploring both sides of Diana's family?

[Silvanus]

I just don't see why it had to be one or the other? What would have been wrong about exploring both sides of Diana's family?

It's hard to say; since he didn't really try to do that, there's no way to know how it would have turned out.

The downside, I think, is that the book might have lost focus if it had tried to do everything; no book can be all things to all people, right?

ETA--Specifically, I think Azz's big "Diana Meets the Olympians" plan was very much about taking Diana out of her comfort zone--challenging her sense of who she was and who her family was, taking away familiar faces, literally putting her through hell--and having her emerge with an even stronger sense of who she is at the core. Even her allies, like Heph and Lennox, were largely unknown quantities to her for most of the run; other than the powerless Zola, Hermes seemed like the most reliable ally in the first year, and he betrayed her. I think it would have been hard to really take out of her comfort zone if there had been kindly Amazons around to comfort her. I suppose he could have kept the Amazons and kept showing their worst side, and that might have taken Diana even further out of her comfort zone--but it also would have made it harder for Azz or future writers to begin presenting a more positive view of the Amazons later.

Of course, Azz didn't have to write a story in which Diana got broken down to get built up again; but that's the kind of story he thought up, and to me it makes sense to judge the story on its own terms instead of comparing it to different hypothetical stories that he "could have" written.[/ETA]

And I think it was better to leave a lot of questions about the Amazons unanswered than it would have been to provide all the answers just for the sake of providing all the answers, when they weren't really the focus of the book's creative effort. If certain details of Wonder Woman's world weren't important to his vision of that world or to his story, Azz left future creative teams, who might be more engaged with other corners of her world, with creative leeway to fill in those details. Whether the current run is doing a good job of filling in those details...well, that's a question for Finch threads, right?

[Darius]

Of course, Azz didn't have to write a story in which Diana got broken down to get built up again; but that's the kind of story he thought up, and to me it makes sense to judge the story on its own terms instead of comparing it to different hypothetical stories that he "could have" written.

And this says it all

[Agent Z]

Of course, Azz didn't have to write a story in which Diana got broken down to get built up again; but that's the kind of story he thought up, and to me it makes sense to judge the story on its own terms instead of comparing it to different hypothetical stories that he "could have" written.[/ETA]

I was judging it on it's own terms and didn't like it. I made comparisons to hypothetical stories because I thought that would help my case in explaining why.

[Marquesse_de_Sade]

I don't think that the Amazons' ancient motivations were, or needed to be, "the point"; I found it pretty much a given, deep in the background, that an all-female society in a patriarchal world felt the need to take extreme measures in order to survive. Dessa pretty much says so, and in my opinion it didn't need too much more spelling out. (A little more might have been OK.)

It does, without that extra bit of depth their motivations are up in the air and the Amazons just come across as one-dimensional bullies that Wonder Woman endeavored to reform. The onus was placed on them, not the patriarchy that wronged them and set them on this path, this is how Azz chose to portray them. What patriarchy's done to the Amazons was obviously not a concern of his.

He turned them back into the femme fatale stereotype, which predates feminism by thousands of years and has been exposed and critiqued by feminism.

You can see it that way if you want, to me the Amazons were used to critique modern mainstream feminism which is seen by many as an extreme, obsolete movement that impinges on the rights of men.

Sure. At the point that Zeus left, Hera was still the embodiment of a patriarchal queen, completely dependent on her husband for her very precarious place at the top of the hill. In patriarchy, as Poseidon says mockingly in issue 6, "the queen is nothing without the king." It's only later, when Hera's mortal, that Wonder Woman starts to teach her self-reliance: "Hera, you pray to what's going to answer your prayers. Yourself. Your own strength and character." When she's a god again, Hera shows that she's started to learn this lesson when, even though she's tempted to do the relatively safe thing by cutting off her her sense of female solidarity and getting out of her son's way, she decides to save a woman who has become her friend.

Again, there's a lot of emphasis on Hera's redemption but very little, if at all, on her new found freedom from her husband. There's a certain alienation between them but not because Hera put a stop to her husband's abuse but because Zeus has essentially forsaken her. If anything Wonder Woman taught Hera how to cope with it.
And in the end Zeus took zero consequences and retained his title.

[Blind Target]

As for the GOW thing. For me personally. I think the war in WW#30-35 showcased her role as a god. She managed to earn the amazons' trust, reform them and then lead them into victory when defeating an über macho god. An army she lead by example, against one ruled by force.

Quite good when compared to Ares appearances in battle (outside his suicide stunt in WW#23). Sitting around drinking, not bothered... Just bored with people dying at random.

Justice League #39 also recently showed that the GOW thing shouldn't be an identity crisis or a badge. That it's best handled with how she defines and brings good to a battle. And with some luck (not often I have such thing. Sorry about that.) other writers will notice and take note how Johns handled her. How much she can stand out compared to the other characters.

She might as well call herself the Easter Bunny, because theres nothing particularly God of War about any of that. She doesn't need it to gain anyone's trust, or reform anyone, or lead the Amazons into battle. In fact being the God of War made it difficult for the Amazons to trust her, it would've being easier with out it, all she needed to be was herself. Some see the God of War, while others see, Diana being Diana.

Its a title that's treated as a description, nothing more nothing less, nothing special. But as we've seen from the other Gods, it's not just a empty title. The physical manifestation of their powers over the Sun, Moon, Sea, and the Underworld that comes with this titles is tangible. Even Strife has the power to create confusion and the fog of war and she doesn't have a title.

The problem with the God of War, is that because her role and powers have not being define, making what people expect to see and what there are seeing, be different things. Because it's such a vague concept, everything she does now is seen as the God of War, even though it may have nothing to do with being the God of War, it's just her title. What has she done as the God of War that she couldn't have done without it?.

If the purpose of war is to end conflicts, the God of War should therefore excel at warfare, it should have the power to help turn the tides of war, maybe create an army of soldiers out of thin air. War should be a last resort, and having the God of War on one side, would be like a deterrent, it would be like going up against someone who has nuclear weapons.

Ares isn't just a "person"; he's a god. As War, he represents an aspect of human life that has commonly been associated with masculinity. Do you think it's random that Ares represented the more bloodthirsty aspects of war while Athena represented less bloodthirsty aspects? I don't think that it is; I think that a male god represented bloodlust because bloodlust was considered masculine.



In this story, "god of war" was a male role, and when a woman takes on a previously male role and brings a new perspective, that is, generally speaking, pretty feminist. Moreover, it's often noted that Athena was the most androgynous of the goddesses, while Wonder Woman more emphatically brings traditionally feminine traits like tenderness and compassion to the role. I can't think, off-hand, of any myths that would clearly lead me to believe that Athena would, in her first act as War, have spared the First Born and declared "there has been enough killing today." More than Athena, Wonder Woman bring traditionally feminine qualities like compassion and mercy into the traditionally masculine arena of war--which certainly needs those qualities.

And even before she was god of war, Wonder Woman has always combined traditionally feminine traits with traditionally male traits, like the strength of a warrior. She defies that a person has to abide by the stereotypes of one gender. And that, of course, is one of the things that's great about her.

The reason Diana is capable of killing, of all the Justice League members is because she is supposed to be pragmatic about it, like Athena. Azzarello's Diana, has no problem killing, out of anger and rage, because she lacks self control. She almost killed Artemis twice, once when she was about to snap her neck like a twig, the other when she was about to give her the finishing blow when she was already knocked out, no mercy in site. Or, when she was ripping through the First Born body with her bare hands, or thrusting her sword into the Minotaur. In the heat of battle Diana is going for the kill. Just as easily, depending on her mood, she is capable of showing mercy because she is compassionate. She is all about emotions because she is following her heart, but she is not capable of putting her emotions aside and make a pragmatic decision about life or death. Even for a complete monster like the First Born, who will comeback again and again and slaughter people, because she wants to believe in the strength of others.

I understand why Batman doesn't kill the Joker, he doesn't want to cross that line, but he also doesn't go about trying to kill others either. Diana doesn't have that excuse. Diana is as strong as Superman, but i can't imagine him doing the things that she did in her book out of anger and rage, or because he didn't like someone, he has more self control than that and she is supposed to be the more disciplined trained warrior. What Diana brings to the table as the God of War in her own book, it seems, is emotions, mood swings, and loss of control, things usually associated with females. Outside of her book she is portrayed as the more disciplined warrior, focused, determined, pragmatic.

Diana is a walking contradiction, how can someone so violent be so compassionate. It requires the writers strike a balance in between this two extremes. Sometimes they go too far in either direction. Making the character look like some sort of caricature of a pacifist swinging a sword around, claiming she loves everyone.

[borntohula]

She might as well call herself the Easter Bunny, because theres nothing particularly God of War about any of that. She doesn't need it to gain anyone's trust, or reform anyone, or lead the Amazons into battle. In fact being the God of War made it difficult for the Amazons to trust her, it would've being easier with out it, all she needed to be was herself. Some see the God of War, while others see, Diana being Diana.

When did the title make it more difficult for amazons to trust her?

Its a title that's treated as a description, nothing more nothing less, nothing special. But as we've seen from the other Gods, it's not just a empty title. The physical manifestation of their powers over the Sun, Moon, Sea, and the Underworld that comes with this titles is tangible. Even Strife has the power to create confusion and the fog of war and she doesn't have a title.

What did Ares do as the god of war? Besides drinking and being bored while looking at the carnage?

The problem with the God of War, is that because her role and powers have not being define, making what people expect to see and what there are seeing, be different things. Because it's such a vague concept, everything she does now is seen as the God of War, even though it may have nothing to do with being the God of War, it's just her title. What has she done as the God of War that she couldn't have done without it?.

Just as the queen of amazons is just a title. It's what she does with it I'm interested in. Since she now practically -as Ares says War will in WW#4- rules the world, with the nurture of Zeke at hand.

If the purpose of war is to end conflicts, the God of War should therefore excel at warfare, it should have the power to help turn the tides of war, maybe create an army of soldiers out of thin air. War should be a last resort, and having the God of War on one side, would be like a deterrent, it would be like going up against someone who has nuclear weapons.

Should and should. I'm quite sure Diana will be -as you put it- Diana about things. She'll fight for peace, but not without mercy and other good stuff that she'll inspire into people. She pretty much reformed everyone (but First born, who at least knows why he's punished this time around) at the end of things. Everyone from Hera to a shaved Minotaur.

[Agent Z]

What did Ares do as the god of war? Besides drinking and being bored while looking at the carnage?

Well there was him training Diana. Of course, that's another issue isn't it. Since we didn't see much of what Ares was responsible for before he met Diana we don't have precedent for what she can and can't do.

[Gaelforce]

Here's the question - other than getting access to Olympus (which could have been done by making an ally of any of the gods), why else would FB want to be 'god of war?'

Ares had Diana kill him to prevent FB from becoming god of war. If it's only an empty title, why was Ares so intent on making certain that FB didn't inherit it if no power/authority/ability comes with it?

There should be more that comes with it if it meant so much to Ares that FB not get it.

[Marquesse_de_Sade]

Here's the question - other than getting access to Olympus (which could have been done by making an ally of any of the gods), why else would FB want to be 'god of war?'

Ares had Diana kill him to prevent FB from becoming god of war. If it's only an empty title, why was Ares so intent on making certain that FB didn't inherit it if no power/authority/ability comes with it?

There should be more that comes with it if it meant so much to Ares that FB not get it.

But Wonder Woman denied her mantle ever since she took it on, right until the last installment so it's up to Meredith to develop the idea now. Perhaps that's what she's doing and we just have to be patient. I can see Wonder Woman regain her grip on the Amazons with the powers she inherited..

[Silvanus]

I was judging it on it's own terms and didn't like it. I made comparisons to hypothetical stories because I thought that would help my case in explaining why.

Fair enough! I didn't mean to suggest that you were wrong not to like it; that would be like trying to convince someone they're wrong to like vanilla instead of chocolate. We all like what we like.

[borntohula]

Here's the question - other than getting access to Olympus (which could have been done by making an ally of any of the gods), why else would FB want to be 'god of war?'

Ares had Diana kill him to prevent FB from becoming god of war. If it's only an empty title, why was Ares so intent on making certain that FB didn't inherit it if no power/authority/ability comes with it?

There should be more that comes with it if it meant so much to Ares that FB not get it.

First born was acting out prophesy, he'd kill one to get the throne.

It's not to say it's empty, it's what you make of it. And Diana shows (what she's made of) that quite well in the last half of the last act. Not abusing it, using it for good. Restoring the glory that was lost on Ares.

[Lax]

Oh, I see what you're saying. I just don't agree.

I'm not so sure.

It's not so much causative as it is definitional. War-like ferocity was, culturally, a defining trait of men; it was a big part of what the culture considered masculine. Escalate it to the extreme, and that's hypermasculine.

No, it's equating masculinity with evil.

Because that very same "war-like ferocity" is applauded when it's time to stop a warmonger. You can be as savage as Ares himself provided you're fighting on the side of the angels. It's the exact same masculinity in either case but only labeled "hyper" or "extreme" when used for evil.


Example A: A woman is being attacked by a wolf. A man comes in, he grabs a rock and starts beating the wolf with it. The fight is bloody and brutal but eventually he scares the wolf off.

Example B: A woman is walking down a street. A man jumps out of an alley, he grabs her and rapes her so brutality she needs an ambulance to take her to the hospital.


Who's masculinity is more "extreme"? Plenty of strength and aggression and viciousness from both of these hypothetical men.

That's pretty much what feminists do--enter into previously male-dominated roles and make them less hyper-masculine.

Feminism actually has men regarding their own masculinity as a blight upon the world.

"Hyperfemininity" would be an extreme form of traditionally feminine traits, like deference and passivity. I suppose you could argue that because acting like a "woman scorned" was stereotypically feminine behavior, Hera's exaggerated version of that behavior was, in a way, hyperfeminine. So what? That doesn't mean that all women are vindictive shrews any more than all men are bloodthirsty warriors. It just means that these roles and the associated traits were gendered by culture.

...

So if I said male-dominated roles needed to maintain their masculinity to avoid the "passivity" that comes with femininity you'd have no issue with that?

Ares isn't just a "person"; he's a god. As War, he represents an aspect of human life that has commonly been associated with masculinity. Do you think it's random that Ares represented the more bloodthirsty aspects of war while Athena represented less bloodthirsty aspects? I don't think that it is; I think that a male god represented bloodlust because bloodlust was considered masculine.

Hard to say.

If they viewed femininity as passive, deferential or submissive then it's hard to understand why they'd have Athena represent any aspect of war at all. One would think they'd leave war to Ares and she'd just represent wisdom.

In this story, "god of war" was a male role, and when a woman takes on a previously male role and brings a new perspective, that is, generally speaking, pretty feminist. Moreover, it's often noted that Athena was the most androgynous of the goddesses, while Wonder Woman more emphatically brings traditionally feminine traits like tenderness and compassion to the role. I can't think, off-hand, of any myths that would clearly lead me to believe that Athena would, in her first act as War, have spared the First Born and declared "there has been enough killing today." More than Athena, Wonder Woman bring traditionally feminine qualities like compassion and mercy into the traditionally masculine arena of war--which certainly needs those qualities.

Which is understandable, I imagine the ancient greeks wanted victory when they prayed to Athena. Kind of hard to feel like your war goddess can deliver the goods when words like "tenderness", "compassion" and "mercy" pop up to describe her.

And even before she was god of war, Wonder Woman has always combined traditionally feminine traits with traditionally male traits, like the strength of a warrior. She defies that a person has to abide by the stereotypes of one gender. And that, of course, is one of the things that's great about her.

Not sure how impressive that's supposed to be when tradition is no longer enforced.

What are progressive feminine and masculine traits?

[Silvanus]

No, it's equating masculinity with evil.

It's not. Ares' extreme aggressiveness can be seen as hypermasculine whether it's in the service of an evil cause or a good cause. And even if hypermasculinity--meaning an excess of some trait that is culturally considered masculine--is by definition excessive and therefore potentially problematic, that doesn't mean that perfected, refined masculinity isn't a good thing.

Because that very same "war-like ferocity" is applauded when it's time to stop a warmonger. You can be as savage as Ares himself provided you're fighting on the side of the angels.

Yes, that is correct, and that's why I don't agree that calling this ferocity or savagery a form of hypermasculinity is the same as equating masculinity with evil. It's not "evil," for example, when Rambo frees American POWs; he breaks laws and goes to prison, but he also accomplishes heroic things and wins the applause of the audience. Yet I would say he cuts a hypermasculine figure while doing so.

It's the exact same masculinity in either case but only labeled "hyper" or "extreme" when used for evil.

Well, that's not necessarily the case. War heroes (not only a somewhat antiheroic figure like Rambo, but even a hero like John Wayne's characters), it seems to me, are often described as hypermasculine, even though, as heroes, they're generally considered to be on the side of the angels. Wayne's characters doesn't exactly fit my view of hypersmasculinity as excessive, but they have been described as hypermasculine nonetheless; just Google "John Wayne" and "masculinity." I agree with Wikipedia that the term hypermasculine "can be pejorative, though it is also used when examining the behavior (as adaptive or maladaptive) dispassionately."

Example A: A woman is being attacked by a wolf. A man comes in, he grabs a rock and starts beating the wolf with it. The fight is bloody and brutal but eventually he scares the wolf off.

Example B: A woman is walking down a street. A man jumps out of an alley, he grabs her and rapes her so brutality she needs an ambulance to take her to the hospital.

Who's masculinity is more "extreme"? Plenty of strength and aggression and viciousness from both of these hypothetical men.

That's actually pretty easy. Example A is really defense rather than aggression; but whatever aggressiveness exists in Example A is appropriate to the circumstances and therefore not really extreme--except that it's extremely brave and virtuous. It's certainly not excessive. The aggression in example b is unwarranted and therefore not only extreme but massively excessive, perverse and evil.

Feminism actually has men regarding their own masculinity as a blight upon the world.

I certainly don't regard masculinity as a blight upon the world. I do think war, in general, is a blight upon the world (though I don't deny that some wars are justifiable and that there can be great heroism within war). And war has mostly been gendered masculine and has involved a lot of traits that are considered masculine. However, fatherhood, for instance, is far from a blight on the world.

So if I said male-dominated roles needed to maintain their masculinity to avoid the "passivity" that comes with femininity you'd have no issue with that?

That depends. Would you mean that those roles needed to remain male-dominated? Or only that, for example, the military needs, at least at the present moment, to continue emphasizing traditionally male traits to some extent, and that solders (whether male or female) can't be taught to be passive and tender on the battlefield in a "hyperfeminine" way? The former is not true, while the latter probably is--though this doesn't mean that there can't or shouldn't be at least a moderate infusion of traditionally feminine traits into these roles. I think that there should, and I think it's cool that Diana brings those qualities while remaining strong and, when needed, aggressive.

Hard to say.

If they viewed femininity as passive, deferential or submissive then it's hard to understand why they'd have Athena represent any aspect of war at all. One would think they'd leave war to Ares and she'd just represent wisdom.

I suspect it's because at some level they realized that male aggression wasn't all there was to war; there also needed to be some discretion and restraint, even if those didn't always seem like the most masculine of traits by their standards.

What are progressive feminine and masculine traits?

I think what's progressive is recognizing the desirability of traditionally masculine and feminine traits coexisting to various degrees in different individuals within each gender.