Diana As God of War

[GoingPostal]

Ah, Azzarello...

[Silvanus]

Maybe but you shouldn't be surprised if people end up taking a less-than-positive interpretation of your work.

True, and I doubt he was surprised that some interpreted it unfavorably. Someone always will, right? With Wonder Woman, anything she does can be interpreted either as a reinforcement of feminine stereotypes ("she's so emotional!") or as a betrayal of her woman-centered roots ("she's gone over to the side of the 'blood-curdling masculinity' that Marston created her to oppose.") Some people even seem to think she's too feminine and too masculine at the same time.

[borntohula]

Not what i think, but how the Amazons would see things.

It apparently is.

Aleka's words actually. The rest of the Amazons were mostly silent in agreement.

You're right. Found it now, also in WW#30. About a Hera whom Aleka also says is worthy of her worship. Also, after she said capricious Strife immediately took the word. Aleka and Dessa then objects to what she had to say.

It depends how you see him. The way I saw it, Azzarello's Ares resembled a male version of Athena, that had lived through hell. Athena did not enjoy killing, did not like unnecessary deaths, and did not go to war unless it was absolutely necessary. I find it more likely that someone like that would end up like Ares. Getting tired, after all the countless wars, deaths and killings, and mentoring someone to eventually replace her. As opposed to the bloodthirsty myth Ares, who embraced the more brutal nature of war, who, more often then not tended to be on the losing side. Why would Ares care what he had become, unless he wasn't always like that.

I read what's in the run. It's issues WW#1-35, Zero, First Born and Secret origins. In those pages War hasn't just lost it's glory but also his mind, being bored out of it.

I was being sarcastic about that. Couldn't resist, sorry.

Good excuse.

Thats what naturally happens when things are left vague.

Azzarello's writing is always like that. Questions forms answers.

Other than that. Hope you get some run down the line, perhaps after Convergence, that you'll like better.

[Blind Target]

Yes--and wasn't that cool? The minotaur, personifying rage and violence, doesn't seem to be someone the gods can defeat with rage, violence and swords. In the end, it's not her sword that protects and defines her; it's the mercy she showed the minotaur. That's why she thanks fhe minotaur for reminding her who she is; the kind of mercy that she showed the minotaur, which he now reflects back to her, sums up "who she is."

Actually, seeing as the First Born defeated the Minotaur using rage, violence and a sword. I would say that yes, yes they can.

If fighting back in a battle to to the death, and not instantly putting on the breaks when that battle is won, is "trying to kill her," then yes, not killing her doesn't mean she wasn't trying to. It does mean she ultimately chose not to, though. In the first case, if she was that out of control, she could have snapped Artemis' neck and then gone after Apollo, regardless of the "deal" he was offering; in the the second case, she could have quickly finished Artemis off and then pursued the other priorities of which Ares was reminding her. In both cases, if she was really driven only by emotions, she would have killed; but by not killing, she chooses to act both pragmatically and according to her principles. It's nice when principles and pragmatism coincide.

Diana isn't blood thirsty, she can be reasoned with.

You compared these scenes to the Finches' scenes of Wonder Woman with Swamp Thing and the bug man (or was "Swamp Thing and the Bug Men" the name of the band playing at Diana's club in London?) But in neither of those cases had she been attacked and engaged in a battle to the death.

And yet again, she didn't kill anyone, because "reason" prevailed once more.

I'm sure she didn't "forget"; I just think she gave him a chance to reach out to her. If he had reached out to her without the creepy possessive togetherness-in-suffering bit, she might actually have saved him. And I wouldn't call it a lapse in judgement; her first instinct is always to save people. and I like that.

If she didn't forget she could fly, what was she doing?, "acting" ?. And the First Born might as well be the definition of creepiness. He was simply too dangerous to be left around, there was no "humane" way to stop that guy.

I still believe she planned it all, starting from the moment the First Born started whining about his father. She was in the background thinking, probably of a plan, and then suddenly she's falling?, did she jump?, and then she grabs on to the edge of the falling chunk of rock as if for dear life, even though she can fly. If she manage to convince people, then that was truly an Oscar worthy performance.

It apparently is.

Well!, apparently, appearances can be deceiving.

You're right. Found it now, also in WW#30. About a Hera whom Aleka also says is worthy of her worship. Also, after she said capricious Strife immediately took the word. Aleka and Dessa then objects to what she had to say.

A capricious god, worthy of her worship. One said behind her back, the other to her face.

I read what's in the run. It's issues WW#1-35, Zero, First Born and Secret origins. In those pages War hasn't just lost it's glory but also his mind, being bored out of it.

I read all that, but it doesn't really tell you who Ares was before he lost his mind. All you are going with, is what he said while drunk.

I don't really see the point in comparing the new God of War, with the old one, when he was way past his prime.

[Silvanus]

Actually, seeing as the First Born defeated the Minotaur using rage, violence and a sword. I would say that yes, yes they can.

Eh. Well, except him. Seriously, the FB is the even bigger personification of rage and violence, so he would be the exception.

Diana isn't blood thirsty, she can be reasoned with.

Exactly--though I would put it in the active voice: she can choose to negotiate or to change focus when other priorities are pointed out. And in that she listens and negotiates or changes focus even when she's in god mode or when the heat of battle hasn't yet subsided, then she does have quite a bit of self-control.

And yet again, she didn't kill anyone, because "reason" prevailed once more.

"Reason"? In the first case, Swamp Thing has to resort to what we might call "vegetative immobilization" to get her to listen. In the second, she says Superman stopped her.

If she didn't forget she could fly, what was she doing?, "acting" ?. And the First Born might as well be the definition of creepiness. He was simply too dangerous to be left around, there was no "humane" way to stop that guy.

I still believe she planned it all, starting from the moment the First Born started whining about his father. She was in the background thinking, probably of a plan, and then suddenly she's falling?, did she jump?, and then she grabs on to the edge of the falling chunk of rock as if for dear life, even though she can fly. If she manage to convince people, then that was truly an Oscar worthy performance.

At the most, she was testing him; was there enough love in him to save her? You may say it was foolish to even ask that question, but she looks moved by his apparent, dread of loneliness, and I think she needed to give him a chance to show that he could really care about someone else. And she "had to" do so not only because of her emotions, but also because of her principled belief in mercy and loving submission

falling.jpg

But she confirms that instead of real love or compassion or "submission" or worthiness of that kind of faith, he only had selfishness and nihilistic fatalism; he'd save her, but only so he could have her with him in the pit. The higher truth of reaching out for his hand was that she was offering him submission--"faith in the strength of another," as she defines it here, or faith in the dim possibility that he might be able to love; but he proved unworthy, and she had to make the pragmatic and principled decision to let him go. That's her "tough love." At least she had given him a chance, and even if we want to call that "deception," it's a very benign and even benevolent kind of "deception," in service to a higher truth.

[chlj1]

You did indeed, and I pointed out that it's not so. We seems to be going in circles--but, just to remind you, she protested more than once: she walks away from him in disgust in 18 after his weak flattery attempt spoils their nice moment, she dies the big protest in 19, and when he returns in 21, she yells "don't call me Baby." He doesn't really say anything else offensive to her between then and issue 34, where he calls her Legs (while otherwise being helpful and even deferential, in the sense that he's willing to cover her exit to Olympus instead of hogging the limelight for himself. He turns over a slight bit of a new leaf in 22 by living up to Diana's faith in him and defying his father to keep Zeke with Zola. And he doesn't do anything particularly obnoxious in 23 (though he's not very useful either.) I'm not saying he's thoroughly reformed after having been rebuked by Diana--he spends much of the time from 24 to 33 away from Diana, so he doesn't have that many chances to browbeat her--but there are no examples around that time to show that he does "browbeats" her.

Let me ask you a different question, since we're talking about the "god of war" thing on this thread. I remember that you're a veteran, right? (Thanks for your service, by the way.) And I know you don't like Diana as god of war. I'm curious whether you would be more OK with Diana as either "god of warriors" or "god of soldiers," rather than god of war itself? I ask because it seems to me that while the activity of war is awful, the actual people who participate in it are often noble, courageous and self-sacrificing. So would you be OK with the idea of Diana standing for warriors or soldiers like you and your old comrades-at-arms? I hope it's too intrusive of me to ask; I'm just curious, and of course you can ignore the question if you want.

War should always be the last choice! War destroy, War is death, War feed on human suffering!! War isn't something WW should be beating her chest about!! Yes! I am a veteran!! I would be Ok with the idea of Diana standing for a warrior or a soldier. I can't see WW as a hero anymore, as long as she is the God of war!! A being that live to destroy!! Most people haven't really seen war! I feel most people get their idea of war from video games today!! If they had to fight in a real war! A lot of people would change their mind about how great it is WW being the God of war! They would see what she really stand for DEATH !!

[Blind Target]

Yep. She could have materialized new swords instead of taking off her bracelets; but, ultimately, she relies on her own strength (as well as her mercy--see above) and not on the swords.

Even though she doesn't kill in cold blood, and offers mercy instead, her willingness to kill correlates with her anger. If something sets her off, the bracelets are coming off, literally, as in this example.

She asked for mercy, for the Minotaur and the First Born ignored her plead and killed him anyways. This sets her off, she took off the bracelets and went into God Mode. She attacked him without restraint, offering "mercy" on one hand, while the other one was busy literally ripping his heart out. The fact that she would've ripped his heart out with her bare hand, if he had any, is pure savagery.

Eh. Well, except him. Seriously, the FB is the even bigger personification of rage and violence, so he would be the exception.

He was created to be the exception, he doesn`t even need a heart.

Exactly--though I would put it in the active voice: she can choose to negotiate or to change focus when other priorities are pointed out. And in that she listens and negotiates or changes focus even when she's in god mode or when the heat of battle hasn't yet subsided, then she does have quite a bit of self-control.

"Reason"? In the first case, Swamp Thing has to resort to what we might call "vegetative immobilization" to get her to listen. In the second, she says Superman stopped her.

Self control is a relative thing, it's not an off and on switch. The more angry she gets, the less control she has, leading her to do "questionable" things. From minor confrontations, to attacking someone without provocation. The writers will exploit this "loophole" in her "merciful", no killing policy, even if it's just for dramatic effect (see above).

At the most, she was testing him; was there enough love in him to save her? You may say it was foolish to even ask that question, but she looks moved by his apparent, dread of loneliness, and I think she needed to give him a chance to show that he could really care about someone else. And she "had to" do so not only because of her emotions, but also because of her principled belief in mercy and loving submission

At that point they were both falling. What was he expected to save her from?, not falling?. If that was a test, it was a test he was always going to fail, but she's such a great actress, she probably deceived herself.

falling.jpg

I loved the "AHH!" ( i`m "falling" and i "forgot" i can fly ), in order to get his attention. Thats great acting right there.

But she confirms that instead of real love or compassion or "submission" or worthiness of that kind of faith, he only had selfishness and nihilistic fatalism; he'd save her, but only so he could have her with him in the pit. The higher truth of reaching out for his hand was that she was offering him submission--"faith in the strength of another," as she defines it here, or faith in the dim possibility that he might be able to love; but he proved unworthy, and she had to make the pragmatic and principled decision to let him go. That's her "tough love." At least she had given him a chance, and even if we want to call that "deception," it's a very benign and even benevolent kind of "deception," in service to a higher truth.

Oh, it was deception, because she planned it all, and then acted from a position of weakness, whether to test him or teach him a lesson. She was always in complete control of that situation, while he was completely oblivious to her "machinations".

[Silvanus]

Even though she doesn't kill in cold blood, and offers mercy instead, her willingness to kill correlates with her anger.

Certainly, in a battle with someone who'd happily kill you, the temptation to kill the "killer" correlates with anger. It should, unless one is a bloodless machine, a Vulcan, or maybe Batman (except at the end of Killing Joke, or wherever else the writers felt the need to have him be truly angry and tempted.) That the temptation should be there, of course, doesn't mean the hero should succumb to the temptation.

If something sets her off, the bracelets are coming off, literally, as in this example.

The interesting thing about this example is that it shows the she doesn't need the bracelets so much anymore; after taking then off, she was able to turn off the god-mode glow--right about where she says all she needs to be is Diana. She's attained such supreme self-knowledge and self-reliance that she can control her father's legacy without needing artificial restraints.

She asked for mercy, for the Minotaur and the First Born ignored her plead and killed him anyways.

Even after that, she offered him mercy if he's spare her friends (and presumably, by sparing Zeke, spare the world.)

This sets her off, she took off the bracelets and went into God Mode. She attacked him without restraint, offering "mercy" on one hand, while the other one was busy literally ripping his heart out. The fact that she would've ripped his heart out with her bare hand, if he had any, is pure savagery.

He was created to be the exception, he doesn`t even need a heart.

As you say, he doesn't even need a heart. So her "savagery" is mitigated by the fact that she knows she's fighting someone who's not going to be destroyed so easily.

Self control is a relative thing, it's not an off and on switch. The more angry she gets, the less control she has, leading her to do "questionable" things.

Again, anger does create temptations; but she's able to resist the temptations. Most of the questionable things you're talking about are questionable things she almost does, like killing Artemis. If a hero is tempted and resists temptation--even with a little outside help--that just makes her more heroic, to me.

At that point they were both falling. What was he expected to save her from?, not falling?.

He didn't need to truly save her--just show a selfless impulse to save her. Reach out and help her back onto the rock--but do it as an act of mercy and not to selfishly grab the solace of her love. Or, alternatively, have the humility to realize that she, despite appearances, is in the more powerful position, and ask her to fly him out of there. Humbly asking for help could be, by Diana's definition, submission--"faith in the strength of another."

Oh, it was deception, because she planned it all, and then acted from a position of weakness, whether to test him or teach him a lesson. She was always in complete control of that situation, while he was completely oblivious to her "machinations".

Technically, when Diana of Paradise Island purchased the identity of Diana Prince, back in Marston's run, that was deception too. There's deception, and then there's deception. Feigning weakness in order to give the First Born the chance to save himself by showing generosity or humility? That, however quixotic, strikes me as the good kind of "deception."

[Silvanus]

War should always be the last choice!

I agree. Fortunately, so does the new god of war.She said so straight out in Soule's book; she hoped she could use her role to end war or at least to change it and make it a last resort. Azz is subtler about it, but, just like we hope nations will fight wars only as a last choice, Azz's Diana becomes War only as her last choice--sacrificing Ares was the last thing she wanted to do, but she did it to stop greater destruction; and later, accepting Ares' title was the last thing she wanted to do, but she did it, once again to stop the First Born. "War" was the last choice for her.

War destroy, War is death, War feed on human suffering!! War isn't something WW should be beating her chest about!!

Again, I agree. But Azz never had her "beat her chest about" it, either literally or metaphorically.

Yes! I am a veteran!! I would be Ok with the idea of Diana standing for a warrior or a soldier.

Cool. So what if her way of being "god of war" is to be the embodiment of the soldiers and warriors who are tasked with making war?

[Blind Target]

As you say, he doesn't even need a heart. So her "savagery" is mitigated by the fact that she knows she's fighting someone who's not going to be destroyed so easily.

That was for dramatic effect, there's no way she could've known, ripping his heart out, wouldn't have killed him.

Again, anger does create temptations; but she's able to resist the temptations. Most of the questionable things you're talking about are questionable things she almost does, like killing Artemis. If a hero is tempted and resists temptation--even with a little outside help--that just makes her more heroic, to me.

You say, Diana is all about "mercy", and all i'm saying is that she can "forget" herself because of anger. Twice, Artemis was at her "mercy", defeated, and twice she almost killed her, if it wasn't for outside intervention. Usually, when you defeat your opponent, that's the time to show mercy. What Diana was about to do, without outside intervention, wasn't very "merciful". There won't always be someone there to stop her.

You said that she was being "pragmatic", i say she simply came to her senses. The pragmatic thing to do, would be to kill her enemies, so that they don't come back and attack her and her friends, but she doesn't kill like that, remember, she is all about mercy. Which also answers your question as to why she didn't kill her anyways, because the only way she is going to kill, is in anger. Anger is used, to "balance", her mercy.

I'll end it here, i think we've found interesting ways of going in circles, it was insightful.

[Silvanus]

You say, Diana is all about "mercy", and all i'm saying is that she can "forget" herself because of anger.

If that's really all your saying, maybe we don't disagree. Anyone can forget themselves in anger. Perhaps Batman and Superman seem immune to such"emotionalism" in most runs, but I think that just makes them flat characters with less emotional depth than Azz's Diana has.

But I don't see Azz's Diana as more prone than anyone else to forgetting herself or to losing control. When someone attacked her and her friends, she fought back and kept fighting for a moment after her enemy had been defeated. Most people would, even if they're prone to mercy; it takes a moment to put the brakes on. And a lot of people wouldn't be so quick to calm down when offered a deal or reminded of other priorities. We really don't know that she would have gone through with it had Apollo not offered a deal or had Ares not reminded her that she was needed elsewhere.

You said that she was being "pragmatic", i say she simply came to her senses. The pragmatic thing to do, would be to kill her enemies, so that they don't come back and attack her and her friends, but she doesn't kill like that, remember, she is all about mercy.

Ares certainly believed that it was pragmatic to always kill one's enemies. But I think the book suggested that this "pragmatism" was a short-sighted dogmatism in disguise; even Ares apparently learned, after 0, that at least sometimes enemies like Artemis should be spared, and that raw force vs. raw force in often not to wisest way to resolve conflicts.

i think one of the themes of the run was that merciful and compassionate acts often are, in effect, pragmatic--or at least result in good (though not necessarily forseeable) consequences for the one who performed those acts: saving Hera restores the Amazons, embracing Siracca yields a new ally, encouraging MIlan uncovers Zeke's location, showing faith in Orion inspires him to side with her against his own father, sparing the minotaur causes him to spare her years later. Come to think of it, even sparing the First Born contributed to the restoration of the Amazons; had she not spared him, Apollo might never have given Hera her powers back. Saving Trevor seems to have been completely pragmatic in motivation, though in effect it's the same as a compassionate action.

If Diana believes that mercy and compassion are often more pragmatic, or at least lead to better results than, force and killing, then she's going to be a different kind of War.


[/quote]Which also answers your question as to why she didn't kill her anyways, because the only way she is going to kill, is in anger. Anger is used, to "balance", her mercy.[/quote]

I assume she was still angry--why wouldn't she be?--but she was able to put her anger aside. And would it really have been pragmatic to kill Artemis? Incurring the wealth of Artemis' twin when he was reigning kind of heaven wouldn't have seemed so pragmatic to me.

I'll end it here, i think we've found interesting ways of going in circles, it was insightful.

Fair enough. It was fun.

[Agent Z]

If that's really all your saying, maybe we don't disagree. Anyone can forgetting themselves in anger. Perhaps Batman and Superman seem immune to such"emotionalism" in most runs, but I think that just makes them flat characters with less emotional depth than Azz's Diana has.

I think there's a fine line between "emotional depth" and "hot-tempered, irrational woman child". It's very easy for writers to portray Diana as the latter while passing it off with the "she's supposed to be flawed" b.s. Note that even Superman and Batman fans will voice their complaints if those characters act like that.

[Silvanus]

I think there's a fine line between "emotional depth" and "hot-tempered, irrational woman child". It's very easy for writers to portray Diana as the latter while passing it off with the "she's supposed to be flawed" b.s. Note that even Superman and Batman fans will voice their complaints if those characters act like that.

There has to be such a line, but I'd draw it well south of "keeps her just-defeated would-be killer in a chokehold until that enemy's associate offers a deal" and north of "tries to beat the 'vegetative' life out of Swamp Thing for no good reason." Diana as god war can be, and already has been, on either sides of the line.

[Lax]

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.

Refining and reducing are two vastly different objectives.

One is viewing masculinity itself as the problem, the other is viewing the way it's channeled as the issue.

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.

Why? Because he's male, buff, gruff, and prefers a direct approach to fighting evil?

Avengers Black Widow breaks laws all the time as a spy and nobody describes her as hyper-masculine, or masculine at all really. Why? Because she's female, pretty, articulate and prefers a subtle approach to fighting 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."

Can be pejorative? Within the feminist narrative "hyper-masculine" is primarily, if not purely, pejorative. It's not a compliment, it's not neutral, it's a problem that needs to be fixed.

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.

Have you noticed there's no connection between masculinity and either male's behavior during this explanation? I know Male A is more virtuous and brave than Male B, but is he more masculine than Male B? Earlier you said "Ares' extreme aggressiveness can be seen as hypermasculine whether it's in the service of an evil cause or a good cause."

If the rapist is "hyper-masculine" then what does that make the hero who displayed just as much viciousness, savagery and aggression for a good cause? If it's not about good and evil then the hero is just as "hyper-masculine" as the rapist.

Go to youtube and check out "Real Life Heroes" and watch how often said "heroes" happen to be male. Compare the female and male reactions in some of these clips.

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.

Feminism does.

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.

How do you expect a role that emphasizes masculinity to not be male-dominated without forcing females, as a group, to do something they clearly have less interest in doing?

Or by "enter into previously male-dominated roles and make them less hyper-masculine", do you mean feminize the males that are already there?

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.

Progressives refuse to define masculinity and femininity themselves so no one is judged as masculine or feminine? Yet the differences clearly exist, it's like refusing to define strength so no one is considered weak.

[Silvanus]

Refining and reducing are two vastly different objectives.

One is viewing masculinity itself as the problem...

Not necessarily. Too much of a good thing can be bad, and the thing itself can still be good. As a point of comparison for "hypermasculine," think of the word "hyperactive." Being active, energetic, lively, is good; but too much activity (with "too much" defined according to what's inappropriate or dysfunctional in context) can be a bad thing.

One big difference, of course, is that hyperactivity is a disorder, whereas hypermasculinity is a set of stereotypes, adopted in an exaggerated way as an actual pattern of behavior by some men and perhaps some subcultures. And I think there's legitimate disagreement, even among progressives, over how to define hypermasculinity or even how useful a term it is.

We could debate the semantics forever, but it seems like we agree that aggressiveness is somewhat associated, whether naturally or (as I think) in a culturally constructed way, with masculinity. And obviously aggressiveness is a necessary or inevitable part of war, as long as there is war at all. Aggressiveness in war can express itself as brutality or as heroism, or both, or many things in between.

But I think it's also obvious that reducing the excessive aggressiveness of war--the rapes, the atrocities, the waging of unnecessary wars out of warped notions of "honor" or a desire for dominance--would be a good thing. So, the idea of the feminine influence that Wonder Woman as god of war might bring? As a fantasy, it's not unappealing.

How do you expect a role that emphasizes masculinity to not be male-dominated without forcing females, as a group, to do something they clearly have less interest in doing?

I think you've answered your own question via the phrase "as a group." There are, for example, a lot more female doctors, lawyers, politicians and soldiers today there there were in, let's just say, 1941. These professions may still be male-dominated,to varying degrees, but less so than they used to be. That's not because women were forced to enter these roles "as a group"; it's because women who wanted to enter these roles were allowed and encouraged to do so. At first, only a few wanted to do so, and then, seeing the possibilities proven by those trailblazers, more women joined them.


When Marston created Wonder Woman, women were just starting to enter the military in greater numbers through the Women's Army Corps and other auxiliaries. Marston enthusiastically endorsed this development and even had Wonder Woman urge Dr. Psycho's wife to "join the WACs or the WAVEs." Wonder Woman--and Diana Prince--represented, among other things, the rise of the women warrior, both outside and inside the armed forces. Perhaps Wonder Woman has done that again by becoming god of war at the same historical moment when women have entered most combat roles in the U.S. military.

[quote]Or by "enter into previously male-dominated roles and make them less hyper-masculine", do you mean feminize the males that are already there?[/quote

I wouldn't say so, but it depends what you mean by "feminize." Compassion and gentleness are often seen as feminine traits, and their are professions whose cultures could benefit from an infusion of those traits (among men as well as women). I wouldn't say that men who are taught to act with more compassion or gentleness have been "feminized," put perhaps some would.

Feminism does [regard masculinity as a blight].

Feminism as defined by anti-feminists would. Feminism as defined by most feminists generally does not, I believe. The feminists I know regard misogyny, sexism and patriarchy as blights--but masculinity? No. Some of them are masculine, or at least "butch," in various ways, and quite happy about it. The feminists I know have no problem being being coworkers or friends with masculine men, as long as those men aren't sexist. Some feminists I've read are probably closer to considering femininity a blight--or, more specifically, enforced femininity: that is, they point out that women have been hemmed in over the years by strict expectations that they be "feminine" in prescribed ways.

Progressives refuse to define masculinity and femininity themselves so no one is judged as masculine or feminine? Yet the differences clearly exist, it's like refusing to define strength so no one is considered weak.

Progressives probably created the Hypermasculinity Index, which clearly doesn't reflect a prohibition on defining. It's just that progressives don't want to define gender in a way that makes gender differences appear to be universal, natural and normative when they may be variable, culturally conditioned and non-normative. Aggressiveness, for example, may be a characteristic of men statistically; but that doesn't, or shouldn't, make it normative--which is to say, one can be a good man without being an aggressive man. Therefore, feminists tend to qualify "feminine" and "masculine" with adjectives like "traditional."