Do Writers Simply Have Trouble Making The Amazons Sympathetic?

[Darius]

I think it's possible to write the Amazons as victims without having that define them. Marston had them enslaved but didn't do much with it (tbf I blame that more on the era he was writing in).

Agreed about Marston and the era in which he wrote ... and you are probably correct about having a tragic past without it being what defines them, I just don't think we've seen that yet

[LoneNecromancer]

I thought the idea of the Amazons having a super-utopia was questionable- it doesn't stand to reason that an isolated, static civilisation of unaging humans would really be super-progressive, given by what generally happens in the real world- but yeah, I disagree with the idea of all of them being evil crazy nutters like in a certain story that shall go unnamed, but be remembered only by the line "Bees. My God."

To some extent I suppose it's because not many writers have really tried to do anything with the ideas about gender and what they represent, but I'm pretty optimistic Morrison will have a fun take on them, even though yeah, I'm not always that keen on the futuristic utopia nor the villainous Hercules.

[SiegePerilous02]

Morrison is really the only writer who is making me excited to see the Amazons. Usually, I am filled with dread upon seeing how badly they are treated, or thinking they're nice but really wanting Diana to just get off the damn island and fight some supervillains already. But if this book ends up just being Morrison throwing out weird, kinky Amazon stuff, I will be pretty satisfied.

[Agent Z]

I thought the idea of the Amazons having a super-utopia was questionable- it doesn't stand to reason that an isolated, static civilisation of unaging humans would really be super-progressive, given by what generally happens in the real world- but yeah, I disagree with the idea of all of them being evil crazy nutters like in a certain story that shall go unnamed, but be remembered only by the line "Bees. My God."

To some extent I suppose it's because not many writers have really tried to do anything with the ideas about gender and what they represent, but I'm pretty optimistic Morrison will have a fun take on them, even though yeah, I'm not always that keen on the futuristic utopia nor the villainous Hercules.

I understand that. But the same logic people use for the man killer Amazons could also be used for villainous Heracles (that it was in the myths so it should be adapted in as well).

[Darius]

I thought the idea of the Amazons having a super-utopia was questionable- it doesn't stand to reason that an isolated, static civilisation of unaging humans would really be super-progressive, given by what generally happens in the real world- but yeah, I disagree with the idea of all of them being evil crazy nutters like in a certain story that shall go unnamed, but be remembered only by the line "Bees. My God."

To some extent I suppose it's because not many writers have really tried to do anything with the ideas about gender and what they represent, but I'm pretty optimistic Morrison will have a fun take on them, even though yeah, I'm not always that keen on the futuristic utopia nor the villainous Hercules.

On the flip side of this argument I'd say ... what else would an immortal group of superhuman women do with their time if they aren't busy creating a super advanced society? Living for thousands of years gives you a LOT of downtime. At the very least you'd expect artistic pursuits to be normal (everyone needs a hobby!).

Heracles as well as Achilles had antagonistic relationships with Amazons in Greek myth so I don't really have a problem with them viewing Herc as a societal villain ... probably every national hero with a military background has reverse image to his enemies. Hannibal was a great villain to Rome, but the national hero to Carthage. Sitting Bull was one of his people's great leaders, but the expanding American nation thought of him as a criminal ... I just think of this as the other side of the coin for great historical figures.

[LoneNecromancer]

On the flip side of this argument I'd say ... what else would an immortal group of superhuman women do with their time if they aren't busy creating a super advanced society? Living for thousands of years gives you a LOT of downtime. At the very least you'd expect artistic pursuits to be normal (everyone needs a hobby!)

People, or species in general, don't have much reason to progress if they have no real conflict. Though yeah, I'd agree with artistic pursuits.

Heracles as well as Achilles had antagonistic relationships with Amazons in Greek myth so I don't really have a problem with them viewing Herc as a societal villain ... probably every national hero with a military background has reverse image to his enemies. Hannibal was a great villain to Rome, but the national hero to Carthage. Sitting Bull was one of his people's great leaders, but the expanding American nation thought of him as a criminal ... I just think of this as the other side of the coin for great historical figures.

Well, in the story, Hercules doesn't really have much of an antagonistic relationship with the Amazons, who are manipulated by Hera into fighting him. I dunno, considering Hercules is basically one of the original mythic heroes from who Superman, amongst other heroes draws inspiration from as far as their creation went, it just seems a bit odd to me.

[Outside_85]

At the very least you'd expect artistic pursuits to be normal (everyone needs a hobby!).

You couldn't really, not with people of that time, where only the aristocracy had time for philosophy, scientific and artistic pursuits.

Think of it this way, the Amazons are a warrior culture, they have an army where everyone is a member and a duty to use it. Those sisters who are not currently in the standing forces (guards, on patrols, exercises and so on), are going to be busy tending the farmlands, hunting, fishing, gathering fruits, generally getting and preparing food to make sure everyone have enough. And on top of this there will be all the smiths, masons, carpenters, vendors and so on that keep society going.

I don't know if it's a flaw of the older books and such, but depicting Paradise Island as a place where everyone can just lie around all day with a glass of wine and a book if you aren't going for a swim... well it's a nice post card, but it's worth remembering these things don't just manifest out of thin air.

[Darius]

People, or species in general, don't have much reason to progress if they have no real conflict. Though yeah, I'd agree with artistic pursuits.

I think that's a touch cynical to be honest I think people will find new innovative ways to make day to day life easier whenever the opportunity arises. The first humans to build tools did so to make life easier, in later generations they began working with superior materials etc ... conflict certainly plays a role in how quickly certain innovations become reality, but who's to say the Amazons have no conflict? Perhaps the gods set them challenges or they had to work out ways to maximize natural resources or learn to advance healing methods due to some dangers on the island etc ... look at how many world cultures developed writing and architecture and learned to domesticate animals and grains ... totally independent of one another. No reason to think the Amazons would suddenly stagnate simply because they were isolated from man.

basically isolation does not = lack of conflict

Well, in the story, Hercules doesn't really have much of an antagonistic relationship with the Amazons, who are manipulated by Hera into fighting him. I dunno, considering Hercules is basically one of the original mythic heroes from who Superman, amongst other heroes draws inspiration from as far as their creation went, it just seems a bit odd to me.

Perhaps, but Heracles wasn't some perfect hero either ... manipulated or not, his history with the Amazons isn't all "rainbows and sunshine". My point was that it's plausible to understand why the Amazons would have considered him a cultural adversary, along with other great heroes such as Achilles (killed an Amazon queen at Troy) and Theseus (kidnapped and married an Amazon Queen) who also played roles as antagonists to the Amazons of classic literature. Point being, it's not implausible given the history of Amazons and the Greeks.

[Silvanus]

double post

[Silvanus]

Instead of making story lines out of the amazons they should be supporting characters.

Like you, I prefer them to be supporting characters rather than co-protagonists; but I think it's because they're supporting characters that portraying them "sympathetically" is often not the highest priority. If, in a given situation, they can play a "supporting role" in the story and in Diana's character development by doing something unlikable or "unsympathizable" that creates a conflict and dramatic possibility for Diana, then writers may sometimes be right to have them do such unlikable things, in my opinion. So I don't think writers necessarily "have trouble" portraying the Amazons sympathetically ; I think they just choose to portray them unsympathetically when they believe that doing so serves the story. And sometimes they're wrong to believe that, but maybe sometimes they're right.

Diana goes to the island for advise, support, to visit family, help with something, vacation.

That's what happened in Azz's issue 2. And if they'd been co-protagonists, Azz's priority in issues 2-4 might have been to have them be notably helpful and heroic in those issues.

I don't see reason to think he would have had trouble doing so. In fact, I found his portrayal of the Amazons in those three issues sympathetic in some ways: after initial resistance, they do help by providing shelter for Zola and care for the wounded Harmes; they bow to Diana; Hippolta attemtps to counsel Diana and shows concern for her; Aleka and Diana exchange smiles when Diana defeats her, so that they're relationship looks like an at least semi-friendly rivalry; they grieve for their dead; the older Amazons "hatched a plan" to protect their princess; Hippolyta shows remorse for having deceived Diana; Hippolyta attempts to spare the other Amazons the consequences of her actions; the other Amazons, led by Aleka, risk their lives to protect their queens, and their stealth and skill is praised by Hera; Hippolyta accepts responsibility and expresses remorse to Hera.

But Azz, I think, was trying to take Diana and us out of our comfort zone, and he evidently (and reasonably) thought that good ways for these "supporting characters" to "support" that discomforting objective was to show signs of misandry, scapegoat Diana for their sisters' death, and then get taken off the board at the end of issue 4. So that's what he had them do.

[Agent Z]

If those were supposed to be attempts at sympathy I found them half assed. Especially given what we find out about them in issue 7.

[Silvanus]

If those were supposed to be attempts at sympathy I found them half assed. Especially given what we find out about them in issue 7.

Again, it seems pretty obvious that the overall intent was not to portray the Amazons sympathetically, but to take Diana and us out of our comfort zone. At the same time, there are subtle (or "half-assed"--it's all in the eye of the beholder ) signs of a more positive side, to add a little dimensionality, and I don't see why the creative team would have had trouble making those signs unsubtle (or "whole-assed," if you will) if that had been the goal. But the goal was to use these supporting characters to support a story in which Diana had a lot of darkness to deal with, even from those close to her. So again, I don't necessarily think the writers "have trouble making the Amazons sympathetic"; I just think making them sympathetic isn't always the writers' idea of the best ways to use the Amazons as supporting characters.

[Lax]

Context of the present times? You must mean the wage gap, date rape, revenge porn, domestic violence, honor killings, sex trafficking, etc. etc. Sure, we've made some very good strides for women (and other demographics), but we still have work to do on many fronts. So, an industry with a poor history of sexism really isn't on solid footing for this supposed "reflection of that agitation in art."

1. The wage gap is a myth. Male-on-female rape is considered vile and a crime. Porn is a fantasy. Domestic violence happens fairly evenly between the sexes, people are simply apathetic when it's female-on-male. Sexual slavery is also considered vile and a crime. Honor killings are considered horrible and a crime.

2. That women in other parts of the world suffer these horrors does not give every woman victim status via vagina. Otherwise Christians in first-world nations are oppressed because the Christians in Muslim countries are getting slaughtered for their beliefs with nigh-impunity.

But no, I mean how it's illegal to mutilate a female infant's genitalia yet perfectly legal to mutilate a male's provided it's labeled "circumcision". I mean how sexual slavery is illegal because it primarily hurts women yet financial slavery is legal because it primarily hurts men, so long as it's called "alimony". I mean how men get harsher sentences for committing the exact same crime as women. I mean how there's a push to reverse the burden of proof in sexual assault/rape cases on college campus because males are obviously evil. I mean how so few people actually care about men at all.

Nothing about this is going to be welcomed within feminist circles so there's little sense in waiting for an invitation within art.

And if men are less safe, it is mainly because of MEN. But, you're right that oppression is not any sort of physical characteristic. That's why I'm not surprised and expect to see bad guys of both sexes, different races, etc. Like you mentioned, Africans have enslaved Africans, women can be horrible to other women (and men). I also expect to see good guys with different characteristics.

That's why I'm not for over-simplification; if theses issues are going to be addressed, they should be given more care and attention than something like Amazons Attack.

The point is that if men have all this power and hated women at the same time then that makes no sense.

That's a pretty specific Western world POV you've got going on there ... the vast majority of the female population of the world still struggle with basic human rights.

It's a comic created by westerners for a western audience.

But you've completely dodged the point of my argument which was about why Marston's portrayal developed as it did. I don't love the current take on the Amazon's either, but I did like what Marston built.

When people were analyzing the unsympathetic portrayals of the amazons in recent years no one was taking the changing "times" into consideration. Nobody. They were analyzing it within a vacuum devoid of social context because the portrayal of the amazons, at present, are not to their tastes. Marston was brought up because apparently "subverting the misogynistic thinking behind the original Amazon myth" is what he was trying to accomplish.

I offer a quote where Marston reveals himself to be a female supremacist with misandristic beliefs and was quite willing to use Wonder Woman as a tool for his propaganda. Likewise I analyzed his statement within the same vacuum as others, mirroring that same lack of social context, yet unsurprisingly when this is done for the opposing side of the debate people actually start to take notice. An unapologetic real-world female supremacist with misandristic beliefs and I'm supposed to be... understanding? Okay, let's keep that in mind.

Meredith Finch and Brian Azzarello are guilty of portraying the amazons as a bunch of unsympathetic man-haters. Considering the unholy avalanche of negativity feminism rains on men for increasingly trivial slights, real or imagined, you must be incredibly "understanding" of how a modern writer would portrayal amazons in an unsympathetic manner.

Marston "subverting the misogynistic thinking behind the original Amazon myth" seems to be a wonderful idea no matter how far in the past the Greeks lived. Meanwhile, not only is Meredith/Azz "subverting the misandristic thinking behind the DC amazons" not even acknowledged as a possibility, the very idea of it is met with resistance by highlighting his time period even though Marston lived far more recently than the Greeks and thus has less of an excuse.

[Silvanus]

1. The wage gap is a myth....

If the question is whether it's difficult to make a group of female separatists sympathetic in today's environment, then does it matter whether the wage gap is reality or a widely believed "myth"? Working women still believe that this gap, along with other gender-based inequities exists. (By the way, I agree with them--I know that some people have tried to disprove the gender gap, but their arguments aren't very convincing compared to the many analyses that show it's not a myth at all.) Whether it's true or not, the mere perception that women are treated unfairly probably helps make it possible for many to sympathize with fictional women who withdraw from a society that doesn't value them enough. So, we disagree about the balance of power between the genders and about precisely to what degree gender relations have changed in the last 70 years or so.

However, I agree with you that gender relations have changed in some significant degree over the last 70 years, for people in the cultures in which Woman Woman is most likely to be read, and I also agree that it makes sense for these changes to be reflected in Wonder Woman comics. Women have proven that, when they are not unfairly excluded, they can compete very well with men. Just as fewer women today are interested in all-female colleges, it's possible that fewer are interested in an all-female utopian fantasy And so the idea of an isolationist society of women is likely to strike a lot of people as more dubious and less healthy than it did 70 years ago, and exposing and addressing the pitfalls of that idea in today's context may be more preferable.

Still, I don't think this means that writers should necessarily "have trouble" portraying the Amazons sympathetically; they should be able to do so by showing the Amazons establishing dialogue with men, as they were already doing in many runs before the reboot. I thought accepting their Amazon brothers would be an excellent step in that direction, which is one reason I was sorry to see them killed off.

[Aula_Magna]

It's extremely difficult to portray the amazons as a watertight democracy, a perfect utopian single-sex nation without implying that men are a pestilence and that women are better off without them, which understandably alienates the male readership and flies in the face of everything feminism purports to be. There's also something decisively contradictory about a stagnant feminist utopia inhabited by modified women that (didn't) achieve eternal life confined to tiny piece of land, a land which they didn't conquer but that was given to them. That's not my idea of freedom and independency.