New Phil Jimenez/Wonder Woman Interview

[Silvanus]

[The term "feminazi" has] apparently been around since the 1990's and is in the Urban Dictionary online.

Yeah, it was popularized in the nineties by right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh, who defined it as referring to someone who made it her goal to see that as many abortions were performed as possible--a goal which virtually no one ever actually endorsed. It's obviously a portmanteau of feminist and nazi, so it has generally been favored by those with little or no good will towards the feminist movment (though sure, there are some who will say that they are feminists but not feminazis). I wouldn't go so far as to say it's not a "valid" word to use--I'm not even sure what it would mean for a word not to be "valid" in a conversation like this--but I do think it tends to make the user sound hostile towards feminism as a movement.

Using you example here, it is very easy to see how and why the story was changed for the movie "Troy." Here Achilles, one of the heroes of the movie, does NOT force Brisies, and in fact rescues here from the lecherous attentions of the wicked Agamemnon. Clearly the movie makers understood what I was talking about - that you cant have a character raping and murdering women and then have him turn around and be the good guy, redeem himself, and have feminists happily go along with it. Not without truly extraordinary circumstances like mind control or possession.

Yeah, the movie whitewashes Achilles, thereby obscuring the realities of the misogyny with which so much of the Western tradition is intertwined. I'm not a fan.

The problem with the Amazons in the Azzarello run is that is actually describes them to a tee - which means that these women now embody the very worst view of what empowered and liberated women are all about.

Even if that's the case, what does Azzarello's run do by ascribing this view to women who are (or were, until the last few issues) almost literally stuck in the past? I think it suggests that this defensive hostility, either as an actual reaction to patriarchy or a perception of strong and liberated women, belongs to the past, and that modern empowered and liberated women--like Wonder Woman--want nothing to do with it.

In this case, I was simply referring to the ability of the readers to follow how you describe your assumptions about Azzarello's convoluted logic. The theory of relativity might be counter-intuitive, but that was written by one of the greatest minds of human history and should not be taken as the yard stick by which the term is commonly measured - in other words, something that makes no sense and fails in its purpose. [except to make money, I suppose].

That may be the bretionary definition of counter-intuitive. Here's Google's dictionary definition:

coun·ter·in·tu·i·tive
adjective
contrary to intuition or to common-sense expectation (but often nevertheless true).

I get that a feminist reading of Azz's run seems counter-intuitive and strange to many. That doesn't mean it can't be perfectly valid. It's certainly possible to negatively critique it from a feminist point of view; that critique may not be the reading I find most compelling, but that doesn't mean it's flat-out wrong or that I can't respect it. It would be nice if everyone could realize that more that one reading is possible--but if they can't, they can't.

[Awonder]

All good points.

Thank you.

Some will no doubt say that he does follow up on the last one because we see what's-her-name try to kill herself because of the grief of giving up her lost child.

I thought her grief was over trying to kill Zeke.

We had Greg Rucka in Brisbane today and when I was at the convention it occurred to me I could pop home and grab some of his issues to get signed. And then I remembered Sacrifice, and decided it was too much trouble to go to for a run that I ended up not liking very much for some of the very reasons Jimenez mentions.

I know you don't like Sacrifice, but did you at least get to meet him?

[Silvanus]

I thought her grief was over trying to kill Zeke.

I think it's implied that her guilt and grief go deeper. If I remember right, after Diana says she knows Dessa doesn't really want to hurt the baby (by which Diana means Zeke), Dessa, with a deeply sad and somewhat crazed look about her, says something lihe " I never, ever wanted to."

[Awonder]

When you actually look at it, did the fighting really amount to "a whole lot"?

Good point. Olympus gets a couple of makeovers, but, not much more. I would have liked more ramifications and follow-up from things like the deaths of gods and the destruction of London.

Why would he?

It's not like the woman who gave that son a chance at survival ran right back and told her. As a matter of fact, what happens is almost the opposite of that.

Why wouldn't he follow-up? Why not show a mom excited by the prospect of being reunited with her son? Not a single Amazon mother cares after her baby boy is gone? That sounds pretty shallow to me; a missed opportunity for depth and complexity.

You know...

For a bunch that want to talk about how this Athena is the mythological Athena and this Zeus is the skirt chasing/raping mythological Zeus, you guys get weird really quick when your Amazons start to look a little more like mythological Amazons.

Why didn't you send this memo to Azzarello and co. four years ago? Because this goes both ways. If he's going back to the old myths for the Amazons, then why isn't he sticking strictly to those same old tales for characters like Heph (who was not the God of Abandoned boys, nor a nephew that wanted to help his uncle, but was quite vindictive towards his mother)?

It's supposed to be "Wonder Woman", so... yes. Mythologiacal accuracy was never a priority.

no, but why use the patriarch version of it? when marston clearly wanted them to be different and represent the feminism?
seems very backwards for me

Well said. My expectation of the portrayal of mythical characters outside of WW/DC is not the same as my expectation of those same characters in a WW story. Part of the appeal, imo, of Marston's Amazons is that they are not the very generic version I can find in countless sources (now including Azzarello's WW).

[Awonder]

I think it's implied that her guilt and grief go deeper. If I remember right, after Diana says she knows Dessa doesn't really want to hurt the baby (by which Diana means Zeke), Dessa, with a deeply sad and somewhat crazed look about her, says something lihe " I never, ever wanted to."

Deeper is implied, but nothing specific is mentioned, right?

[Silvanus]

Deeper is implied, but nothing specific is mentioned, right?

No--it just may seem to some that she probably wouldn't say "never, ever" (or words to that effect) if she wasn't thinking about a prior incident as well as this one. But it's left open to interpretation.

[Awonder]

Silvanus - if you are going to group Brett with Rush Limbaugh for the use of a word, how 'bout I group you with Brian Wood (he of the recent infamous newsletter) for both severely downplaying the sexism in comics? Sound like a good idea? I don't think so, sounds like unfair guilt by grouping to me.

Hold on--did you think I was saying that? Or that I was interpreting Azzarello as saying that? I was not. Brett might be, but I was not. Far from it. For one thing, I don't see any reason to think that the Amazons--who retreated from the rest of the world instead of engaging it--stand for all "women who are critical of men." ...

I don't think you are saying that. But you do know the DC Amazons are very well known for being critical of "Man's World," correct? Intentionally or not, Azzarello takes 'the messenger' and showcases their own problems, never giving their own background and, thus, ignoring what men have done to them.

You claim this is to toss out the idea that women have to be held to a higher standard. If stories are allowed depictions of both those behaving good and those behaving bad - WW comics have always had both good and bad women as well as good and bad men - then why do the Amazons have to be the ones he drags through the "dirt"?

Yeah, the movie whitewashes Achilles, thereby obscuring the realities of the misogyny with which so much of the Western tradition is intertwined. I'm not a fan.

Even if that's the case, what does Azzarello's run do by ascribing this view to women who are (or were, until the last few issues) almost literally stuck in the past? I think it suggests that this defensive hostility, either as an actual reaction to patriarchy or a perception of strong and liberated women, belongs to the past, and that modern empowered and liberated women--like Wonder Woman--want nothing to do with it.

If the Amazons have to have "dirt" because they are stuck in the past and if you are not a fan of whitewashing Achilles, then what about the whitewashing of Heph?

Mythical Heph wanted to torture his mother for eternity. His own abandonment did not make him the empathetic rescuer of abandoned boys, it made him vindictive. But that is not Azzarello's Heph; Heph is whitewashed to make him look better while making the Amazons look worse.

And their crimes are made up. Find me one matriarchy in all of history that has had widespread, sex-based male infanticide. Azzarello's Amazons are not freeing women from a higher standard, this is Azzarello giving the crimes of patriarchy to the matriarchy of the story. This is an attack on the messenger that criticized Man's World.

[brettc1]

That may be the bretionary definition of counter-intuitive. Here's Google's dictionary definition:

Ah.

Well I have learned something, and will have to switch back to ludicrous.

[brettc1]

I know you don't like Sacrifice, but did you at least get to meet him?

I saw him - he was sitting next to Nicola Scott. I could have spoken with him, but what would I say? I didn't like your run on Wonder Woman, and I thought yours and Nicola's work on WW Blackest Night was so awful I tore pages from the book? That seems like a waste of my time and theirs.

[Silvanus]

Silvanus - if you are going to group Brett with Rush Limbaugh for the use of a word, how 'bout I group you with Brian Wood (he of the recent infamous newsletter) for both severely downplaying the sexism in comics? Sound like a good idea? I don't think so, sounds like unfair guilt by grouping to me.

I'm not saying Brett=Rush; I'm just saying something about the history of the word "feminazi." Do you not agree with me that this word is generally heard from people who are hostile to the feminist movement?

I don't think you are saying that. But you do know the DC Amazons are very well known for being critical of "Man's World," correct? Intentionally or not, Azzarello takes 'the messenger' and showcases their own problems, never giving their own background and, thus, ignoring what men have done to them.

Whatever they suffered in man's world, it's thousands of years in the past, so I don't think it's so strange that it's not explored in this story. As I've said before, I might have have found some such exploration interesting and useful anyway; but I can make do with reading that Amazons' deeds resulted from "old weakness" and a perceived need to act for their "survival." Of course any Amazons would have felt threatened by hostile neighbors in man's world. And it's not strange that they would have responded with brutality, as male warriors of the time would have done. I like the contrast between this old mythologized image of what a powerful woman might be like and the modern reality of what powerful women can be and are like, as embodied by Wonder Woman.

You claim this is to toss out the idea that women have to be held to a higher standard. If stories are allowed depictions of both those behaving good and those behaving bad - WW comics have always had both good and bad women as well as good and bad men - then why do the Amazons have to be the ones he drags through the "dirt"?

I think maybe DC's Amazons have traditionally embodied the ideal of women held to a higher standard of purity. So if the story wasn't going to embrace that ideal, it made sense to offer a different version of the Amazons--and moreover, doing so created some conflicts and tensions for the main character to deal with.

If the Amazons have to have "dirt" because they are stuck in the past and if you are not a fan of whitewashing Achilles, then what about the whitewashing of Heph?

Mythical Heph wanted to torture his mother for eternity. His own abandonment did not make him the empathetic rescuer of abandoned boys, it made him vindictive. But that is not Azzarello's Heph; Heph is whitewashed to make him look better while making the Amazons look worse.

Interesting. I guess this strikes me as different from the case of Achilles because Heph, thrown off the mountain by his mother as an infant, doesn't seem to exemplify male oppression of women in the same way. It would be better to turn the other cheek, but you don't exactly have to be misogynist to be angry at your mother for trying to kill when you were a baby, do you? By the way, while he's sometimes shown as vengeful towards Hera over the whole abandonment/attempted infanticide thing, he comes across as gentler in other myths; there's a speech in the Iliad in which he counsels Hera not to put herself in danger by making Zeus too angry, and he shows real concerns for her, despite the way he'd been treated.

And their crimes are made up. Find me one matriarchy in all of history that has had widespread, sex-based male infanticide.

I'm not sure I can find you one true matriarchy in all of history, period. And of course these Amazons crimes are made up; they are fictional characters. They themselves are made up.

Azzarello's Amazons are not freeing women from a higher standard, this is Azzarello giving the crimes of patriarchy to the matriarchy of the story. This is an attack on the messenger that criticized Man's World.

If you want to read it that way, you can. And if you must read it that way, because that's the conclusion to which your analysis of the evidence leads, then you must. I can respect that. I'm sorry you have so much trouble respecting a different reading.

[brettc1]

Yeah, it was popularized in the nineties by right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh, who defined it as referring to someone who made it her goal to see that as many abortions were performed as possible--a goal which virtually no one ever actually endorsed. It's obviously a portmanteau of feminist and nazi, so it has generally been favored by those with little or no good will towards the feminist movment (though sure, there are some who will say that they are feminists but not feminazis). I wouldn't go so far as to say it's not a "valid" word to use--I'm not even sure what it would mean for a word not to be "valid" in a conversation like this--but I do think it tends to make the user sound hostile towards feminism as a movement.

MMM. Like Mansplaining.

Yeah, the movie whitewashes Achilles, thereby obscuring the realities of the misogyny with which so much of the Western tradition is intertwined. I'm not a fan.

It is however a good example of the power of stories. For example, I would be a lot more comfortable watching Troy with my son [though not quite yet] because the characters like Achilles have at least some redeeming features to them and can be seen as flawed heroes, not misogynist killers.

Even if that's the case, what does Azzarello's run do by ascribing this view to women who are (or were, until the last few issues) almost literally stuck in the past? I think it suggests that this defensive hostility, either as an actual reaction to patriarchy or a perception of strong and liberated women, belongs to the past, and that modern empowered and liberated women--like Wonder Woman--want nothing to do with it.

Except these women aren't living in the past. They are alive now, 3000 years later. The Amazons have gone from being advance scientifically and culturally to culturally advanced by technologically stunted to an being backward in pretty much every area except for killing people.

By the next reboot, they will likely only be able to communicate in grunts and gestures while they kill men and use their skins carpets.

I get that a feminist reading of Azz's run seems counter-intuitive and strange to many. That doesn't mean it can't be perfectly valid. It's certainly possible to negatively critique it from a feminist point of view; that critique may not be the reading I find most compelling, but that doesn't mean it's flat-out wrong or that I can't respect it. It would be nice if everyone could realize that more that one reading is possible--but if they can't, they can't.

Funny thing to say when you're arguing against one person's {Jimenez] reading.

[brettc1]

I think maybe DC's Amazons have traditionally embodied the ideal of women held to a higher standard of purity. So if the story wasn't going to embrace that ideal, it made sense to offer a different version of the Amazons--and moreover, doing so created some conflicts and tensions for the main character to deal with.

A higher standard is set by the Perez Amazons than what we see here, certainly. But twenty years of stories have seen the Amazons are far from perfect.

Personally I have no more interest in reading about barbarian killer Amazons than I have in seeing the Asgardians being represented as murdering rapists because that is closer to the truth of the Vikings.

And as for the Amazons redeeming themselves - practically the first thing they did after beginning the path to reform was to see their male children murdered by some of their own sisters. Not Azzarello's fault, but certainly the kind of stuff Jimenez is talking about.

[brettc1]

Incidentally I spoke to Phil J on facebook and he agrees with Silvanus about the term feminazi. Though sadly I have to say I personally think it describes the Azzarellons perfectly.

[Silvanus]

Funny thing to say when you're arguing against one persons reading.

You mean Jiminez's? I wonder if he would really say he even has offered a "reading" of Azzarello's run. He critiques the use of the title "god of war" in general, but I haven't seen him put it in the context of specifics from the story. I'm arguing that the title means something different in the context of the story, and specifically in relation to Wonder Woman. I don't think that's disrespectful to Jiminez at all.

I'm also offering an alternative to the your and AWonder's and others' reading of the run as sexist. But I'm not calling your interpretation ludicrous or saying that I have difficulty respecting it (as AWonder said, upthread, of my reading of the run in terms of some of these gender issues). I don't mean to sound thin-skinned, though; if you think something sounds ludicrous or AWonder can't respect something, I don't really mind your calling it as you see it--there's no point being fake. But when we can disagree resepctfully, that's always nice.

Except these women aren't living in the past. They are alive now, 3000 years later.

Chronologically, sure. Culturally, they seem somewhat stuck in the past--as a result of their "old weakness" or vulnerability or fear for their survival, according to Diana. And I think the contrast between the antiquated views of women that they (and Hera, by the way) represent and the modern view that Hera represents is interesting--especially because Diana is able to lead others towards the modern view.

Incidentally I spoke to Phil J on facebook and he agrees with Silvanus about the term feminazi.

I knew I liked that guy.

And as for the Amazons redeeming themselves - practically the first thing they did after beginning the path to reform was to see their male children murdered by some of their own sisters. Not Azzarello's fault, but certainly the kind of stuff Jimenez is talking about.

Yes. When it comes to the Finches' run, we've got some common ground.

[numberthirty]

Why wouldn't he follow-up? Why not show a mom excited by the prospect of being reunited with her son? Not a single Amazon mother cares after her baby boy is gone? That sounds pretty shallow to me; a missed opportunity for depth and complexity.

- She had already likely already mourned him.
- By the time a reunion could have taken place, he was set on wiping out his old family.