New Phil Jimenez/Wonder Woman Interview

[Awonder]

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?

Do you think Brett is hostile to the feminist movement? I think you know he's not, so I think it's quite unfair to group him with Rush as such.

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.

I'm just being honest. If/when I feel you are accounting for and adequately addressing all the variables, criticisms, etc,* then I not only have loads of respect for your "different reading," but I greatly enjoy and appreciate it. If/when it feels like you are spinning, minimizing, and/or leaving out elements that don't fit your positive "reading," then, no, I don't fully respect that as just a different view. For instance, ...

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.

So, it's all well and good to ignore the bad and choose only the good, "gentler" version of Heph while choosing to emphasize the bad version as the basis of the Amazons? The Amazons are better (according to you) for being worse, giving them additional crimes and making them stuck in "old weaknesses," while Heph, even more ancient than the Amazons, is not stuck on vengeance against his mother who wronged him; he does not pass that desire for vengeance on to the boys who have also been wronged by their mothers? Women teach their daughters to hate and kill men, but men don't teach their sons to hate women, just to be artisans?

Nothing about that appears a little imbalanced to you? No whitewashing on one side and "dirt"-washing on the other?

I think maybe DC's Amazons have traditionally embodied the ideal of women held to a higher standard of purity...

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...

They're fictional, so creating fictional crimes is good for them, but we can't create fictional virtues because we can't have them held to higher standards? It's fine for Bruce and Clark to have good dads with no dead babies in their closest, but The women of Diana's family can't be that good? The women behaving badly (Cheetah says hi) aren't enough women behaving badly to show that women aren't all "purity?" All the Amazons have to be guilty as well (even while we ignore Heph's guilt)?

I don't think we see the same double standard.

*Note: I am well aware that I, too, fail to adequately address all the variables, criticisms, different readings, etc. It's why I rarely, if ever, fully respect my arguments. It's hard to cover everything, but in not doing so it's not a full accounting. Frustrating.

[brettc1]

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.

It seems to me you are assigning a greater concern for internal continuity from writers sometimes telling stories centuries apart than there is in actual fact from writers right now who work just down the hall from each other.

In other words, I think the writers of stories in which Hephaestus actions and words seemed to contradict his previous appearances were just "writing the story they wanted to tell" and not much concerned if it made sense in the wider scope. Or maybe they were genuinely ignorant of other versions.

Or perhaps they didn't want to villify Hera because that would be a terrible thing, showing a mother as less than virtuous and pure. After all, women had to be held to a higher moral standard

[Silvanus]

Do you think Brett is hostile to the feminist movement?

No--he can speak for himself, and has spoken for himself, about what he thinks the excesses or false versions of that movement are, but I have no doubt that he strongly supports its general goals. That's why I was bringing the history and implications of the word "feminazi" to his attention. If I were using a word commonly associated with hostility to a movement that I generally support, I would want to know about it.

So, it's all well and good to ignore the bad and choose only the good, "gentler" version of Heph while choosing to emphasize the bad version as the basis of the Amazons?....

First, how whitewashed is Heph, really? His strong dislike, or even history of hatred, for his family is mentioned at least a couple of times. He's still disappointed by his family (including himself--"we disappoint me," he says),and it sounds like he used to have an even harsher perspective on them. There's nothing to contradict the idea that Heph might have been vengeful towards his mother in ages past. It's not like the Troy movie we were discussing, in which the idea that Achilles ever thought of Briseis as spoils of war is pretty much explicitly contradicted.

Second, yes, I think it's fine to treat different supporting characters differently, without necessarily granting the same kind of "balance" or fairness we should try to grant real people. Supporting characters are used according to how the writer thinks they may best support the story and the characterization of hte protagonist. They're not real; they don't have rights; they can't be libeled. Azz seems to have meant for the Amazons' dark past to give occasion for Wonder Woman to show resilience and to lead her people towards reform. What would emphasizing the dark past of Heph, a character with whom she wasn't previously connected, have accomplished? I think Azz wanted to take Wonder Woman out of her and our comfort zone, so he gave her a largely male supporting cast in the first year of the run; but by the end of the run, she's developed a larger network of women,as featured on the cover of the final issue.

Women teach their daughters to hate and kill men, but men don't teach their sons to hate women, just to be artisans?

The Amazons are not all the women in the world, and Heph is not all the men.The Amazons are, according to Diana, motivated by old fears for their survival. There's nothing to suggest that their ways are someway the ways of women in general, or that Heph's ways are the ways of men in general. On the contrary, Heph appears to be an exception--male gods in the book treat women as property (Hades), commit all manner of atrocities and disloyalty to protect or secure a patriarchal throne (Zeus, Poseidon), and generally epitomize what Marston would have called "blood-curdling masculinity" (the First Born).

The women behaving badly (Cheetah says hi) aren't enough women behaving badly to show that women aren't all "purity?"

The historical problem isn't that all women were deemed pure; it's that women were expected to be pure, and when they failed to meet impossible standards, they were deemed whores or monsters. Just having female monsters wouldn't show that women, like men, can act out of fear and anger, just like men, without innately being monsters. If an author wants to show that characters who have done monstrous things are not monsters at their core, that author probably has to put them on a path of reform--and that would have ruined Cheetah.

*Note: I am well aware that I, too, fail to adequately address all the variables, criticisms, different readings, etc. It's why I rarely, if ever, fully respect my arguments. It's hard to cover everything, but in not doing so it's not a full accounting. Frustrating.

If we can only respectfully disagree when our individual arguments somehow address everything that can be addressed, we will almost never respectfully disagree.

Alternatively...we could just lighten up a little. We're not negotiating a nuclear disarmament deal or the federal budget; it's a comic book.

ETA--I should acknowledge that you often show my arguments more respect than I think they deserve. And I realize that we all have our limits, or our boundaries to keep, when it comes to which arguments we can respect and which we can't.

It seems to me you are assigning a greater concern for internal continuity from writers sometimes telling stories centuries apart than there is in actual fact from writers right now who work just down the hall from each other.

It seems that way? Why? Actually, I agree that these writers didn't care about being consistent with each other (or sometimes even with themselves) in their versions of Heph or other cahracters. And I don't think Azz needed to care very much about being consistent with other versions, either. He was just telling his story, which is the right priority. I don't particularly think he necessarily cared that Heph had a gentler side in some mythic portrayals. if that gentleness wasn't there, or if he didn't know about it, he could still make it up. But, since AWonder brought up how he was portrayed in ancient myths, I mentioned this other side as a "By the way..."

More broadly, my point is not that it's always better to be closer to the original versions. I think it's great that Marston's version of the Amazons was not consistent with ancient versions of those legendary characters; as Jiminez says, Marston raised a great "what if?" But after three quarters of a century, this particular "what if?" has perhaps become overly familiar and dated, and it's not hard for me to see why Azz thought he could get a fresher take by raising a different "what if": "What if Wonder Woman came from Amazons like the legendary ones, and had to confront their prejudices or shortcomings?" And I think he made something interesting out of that, and left material for subsequent creative teams to potentially make additional interesting stuff out of it. As some of you have noted, he's by no means the first writer to make the Amazons less pure, but at least the reboot does so in a more coherent way, instead of leaving a history in which the Amazons have this strange history of being moral exemplars who sometimes suddenly act in sinister, petty or savage ways. Now they have (or at least,before the Finches, they had) a clear upward trajectory; they had been stuck as ancient warriors with some barbaric customs for a long time, and now they were on a path of reform.

[brettc1]

The thing is, as a male my opinion of what feminism should or should not be doesn't really count anyway. Except to possibly have me called a misogynist for having one.

[Awonder]

The thing is, as a male my opinion of what feminism should or should not be doesn't really count anyway. Except to possibly have me called a misogynist for having one.

Um, what? Here I am trying to say you don't sound like Rush Limbaugh, and then you go and sound much more like Rush Limbaugh?

[Silvanus]

women still opressed today. very little changed. my point still stands

Women are still oppressed today, but in the countries where most copies of Wonder Woman are read, women can earn money and hold property; they can enter into into contract; they have legal protections against spousal abuse; they can't legally be taken as concubines, or virtual sex slaves, by enemy soldiers; they can vote; they are Supreme Court Justices, senators, CEOs, college presidents. It's a little ahistorical to say that "very little [has] changed" in the last few thousand years. The Amazons were seen by ancient commentators as a monstrous deviation from normal gender roles, and they moved around a lot; it's likely that, if they did exist, they were hounded out of existence by misogynist neighbors. So I don't think it's surprising that they would have been a bit militant in return.

[brettc1]

Um, what? Here I am trying to say you don't sound like Rush Limbaugh, and then you go and sound much more like Rush Limbaugh?

Since I'm an Australian and don't really know who this guy is, all the references are kind of lost on me. Nevertheless, the Strip Club Dichotomy remains a thing.

In a way, I agree with what Silvanus is saying. It is necessary to challenge damaging viewpoints about empowerment and gender equality for BOTH sexes. The problem with the way it is done by Azz is that not only does he use the previously positive Amazons to illustrate a negative point, but from an educational point of view it serves little purpose because it's a largely male audience. If you wanted to shine a light on what feminism shouldn't look like, then I think it will only be successful if it is done for women by women.

And no, the spokesperson for positive feminism being Wonder Woman doesn't count in this case, because she is being written by a man.

But it sounds to me that the Azzarellozons are pretty much how this Limbaugh person would write them. And that seems not to be a good thing.

[Awonder]

Alternatively...we could just lighten up a little. We're not negotiating a nuclear disarmament deal or the federal budget; it's a comic book.

Ah, we're playing the classic "lighten up," now? Yes, I am aware that it is a comic book - but does that make sexism (racism, homophobia, etc) in comics ok? I seriously doubt you think it's ok. Don't you agree that media, including stories, have power to both reflect and shape our culture?

If we were talking about trunks or no trunks for Superman, then I'd say it's just a comic book.

First, how whitewashed is Heph, really? His strong dislike, or even history of hatred, for his family is mentioned at least a couple of times. He's still disappointed by his family (including himself--"we disappoint me," he says),and it sounds like he used to have an even harsher perspective on them. There's nothing to contradict the idea that Heph might have been vengeful towards his mother in ages past. It's not like the Troy movie we were discussing, in which the idea that Achilles ever thought of Briseis as spoils of war is pretty much explicitly contradicted.

Second, yes, I think it's fine to treat different supporting characters differently, without necessarily granting the same kind of "balance" or fairness we should try to grant real people. Supporting characters are used according to how the writer thinks they may best support the story and the characterization of hte protagonist. They're not real; they don't have rights; they can't be libeled. Azz seems to have meant for the Amazons' dark past to give occasion for Wonder Woman to show resilience and to lead her people towards reform. What would emphasizing the dark past of Heph, a character with whom she wasn't previously connected, have accomplished? I think Azz wanted to take Wonder Woman out of her and our comfort zone, so he gave her a largely male supporting cast in the first year of the run; but by the end of the run, she's developed a larger network of women,as featured on the cover of the final issue.

1) "We disappoint me" is hardly 'I want to torture my mom for eternity.' Leaving it to "might have been" is a way to minimize it. Minimizing the bad, and adding to the good (rescuing Amazon boys), is a form of whitewashing. May not be to the same degree Achillies is whitewashed in Troy, but it is still whitewashing.

2) Yes, I am well aware that these characters aren't real people. Does that make double standards in storytelling ok?

I agree that we can treat supporting characters differently, they are different characters, after all. But patterns emerge. Diana "developed a larger network of women" sounds good, until I ask why were some male gods willing to help before any female gods were willing to help her? She doesn't need to fight Hermes first, before he fights beside her, right? But the goddesses? Antagonistic (Hera, Strife, Artemis), do-nothing (Aphrodite, Demeter), or sleeping (Athena). That's not just individual characters, that's a pattern.

It's to surround her with men? Yeah, she's done that since the first issue of Justice League. It's old. Every comic reader has seen it. Even in continuity, it's old as she just spent five years teamed with men in Nu52 JL. So, showing her surrounded with only male allies isn't showing anything neither she and we haven't seen many times before. Thus, it does not feel like organic storytelling, but author mandate.

The Amazons are not all the women in the world, and Heph is not all the men.The Amazons are, according to Diana, motivated by old fears for their survival. There's nothing to suggest that their ways are someway the ways of women in general, or that Heph's ways are the ways of men in general. On the contrary, Heph appears to be an exception--male gods in the book treat women as property (Hades), commit all manner of atrocities and disloyalty to protect or secure a patriarchal throne (Zeus, Poseidon), and generally epitomize what Marston would have called "blood-curdling masculinity" (the First Born).

Again with the obvious? I am aware that Amazons are not all the women in the world, and Heph is not all the men. But, are all the women and men in the book? You're right that there are men behaving badly, too. But, if Heph can overcome his own "old weakness" to help teach his sons not to hate and seek vengeance on their mothers, I don't see a good reason why Hippolyta couldn't help teach young Amazon girls in much the same way. The Olympians (dad's side of the family) are portrayed as a sexist patriarchy, but look at the variability and attention to individuality among them; that same attention is not given to the Amazons.

The historical problem isn't that all women were deemed pure; it's that women were expected to be pure, and when they failed to meet impossible standards, they were deemed whores or monsters. Just having female monsters wouldn't show that women, like men, can act out of fear and anger, just like men, without innately being monsters. If an author wants to show that characters who have done monstrous things are not monsters at their core, that author probably has to put them on a path of reform--and that would have ruined Cheetah.

No one in the book is just a monster. And I wasn't suggesting that they actually reform Cheetah. But, would some one like the Baroness be "ruined" if they reformed her? If Diana helped Heph and his boys not hate their mothers, would they be ruined?

I know, I know, why do I bother, right? I seriously doubt there is anything I could possibly say to get you to admit there are male-centric, double-standards in Azzarello's run. Care to prove me wrong, flip the script and help me out: what would you say comes closest?

[brettc1]

Women are still oppressed today, but in the countries where most copies of Wonder Woman are read, women can earn money and hold property; they can enter into into contract; they have legal protections against spousal abuse; they can't legally be taken as concubines, or virtual sex slaves, by enemy soldiers; they can vote; they are Supreme Court Justices, senators, CEOs, college presidents. It's a little ahistorical to say that "very little [has] changed" in the last few thousand years. The Amazons were seen by ancient commentators as a monstrous deviation from normal gender roles, and they moved around a lot; it's likely that, if they did exist, they were hounded out of existence by misogynist neighbors. So I don't think it's surprising that they would have been a bit militant in return.

Raises an interesting philosophical point - would all the women in neighbouring patriarchies have seen that as a bad thing?

I think you would have an easy time convincing the wives, mothers and daughters of many of those murdered sailors that the Amazons needed exterminating. Interesting too that that crime has never really been addressed.

[brettc1]

No one in the book is just a monster.

Except, of course, for Jonathan and Martha Hyena.

[Agent Z]

Women are still oppressed today, but in the countries where most copies of Wonder Woman are read, women can earn money and hold property; they can enter into into contract; they have legal protections against spousal abuse; they can't legally be taken as concubines, or virtual sex slaves, by enemy soldiers; they can vote; they are Supreme Court Justices, senators, CEOs, college presidents. It's a little ahistorical to say that "very little [has] changed" in the last few thousand years. The Amazons were seen by ancient commentators as a monstrous deviation from normal gender roles, and they moved around a lot; it's likely that, if they did exist, they were hounded out of existence by misogynist neighbors. So I don't think it's surprising that they would have been a bit militant in return.

Many western countries still have yet to elect a female head of state. Women who are victims of rape or spousal abuse are often afraid to come forward and even in cases were they do they aren't always believed. Women still have to fight for equal pay. Laws making it illegal to oppress women doesn't mean they can't be.

[Silvanus]

Many western countries still have yet to elect a female head of state. Women who are victims of rape or spousal abuse are often afraid to come forward and even in cases were they do they aren't always believed. Women still have to fight for equal pay. Laws making it illegal to oppress women doesn't mean they can't be.

I don't at all want to minimize the sexism that still exists in the world. I agree with you that it's terrible. But "have yet to elect a female head of state," for example, doesn't equate to "barred from holding any public office and from working in most professions, or from entering into contracts or owning property." In parts of the world in which most copies of Wonder Woman are read, it's just false to say that little has changed in gender relations since the time of the ancient Greeks. In other parts of the world, I wouldn't altogether blame women if they were to react in militant, wrathful ways against male oppression.

[Awonder]

Since I'm an Australian and don't really know who this guy is, all the references are kind of lost on me. Nevertheless, the Strip Club Dichotomy remains a thing.

In a way, I agree with what Silvanus is saying. It is necessary to challenge damaging viewpoints about empowerment and gender equality for BOTH sexes. The problem with the way it is done by Azz is that not only does he use the previously positive Amazons to illustrate a negative point, but from an educational point of view it serves little purpose because it's a largely male audience. If you wanted to shine a light on what feminism shouldn't look like, then I think it will only be successful if it is done for women by women.

And no, the spokesperson for positive feminism being Wonder Woman doesn't count in this case, because she is being written by a man.

But it sounds to me that the Azzarellozons are pretty much how this Limbaugh person would write them. And that seems not to be a good thing.

Limbaugh is a very extreme conservative in the U.S. with a radio talk show known for his controversial views; many would consider it an insult to be grouped with the guy. And, yes, the Azzarellozons, imo, largely come across as a validation of how people like Limbaugh often describe feminists (/those critical of male-femal sexism). - which is why I don't think it's a good thing for WW.

Comics (and too often our larger society) could certainly use more female voices, especially when it comes to depictions of women. However, I wouldn't say a male voice "doesn't count." Obviously, I'm very critical of what I see as the sexist elements, but that shouldn't dismiss the good.

For the most part, I really like Azzarello's Diana. I even think she's not too different from Phil's. Would you say the positives in WW from Marston, Perez, and Jimenez don't count because they are men?

Except, of course, for Jonathan and Martha Hyena.

Good point. But I don't think they represent all hyenas.

[Awonder]

I don't at all want to minimize the sexism that still exists in the world. I agree with you that it's terrible. But "have yet to elect a female head of state," for example, doesn't equate to "barred from holding any public office and from working in most professions, or from entering into contracts or owning property." In parts of the world in which most copies of Wonder Woman are read, it's just false to say that little has changed in gender relations since the time of the ancient Greeks. In other parts of the world, I wouldn't altogether blame women if they were to react in militant, wrathful ways against male oppression.

I'm all for acknowledging and celebrating the progress that has been made in many countries, but I'm not really understanding your emphasis on where "most copies of Wonder Woman are read." Human slavery is not the problem it once was in the U.S., but human trafficking is still a problem in the world, including the U.S. So, I don't think WW stories need to be skewed to fit just the circumstances in the U.S.

I'm assuming you are referencing Azzarello's Amazons when you say you "wouldn't altogether blame women if they were to react in militant, wrathful ways against male oppression." But would you say the story blames them?

[Silvanus]

Ah, we're playing the classic "lighten up," now? Yes, I am aware that it is a comic book - but does that make sexism (racism, homophobia, etc) in comics ok? I seriously doubt you think it's ok. Wouldn't you agree that media, including stories, have power to both reflect and shape our culture?

Sure they do, and I'm not saying you shouldn't critique and discuss comics; I'm here, right? But, nothing we say on this board, and probably not much the writers do in this book that sells thirty or forty thousand books a month, is going to rock Western civilization. The stakes are not all that high, and there's plenty of ambiguity; different interpretations and judgement are legitimately possible. So to me, it's not necessary to worry so much about accounting for everything that could possibly be accounted, and we could have a more relaxed kind of conversation about this stuff. But maybe that's just my temperament. Different strokes.

1) "We disappoint me" is hardly 'I want to torture my mom for eternity.'

"We...disappoint me" is how he states his feelings now, but others remember Heph having stronger feelings:

Attachment 27133

He has apparently mellowed out since the days when he appeared to hate his family even more than Hades did. Aphrodite has probably been a good influence on him.

Leaving it to "might have been" is a way to minimize it. Minimizing the bad, and adding to the good (rescuing Amazon boys), is a form of whitewashing. May not be to the same degree Achillies is whitewashed in Troy, but it is still whitewashing.

I'm still not even sure why you take that so seriously; it's not story about misogyny but a story about a guy who was angry at his mother for throwing him off a mountain because he was too "lame" and ugly to live. I can understand his being a bit peeved. So he chained her to a chair (which is not nice, but not the most extreme kinf of torture) until Dionysus got him drunk and tricked him into letting Hera go (after a night or so, I think, and not "eternity.") Heph's more of a laughing stock than a figure of terror in that story.

2) Yes, I am well aware that these characters aren't real people. Does that make double standards in storytelling ok?

At times, sure. It depends on what kind of double standard, and what the purpose of it is. If the "double standard" arises because Azz wants to present Diana with conflicts within her Amazon family and ultimately have him lead them towards reform, but no similar purpose is served by emphasizing Herph's darker side, I don't see a problem.

I agree that we can treat supporting characters differently, they are different characters, after all. But patterns emerge. Diana "developed a larger network of women" sounds good, until I ask why were some male gods willing to help before any female gods were willing to help her? She doesn't need to fight Hermes first, before he fights beside her, right? But the goddesses? Antagonistic (Hera, Strife, Artemis), do-nothing (Aphrodite, Demeter), or sleeping (Athena). That's not just individual characters, that's a pattern.

We now know that Athena helped her before any of them but perhaps Ares, and she seems to have been watching even when Diana first met Ares. Sure, we didn't know that, so it seemed like none of the goddesses had helped Diana; and if you want to call that "author mandate," it's fine with me. Like I said, I think Azz wanted to keep Wonder Woman and her fans out of her and our comfort zone, and I think he wanted the drama of slowly building up Diana network of goddesses over time. By the end, Hera and Artemis are in her inner circle.

Again with the obvious? I am aware that Amazons are not all the women in the world, and Heph is not all the men.

My point is that there's no reason I can see to think they represent women in general and men in general; the Amazons situation is unique, and I don't think that there's any implication that, as some kind of general rule, "Women teach their daughters to hate and kill men, but men don't teach their sons to hate women, just to be artisans." And if it's not representative of other women and men, then the only problem seems to be that it's unfair to these fictional characters, which I don't consider a huge problem.

I know, I know, why do I bother, right? I seriously doubt there is anything I could possibly say to get you to admit there are male-centric, double-standards in Azzarello's run. Care to prove me wrong, flip the script and help me out: what would you say comes closest?

I'll think about it. Want to go first and tell me the most feminist thing about the run?

In a way, I agree with what Silvanus is saying. It is necessary to challenge damaging viewpoints about empowerment and gender equality for BOTH sexes.

That's not really what I was saying. I was saying that the idea that women are supposed to be more pure, chaste, selfless, tender, etc., than men, and that if they're not then something is wrong with them, still needs to be challenged.