New Phil Jimenez/Wonder Woman Interview

[Nipower888]

Would we even know if it did? Misandrist text often gets though comics books without anyone batting an eye.

Even Superman 43 had an example.

How is this descriminatory again men

[brettc1]

How is this descriminatory again men

The girl in glasses makes a joke about how she got to see Clark naked without his consent, even though he clearly isn't happy with the idea.

Reverse the situation - if it were Wonder Wonan who had been under the sheet and Jimmy was the one talking about how impressive she looked naked, people would be jumping up and down saying his statement was sexist because it showed a lack of respect for her as a woman.

Misandry set doesn't have to just mean killing men. Plenty of misogynist attitudes are non violent, like the belief that women are less capable of doing a particular job. It's any attitude which is based on personal opinions regarding gender rather than evidence.

The misandry here comes from a double standard - it's wrong for men to joke about seeing a woman nude without her consent if she is not okay with that, but women can openly joke about how they saw a man naked while was unconncious regarding of his feelings on the matter.

[Tayswift]

The girl in glasses makes a joke about how she got to see Clark naked without his consent, even though he clearly isn't happy with the idea.

Reverse the situation - if it were Wonder Wonan who had been under the sheet and Jimmy was the one talking about how impressive she looked naked, people would be jumping up and down saying his statement was sexist because it showed a lack of respect for her as a woman.

Misandry set doesn't have to just mean killing men. Plenty of misogynist attitudes are non violent, like the belief that women are less capable of doing a particular job. It's any attitude which is based on personal opinions regarding gender rather than evidence.

The misandry here comes from a double standard - it's wrong for men to joke about seeing a woman nude without her consent if she is not okay with that, but women can openly joke about how they saw a man naked while was unconncious regarding of his feelings on the matter.

talk that to the 13 people shoot on that shooting on oregon. guy killed 13 because girls didn't wanted to go out with him.

you can argue sexism here, but there isn't any hate to men here. I can even think on men being ok with women saying good things about their size

[brettc1]

talk that to the 13 people shoot on that shooting on oregon. guy killed 13 because girls didn't wanted to go out with him.

you can argue sexism here, but there isn't any hate to men here. I can even think on men being ok with women saying good things about their size

If you read post you will see that I mentioned sexism isn't just about violence. No, this isn't as bad as shooting people, but try defending a sexist comment from a man by saying it's not as bad as killing somebody. Just because it's true doesn't mean the comment gets a pass.

And Clark clearly is NOT okay with it. And again, if you tell a woman she should take a comment about her great rack as a compliment, I dont think you are likely to get an affirming response.

Edit - sorry - that was supposed to say sexism isn't just about violence - again my ipad betrays me...

[Silvanus]

If you read post you will see that I mentioned sexism is just about violence. No, this isn't as bad as shooting people, but try defending a sexist comment from a man by saying it's not as bad as killing somebody. Just because it's true doesn't mean the comment gets a pass.

And Clark clearly is NOT okay with it. And again, if you tell a woman she should take a comment about her great rack as a compliment, I dont think you are likely to get an affirming response.

Clark seems a little freaked out by the fact that they saw him naked, but we don't actually see him react to the comment itself. Reading that panel from left to right, he speaks first, Condesa makes her comment--and that's it. In the next panel, he's talking to Jimmy about something else. Her comment was rude, but it's not nearly as bad as if he reacted directly to it and she persisted.

Yes, I would find such a comment more inappropriate if it were made by a man to woman. I'd also find it more inappropriate if Condessa made such a comment to a celibate, conservative, elderly priest, or to her father, or to a man known to have been sexually abused. Or, for a woman to observe that a woman who had successfully lost weight was "tiny" would come across very different than if if Condessa had made the same comment to the naked Clark. Different behavior is often judged differently when directed at different people, and when that's because the same behavior would cause more or less harm or offense in those cases, it's not necessarily "discrimination" in the bad sense of the word. We all have to "discriminate" between more and less appropriate situations for doing something.

And I think that, because women have been at the receiving end of so much objectification, it's reasonable to presume that most women are more likely to be seriously upset by a comment than most men. As a result, it's become, it think it's safe to say, socially conventional to expect men to take extra care not to make such comments to women. That seems to me to be a reasonable social convention, for now; but I would say making such comments to men will likely be perceived as more and more offensive as time goes by and (hopefully) progress toward gender quality is made.

More to the point (since,a fter all, this is something that happened in a comic), I think that in a comic or in other media, showing a guy make this kind of comment and not being rebuked would be more problematic, because it would reinforce the still-too-widespread tenancy to treat sexual exploitation or harassment of women as if it were normal. Seeing a woman make a comment like this to a man still seems like a receral of the norm to me, so it doesn't (in my opinion) reinforce the norm.

[Awonder]

It is indeed what happened--to the dismay of most readers, at least around here. I suspect that even readers who didn't mind issue 7 strongly disliked issue 40. (Well, I more than suspect it, since I was one of those readers.) In general--even beyond issue 40--I think that one of the reasons that fans of the Azzarello run disliked Finch's characterization of the Amazons so much was that it seemed to reverse the trend of the reform that Azzarello had started. Going backwards, to the kind of portrayal of the Amazons we got in issue 7, didn't seem as interesting as going forward. Then, even Finch showed (belated) interest in moving forward along the lines suggested by Azzarello, with Finches "welcome additions" which you mention below. So, I actually think that the fan reaction to issue 40, along with FInch's choices at the end of the first arc and in the annual, illustrate that Azz's changes actually incentivize a more positive portrayal of the Amazons. They don't mandate or insure such a portrayal, but no story could have had that that much control over future portrayals.

It's an interesting idea, but, I'm not seeing a whole lot of real evidence of this "incentive" hypothesis. Phil put men on the island. Simone put men on the island. And Azzarello put men on the island. None of them stayed. Seems obvious to me that DC is not committed to having "forward" stick for the Amazons.

Even Azzarello did little to make the "reform" actually substantive beyond Diana's order. Only Alexa shows any change before she dies. By having a small group of Amazons attack the men, Finch did what Azzarello only talked about - she gave more diversity of action to the Amazons. The Amazons behaving badly will never be used up, because it's too easy - Azzarello made it easier by making it the foundation of their portrayal.

And your "belated" is hilarious given how much of Azzarello's run was "belated." Was Hera's background and change in years 2-3 "belated" interest? Was Athena's appearance in Secret Origins only a "belated" interest? Also, you seem to give Azzarello credit for leaving room for subsequent writers to add "welcome additions," but never seem to give him blame when the additions aren't so welcome.

No need for Disneyfication--there could have been conflict that fell far short of massacre. It could even have been a less violent conflict than Jiminez's Paradise Lost--another example of conflict between two groups of Amazons who didn't always like each other very much (and yet, they probably wouldn't have made war on each other if they had not been manipulated).

Ah, the "could have been" game? I'm in favor of a more complex and nuanced conflict. But, then, as you know, I'm in favor of Azzarello giving us more complexity and nuance to the Amazons as well.

After all, the male and female Amazons had just been through a war together. Sometimes, that results in camaraderie (maybe not between nations, like the U.S. and USSR after WWII--but between individuals who actually fought side by side). And the new queen wanted to see them together. They were mother and son, sister and brother, and unless Dessa was one of a kind, many of the Amazons of Paradise Island probably felt guilt and repentance about their treatment of the boys. So there were enough factors potentially mitigating the conflict that a writer could have easily decided not to have it explode.

Did you not read Watchmen? Unity may come with a common enemy, but once that enemy is gone, too often, so is the unity.

I'm a very outspoken proponent of showing more connection between "mother and son, sister and brother;" aren't you the one that told me the mother-son scebe in issue 7 didn't need to be followed up on in the reunion with the men? Finch failed at that, but she was only following Azzarello's failure to show that. Lots of "could have been's" all around.

[Silvanus]

It's an interesting idea, but,mI'm not seeing a whole lot of real evidence of this "incentive" hypothesis.

Admittedly, it's early yet. For "a whole lot of real evidence" for or against what I said, we'll have to see what happens in the next few runs. I'm sure we'll still be arguing about this stuff in ten years, so we'll see what has happened then.

Did you not read Watchmen? Unity may come with a common enemy, but once that enemy is gone, too often, so is the unity.

"Too often," sure. But you made the argument that the Amazons basically could not have coexisted with their brothers. I'm just saying that they could have done so if a writer had chosen to let the camaraderie take hold and not quickly lapse.

[Awonder]

The world, and perhaps the patriarchy, is saved by women putting the infant patriarch back on the throne. It's true that misogyny and patriarchy prove a lot more deeply entrenched and resistant to reform than misandry in the book--which seems to reflect reality. .

It's not that "patriarchy pove(s) a lot more entrenched and resistant to reform," it's that the hero and "modern feminist" (Diana) and the goddess of wisdom (Athena) show so little concern and make so little effort to actually change it. Restoring the patriach = save the day is really a bad theme for WW.

Diana should have beaten the First Born, and Athena should have had a plan to take the throne (ala Rucka). That would have been soooooo much better.

As I think everyone is saying, a individual misandric act can be as terrible as an individual misogynistic act; any act of hate can be terrible. But misandry as a whole phenomenon does not [yet] exist on anything like the same scale of misogyny, so comparing the two can easily lead to a false equivalency.

Well said.

[Awonder]

"Too often," sure. But you made the argument that the Amazons basically could not have coexisted with their brothers. I'm just saying that they could have done so if a writer had chosen to let the camaraderie take hold and not quickly lapse.

What camaraderie? Outside of a few words from Alexa (and Diana), no one (male or female) really seems to care about the other side? Had Azzarello actually built something there - an emotional mother-son reunion, perhaps - you might have a case that goes beyond your own speculation. As is, Azzarello's "reform" is like a golf swing - without proper follow-through, it's going to fall short.

Hopefully the moive(s) will do a much better job, and the comics will follow, so we can have more camaraderie over the next few years.

[Awonder]

In the United States and Australia male suicide rates have always been significantly higher. The highest rates occur in males aged 45 - 54, which includes myself.

You're right that bullying, depression/mental health, suicide, etc. are very real issues for men as well as women. Suicide, in particular, is a pressing problem. One reason I don't like the hyper-simplistic depictions of the war of the sexes is that too often it leaves out too many important issues like this.

One thing I do like about Azzarello's run is that is shows that patriarchy is often very hard on males, too. The addition of the First Born, and his death/exile, adds so much to the story.

Misandry set doesn't have to just mean killing men. Plenty of misogynist attitudes are non violent, like the belief that women are less capable of doing a particular job. It's any attitude which is based on personal opinions regarding gender rather than evidence.

The misandry here comes from a double standard - it's wrong for men to joke about seeing a woman nude without her consent if she is not okay with that, but women can openly joke about how they saw a man naked while was unconncious regarding of his feelings on the matter.

You're right that misandry (like misogyny) is more than just violence. I don't like that scene with Superman. At best, it's very juvenile.

... And I think that, because women have been at the receiving end of so much objectification, it's reasonable to presume that most women are more likely to be seriously upset by a comment than most men. As a result, it's become, it think it's safe to say, socially conventional to expect men to take extra care not to make such comments to women. That seems to me to be a reasonable social convention, for now; but I would say making such comments to men will likely be perceived as more and more offensive as time goes by and (hopefully) progress toward gender quality is made.

More to the point (since,a fter all, this is something that happened in a comic), I think that in a comic or in other media, showing a guy make this kind of comment and not being rebuked would be more problematic, because it would reinforce the still-too-widespread tenancy to treat sexual exploitation or harassment of women as if it were normal. Seeing a woman make a comment like this to a man still seems like a receral of the norm to me, so it doesn't (in my opinion) reinforce the norm.

Well said. To add to that, the context matters. Here, it's a story about a man written by a man mainly for men. In it's awkward juvenile way, it's bragging up Clark's "impressive" manliness. That's not the same objectifying dynamic of a story about a women written by a man for men.

Additionally, as a global society, we still struggle to not define women mainly by their sexual appeal to men. We do sexualize men, as well (and this does lead to body image issue for boys/men); but, again, it's not quite the same dynamic, in part, because it isn't quite emphasized as much/often.

So, while Thor has his no-shirt scenes in the movies, he's the powerful lead hero that saves the day and happens to be sexy, too. But, he isn't defined by his relationship to women; the women are supporting characters more defined by their relationship to him in his story. He's still primarily a male fantasy.

Eta- I tried to think of a recent example in WW to bring it back to topic - I think it's praise worthy that Azzarello and Chiang made a concerted effort to not have these moments. Also, to D. Finch's credit, based on the issues I read, I think he's really upped his game; some of the best art I've seen for him. Phil, of course, did a great job, too.

[brettc1]

More to the point (since, after all, this is something that happened in a comic), I think that in a comic or in other media, showing a guy make this kind of comment and not being rebuked would be more problematic, because it would reinforce the still-too-widespread tenancy to treat sexual exploitation or harassment of women as if it were normal. Seeing a woman make a comment like this to a man still seems like a receral of the norm to me, so it doesn't (in my opinion) reinforce the norm.

You cannot have equality and special treatment in this regard. Either things are equal or they are not. Claiming special privilege simply reinforces the arguments made by misogynists. It is only a good reversal of the norm if she is rebuked for it, as a man would be. What his panel shows is that what this person is doing is okay...which makes it ambiguous why its such a problem for Orion to constantly call Diana "legs". Shouldn't she just take it as a compliment?

You don't change minds by legislation, you do it by education. You cannot educate people by giving them totally conflicting messages. And yes, I am going to speak as an expert on this point. I think 25 years as a professional educator grants me that.

Additionally, as a global society, we still struggle to not define women mainly by their sexual appeal to men. We do sexualize men, as well (and this does lead to body image issue for boys/men); but, again, it's not quite the same dynamic, in part, because it isn't quite emphasized as much/often.

And yet...

So, while Thor has his no-shirt scenes in the movies, he's the powerful lead hero that saves the day and happens to be sexy, too. But, he isn't defined by his relationship to women; the women are supporting characters more defined by their relationship to him in his story. He's still primarily a male fantasy.

HA! I think my wife's sharp intake of breath in that particular scene might disagree with you [ and be the reason I don't go to see Thor movies with her anymore]

I believe all those 16 year old girls I saw in the theater in Winter Soldier might also be some conflicting data.

[Tayswift]

And yet...

pretty much aexception. I present you that demi moore movie, showgirls...any movie that guys enter a strip club to investigate something
I didn't watched magic mike, but the character is presented 3d and not only to women/men lust over

HA! I think my wife's sharp intake of breath in that particular scene might disagree with you [ and be the reason I don't go to see Thor movies with her anymore]

I believe all those 16 year old girls I saw in the theater in Winter Soldier might also be some conflicting data.

u can have a sex symbol, but also have a 3d character not only to appeal sexually to the public. that is what often happens on YA novels

[brettc1]

pretty much exception. I present you that demi moore movie, showgirls...any movie that guys enter a strip club to investigate something
I didn't watched magic mike, but the character is presented 3d and not only to women/men lust over.

That would make two exceptions now, then . Sure, there are a lot of movies where women play strippers for cheap thrills. Most of those movies like the two you mentioned get lambasted and they certainly do NOT get a highly profitable sequel... exactly because of the strip club dichotomy [which states that when a 40 something year old man goes to see 20 something year old women take their clothes off he is sleazy, but when a 40 something year old women goes to see 20 something year old men take their clothes off she is liberated and empowered - because, you know, sexist].

And the character being presented in 3D doesn't add to the lust factor? I would respectfully argue exactly the opposite.

Looking at it in that regard, it's not hard to imagine that some guys might think of the changes Phil talks about on WW as a good thing. After all, if it's okay for women to have men presented in a certain way for a mostly women audience, why is it wrong to have female characters presented in a certain way to appeal to an audience that is mostly men?

Edit - this is likely about where it will be pointed out that the portrayals of men for female audiences have been a lot less damaging that the reverse. And right now, that is likely true. However, I don't agree that it will take geological epochs for that damage to catch up in terms of day to day living. We are already seeing signs of men beginning to suffer the same kind of body issues that have been identified as a problem for women for decades.

So the question becomes - what do you want to do about this? Do you ignore it? Do you wait until it reaches the same level of problem as women face now? Do you do that and then wait a century more in the name of justice for all the women who suffered before social changes began? And in the meantime misogyny continues to have fuel to feed its propaganda, because there will be those who use this as evidence that sexual equality was never really about equality at all. And resentment will lead to anger, and anger will lead to action, and the cycle goes on...

[Silvanus]

You cannot have equality and special treatment in this regard. Either things are equal or they are not.

Then they're not. Not yet. Personally, I would say that there is more gender equality now than there was, say, 75 years ago; but if you're going to insist that "equality" is not relative but an absolute, "all-or-nothing" proposition, then clearly, it has not yet been obtained. It could not have been; the last 150 years or so of gradual movement towards equality is just a drop in the bucket when weighed against the millennia of patriarchal history. Certainly there's still not as much sexualization of men in the media as there is of women, "Magic Mike" notwithstanding. That being the case, the page from Superman is just a tiny micro-drop in the bucket--or the teacup-- that you're trying to weigh against an ocean.

Claiming special privilege simply reinforces the arguments made by misogynists. It is only a good reversal of the norm if she is rebuked for it, as a man would be. What his panel shows is that what this person is doing is okay...which makes it ambiguous why its such a problem for Orion to constantly call Diana "legs". Shouldn't she just take it as a compliment?

I don't think we should get into Orion again. It's a gaping black hole of threads. But I will say that the kind of question you're asking is only difficult if you ignore history. Women have been continually objectified and saxualized over time, and therefore it's probably the case that most women have become more sensitive to this kind of treatment than most men, and so we've developed informal cultural norms that are more protective of women in this regard.

[brettc1]

Then they're not. Not yet. Personally, I would say that there is more gender equality now than there was, say, 75 years ago; but if you're going to insist that "equality" is not relative but an absolute, "all-or-nothing" proposition, then clearly, it has not yet been obtained. It could not have been; the last 150 years or so of gradual movement towards equality is just a drop in the bucket when weighed against the millennia of patriarchal history. Certainly there's still not as much sexualization of men in the media as there is of women, "Magic Mike" notwithstanding.

On what do you base this statement?

I don't think we should get into Orion again. It's a gaping black hole of threads. But I will say that the kind of question you're asking is only difficult if you ignore history. Women have been continually objectified and sexualized over time, and therefore it's probably the case that most women have become more sensitive to this kind of treatment than most men, and so we've developed informal cultural norms that are more protective of women in this regard.

Incidences of sexism against women over the centuries can also be attributed to informal cultural norms. The point being that informal cultural norms are not always a good thing - especially when, but reverse logic of your argument, they offer one gender less theoretical protection than the other.

It also makes no difference if a significant percentage of men don't feel they need that protection. It should be extended equally to all members of society to use or ignore as they see fit, not limited in its application to a certain group because there is an "informal cultural norm" regarding how the members of that group are expected to react. That would be like saying "We don't offer positions in the military to women because most women would not want to be in the military."