SM/WW issue discussion (spoilers)

[brettc1]

Personally I just think you are reading too much into a bit of inconsistency in the story. Doomsday carved right through SM the first time he encountered it too and the second go-round it was specifically contrived for SM to destroy and "ingest" the "virus" so SM ripping it in half was pretty much PIS. Also WW stood up to DD in that second encounter just fine. In fact she kicked it's butt and proved durable enough to withstand the "virus" without entering into God-mode. Poor writing is much more realistic than some cover-up over a little fan outrage. DC learned its lesson with WW fandom way back in the Kanigher days and took a second helping during the Denny O'Neill years ... Both times they learned that pandering to fans does more harm than good.

Doomsday not having time to beat her to death before Superman arrives does not count as 'just fine'.

LOL ... right because throwing a couple of boomerangs one time makes him more deadly than BM, CB, WW, Huntress, Deadshot, GA, Robin/NW, Shiva, BG and probably a hundred other DC characters who throw/shoot stuff on an every issue basis. Why is this a thing? Why isn't SM allowed to be skillful from time to time?

You got your wish - now he is the MOST skilful. Skilful enough to thrown ambidextrously at an opponent who is moving so fast Wonder Woman can't block his attacks and hit two bullseyes simultaneously with a weapon I've never even seen him practise with, much less use regularly.

Clealrly he is skilful AND the most powerful.

[Lax]

On the plus side, the panels with Clark getting patched up by Diana with his body all battered and bruised will probably strike a chord with some readers.

I've been watching Arrow and a big part of selling the male hero to the female audience seems to be to show how vulnerable/damaged he is. The scene were Olliver shows Laurel the scars all over his perfectly sculpted torso springs to mind.

So its clever for the writers to take this opportunity to show the normally invulnerable Superman as a vulnerable person who needs a woman to care for him [while bending over his perfectly sculpted torso ].

Is that the reason or is the reverse? As a woman, and one who speaks only for myself, those types of scenes where the woman is taking care of a vulnerable man do little for me. Meanwhile, I've seen mainly men speak about how a scene like that, and in particular this one in SM/WW, is where they could actually finally see some spark between Clark and Diana. I would think the appeal would be for men who like the idea of seeing their identification character taken care of because it makes them feel loved and safe just like the scene below from Smallville's "Rabid" episode appealed to their female audience.



Now, I can see the appeal for women if all we're talking about is getting to see a man's bare chest, but the vulnerability aspect and the woman taking care of the man always felt like more of a way to get all members of the audience to like the two individuals involved as a pair or to sell the woman as "worthy" because she cares for and takes care of her man.

I don't think it appeals to either sex when the man gets beaten up in front of the woman, has to be saved by her and then gets patched up by her afterward.

The loss gives his "vulnerable state" a context of weakness which reduces his sexual attractiveness as a man in the eyes of women. The male audience intuitively understands this which in turn makes it unappealing to see their identification character being doted upon by her in this scenario.

[brettc1]

I don't think it appeals to either sex when the man gets beaten up in front of the woman, has to be saved by her and then gets patched up by her afterward.

The loss gives his "vulnerable state" a context of weakness which reduces his sexual attractiveness as a man in the eyes of women. The male audience intuitively understands this which in turn makes it unappealing to see their identification character being doted upon by her in this scenario.

I think millions of dollars from a variety of box offices dispute this theory.

The idea that the man must be undefeatable in order to be sexually attractive would have to be a sexist stereotype. Since it surely does not go the other way.

[Agent Z]

Personally I just think you are reading too much into a bit of inconsistency in the story. Doomsday carved right through SM the first time he encountered it too and the second go-round it was specifically contrived for SM to destroy and "ingest" the "virus" so SM ripping it in half was pretty much PIS. Also WW stood up to DD in that second encounter just fine. In fact she kicked it's butt and proved durable enough to withstand the "virus" without entering into God-mode. Poor writing is much more realistic than some cover-up over a little fan outrage. DC learned its lesson with WW fandom way back in the Kanigher days and took a second helping during the Denny O'Neill years ... Both times they learned that pandering to fans does more harm than good.

What "pandering" did Kanigher or O'Neil do in their stories? When has DC ever given the idea that they care what the WW fandom thinks with their multiple reboots and retcons of the book?

[Lax]

I think millions of dollars from a variety of box offices dispute this theory.

The idea that the man must be undefeatable in order to be sexually attractive would have to be a sexist stereotype. Since it surely does not go the other way.

No.

A man getting beaten into a bloody pulp in front of his girlfriend and then needing her to beat down the opponent(s) he couldn't handle is not a sexually attractive quality in a male. At all. It's not even close. That is the truth and I couldn't care less about political correctness, men and women are not necessarily turned on by the same traits nor in equal measure.

There is a world of difference between getting busted up in a loss and getting busted up in a win, especially in relation to how wet it will make a woman afterward. It's not the same and pretending otherwise will not make it so.

This doesn't mean a man doesn't have other attractive traits, but getting ruined in a fight isn't one of them.

[Aula_Magna]

Never said Superman worrying about his girlfriend isn't justified. Its always justified to worry about someone you love. Look at Diana right now, she's scared and worried for Clark too in his weakened state. This is natural. But she's not, at least not to this point, letting it hamper her when she goes into battle with him. Maybe sometime soon she will due to his seemingly degenerative weakening state, but that's a specific and unique issue. In general though, from the get-go Wonder Woman as a warrior has known that even though she's teaming up with her lover, in the middle of battle, you need to be focused on the task at hand, and fight together as equal partners playing to strengths and covering weaknesses, not dwelling over safety. Clark is more portrayed as having to learn this as he goes.

It's really telling that Superman in his current diminished state took Wonder Woman's place as the weak link, who knew when they announced the so called "Power Couple" that these weak-link/strong-link dynamics would be such a predominant theme in their relationship. I was actually super pumped until Soule decided to rub it in my face

How to sell a relationship DC style:
step 1- establish that the Man is better than the Woman and that she's kind of a burden to him
step 2- sideline the Man by means of a plot device such as - distraction, a wound or a power-sapping disease - to allow the Woman 10 minutes in the light
step 3- bring in all his ex-girlfriends and crank up the awkwardness
step 4- turn love into obsession

[brettc1]

No.

A man getting beaten into a bloody pulp in front of his girlfriend and then needing her to beat down the opponent(s) he couldn't handle is not a sexually attractive quality in a male. At all. It's not even close. That is the truth and I couldn't care less about political correctness, men and women are not necessarily turned on by the same traits nor in equal measure.

There is a world of difference between getting busted up in a loss and getting busted up in a win, especially in relation to how wet it will make a woman afterward. It's not the same and pretending otherwise will not make it so.

This doesn't mean a man doesn't have other attractive traits, but getting ruined in a fight isn't one of them.

Well then it's not a turn on for anybody. However to suggest that a man losing a fight makes him look weaker and therefore less attractive to a woman does indeed seem sexist, because I don't think people suggest that a woman who needs rescuing a lot is automatically less attractive.

The question is not whether he wins or loses, but how hard he fights and for what. Nor is it a question of it being attractive to be beaten bloody, but rather to be seen as needing help and being, in a way, vulnerable.

You seem to be suggesting that men always have to be the stronger one, and women will not be attracted to a man unless he is their physical superior?

Which is, I have to say, a rather odd position on the Wonder Woman forum... LOL

[Aula_Magna]

No.

A man getting beaten into a bloody pulp in front of his girlfriend and then needing her to beat down the opponent(s) he couldn't handle is not a sexually attractive quality in a male. At all. It's not even close. That is the truth and I couldn't care less about political correctness, men and women are not necessarily turned on by the same traits nor in equal measure.

There is a world of difference between getting busted up in a loss and getting busted up in a win, especially in relation to how wet it will make a woman afterward. It's not the same and pretending otherwise will not make it so.

This doesn't mean a man doesn't have other attractive traits, but getting ruined in a fight isn't one of them.

Yeah women seek strong, smart, successful men whereas men like women that strut down the catwalk blowing kisses in a 20 million dollar bra, with 17 layers of makeup on their face, a 7-10 waist-to-hips ratio and a high-pitched voice that subconsciously tells them "I'm young and I can have your babies". It is the way it is.

[Darius]

What "pandering" did Kanigher or O'Neil do in their stories? When has DC ever given the idea that they care what the WW fandom thinks with their multiple reboots and retcons of the book?

O'Neil was fired because Gloria Steinem and her second-wave feminist organization went into an uproar over the depowering of WW during his tenure.

Kanigher famously got into fights with the readership via letters in the comics. GA purists of his time hated the changes he made to WW and the Amazons and the vanishing of the Holliday Girls and Kanigher engaged and at times (rumor has it) deliberately went in the opposite direction for WW because he was so worked up over negative fan response ... that clearly didn't work out well for the book and eventually lead to Denny O'Neil and a sans-powers WW. Funny enough Kanigher stepped back in after O'Neil was fired and had to retcon WW and the Amazons back to their more powerful selves, thus began the Bronze Age.

[Darius]

Doomsday not having time to beat her to death before Superman arrives does not count as 'just fine'.



You got your wish - now he is the MOST skilful. Skilful enough to thrown ambidextrously at an opponent who is moving so fast Wonder Woman can't block his attacks and hit two bullseyes simultaneously with a weapon I've never even seen him practise with, much less use regularly.

Clealrly he is skilful AND the most powerful.

You mean the same opponent WW is kicking in the face while she simultaneously grabs and throws Captain Boomerang? And do yo mean the SM who is nearly depowered completely now and has little choice but to start showing some level of skill?

Do you really think we see every moment of their lives "on-screen"? We know that WW has been training him, we've seen them training a handful of times ... why wouldn't we assume she taught him how to use a boomerang, she's been known to use her tiara as one for about 75 years now.

I will never understand why people get upset over characters showing new skills.

[Sacred Knight]

He doesn't even need to be taught to use a boomerang in the capacity he used it. It took as much skill to do what he did as it does to throw a rock and hit a tree stump a few feet in front of you.. He essentially threw a sharp thing at something he wanted to cut. That does not take training. Throwing it and having it do "boomerang-y" stuff then catch it when it comes back to you? Okay, you learn to do that. But not throwing something with sharp edges three feet at best and have it stick. This is not rocket science. Say a superhero on whim took Arthur's trident and stabbed something with it. Nothing fancy, just improvised and put a couple holes in someone. Is it a problem that this character wasn't trained to use the trident? No. Anyone can stab something.

[Tayswift]

It's really telling that Superman in his current diminished state took Wonder Woman's place as the weak link, who knew when they announced the so called "Power Couple" that these weak-link/strong-link dynamics would be such a predominant theme in their relationship. I was actually super pumped until Soule decided to rub it in my face

How to sell a relationship DC style:
step 1- establish that the Man is better than the Woman and that she's kind of a burden to him
step 2- sideline the Man by means of a plot device such as - distraction, a wound or a power-sapping disease - to allow the Woman 10 minutes in the light
step 3- bring in all his ex-girlfriends and crank up the awkwardness
step 4- turn love into obsession

DC had great relationships before new 52, but now it is a big mess. Really sad to see all of this happening with ww

You mean the same opponent WW is kicking in the face while she simultaneously grabs and throws Captain Boomerang? And do yo mean the SM who is nearly depowered completely now and has little choice but to start showing some level of skill?

Do you really think we see every moment of their lives "on-screen"? We know that WW has been training him, we've seen them training a handful of times ... why wouldn't we assume she taught him how to use a boomerang, she's been known to use her tiara as one for about 75 years now.

I will never understand why people get upset over characters showing new skills.

we never saw it lol

[ssupes]

You mean the same opponent WW is kicking in the face while she simultaneously grabs and throws Captain Boomerang? And do yo mean the SM who is nearly depowered completely now and has little choice but to start showing some level of skill?

Do you really think we see every moment of their lives "on-screen"? We know that WW has been training him, we've seen them training a handful of times ... why wouldn't we assume she taught him how to use a boomerang, she's been known to use her tiara as one for about 75 years now.

I will never understand why people get upset over characters showing new skills.

I don't know why but for some strange reason there is a hard-core group of wonder woman fans who hate seeing their characters grow and learn new things, especially when it happens in a Superman Wonder Woman Book, I don't know why but there you go.

DC had great relationships before new 52, but now it is a big mess. Really sad to see all of this happening with ww

Dc didn't have that many great romances, especially when it came to Wonder Woman prior to the New 52, in fact the only decent relationship she had was with Steve Trevor.

we never saw it lol

So we never see Batman take a Number 1 or Number 2, but I assume it still happens.

[Darius]

we never saw it lol

sure we did

274c14a0bf1c0bb4a8c65c3f28f367fb.jpg

images.jpg

918f7c1131d83328163808ee40190846.jpg

[Sacred Knight]

Many great romances=that implied Batman and Wonder Woman nonsense. Some are still bitter that that trainwreck is out of canon.