Thoughts on Wonder Woman killing Maxwell Lord

[WonderLight789]

Thanks, I appreciate the kind word.



I wasn't a sociology major, but I did enjoy the subject and took a few classes on it and from my limited understanding of sexism through the ages, that's not Diana's main problem now. I'm sure it's still an issue on a smaller, more individual level (because we still have cavemen living among us), but it hasn't been, like, "company policy" for a while. The problems, from what I can tell, are largely a combination of the sexism of the past, which you point out (Kanigher especially) and the status quo/continuity that established and built. Gonna use an example that always pisses off the posters here but like, under Marston's pen Diana was just as strong as Superman (arguably stronger if you cherry pick your panels) but once he left, Diana's strength was lowered because she was a woman. It was sexism then. But now, it's less about her gender and more about the history and precedent; Diana's been the second strongest hero in DC for so long, sexism no longer factors into it, it's just her defacto setting and ranking.

She is the second strongest hero? Where? for more than a decade Aquaman has had better strength feats than her, matched her one on one multiple times an d even beat her. Mary Marvel, Black Adam, Martian Manhunter, Green Lantern, Flash, and so many others have far superior feats. She is not seconbd. Her power level perfoprmances have all been very modest for the most part since 2011. Second strongest? Lipservice doesn't count. She is not even top 10 based on feats.

[Gaius]

Thanks, I appreciate the kind word.



I wasn't a sociology major, but I did enjoy the subject and took a few classes on it and from my limited understanding of sexism through the ages, that's not Diana's main problem now. I'm sure it's still an issue on a smaller, more individual level (because we still have cavemen living among us), but it hasn't been, like, "company policy" for a while. The problems, from what I can tell, are largely a combination of the sexism of the past, which you point out (Kanigher especially) and the status quo/continuity that established and built. Gonna use an example that always pisses off the posters here but like, under Marston's pen Diana was just as strong as Superman (arguably stronger if you cherry pick your panels) but once he left, Diana's strength was lowered because she was a woman. It was sexism then. But now, it's less about her gender and more about the history and precedent; Diana's been the second strongest hero in DC for so long, sexism no longer factors into it, it's just her defacto setting and ranking.

Why I'm not one for power levels, I'm not sure I follow this logic. WW's strength was originally diminished for so long because of sexism...but because it's been that way for so long it's suddenly not sexist? Not that I'm accusing folks who immediately don't rank WW the strongest as sexist if that's just their preference or think it works for the character but I wouldn't say just because it's been that way for so long is really the best reasoning when the original reasoning was...sexism.

[John Venus]

Instead of Diana siding with the government I would have it be a hypothetical failed state where there IS no government. Instead you have various rebel groups fighting each other to take over, think something like Syria or Somalia. Diana would favor one group which has a woman as the leader since female empowerment is her big focus, Clark would probably sympathize with a group that’s a mix of farmers/rural people since that’s his background, and Bruce wants to stay out of it. Diana’s struggle would be that a lot of the members of the group she supports are women… but they’re former members of the elite who benefited from their families privilege and some of them have zero interest in giving their privileges up, Clark’s group is very conservative and resistant to change that needs to happen, and Bruce finds out the Wayne Corp has been benefiting in some way from the chaos which he didn’t catch and now he feels morally obligated to help as recompense.

Yeah, something along those lines, that's what I'm getting at. Just a particular situation and circumstance where usually minor things somehow get blown out of proportion and end up driving a spike through the Trinity.

I dunno if I'd want to see Diana join a faction based only on gender lines, I feel like Diana has seen plenty of women in the world who abuse their power and wouldn't make a choice based on that alone....but perhaps if those leaders claimed to follow the Amazon philosophy of loving submission it'd work?

Marston is disappointed in you guys and wants you to submit yourself to Transformation Island for loving submission.

Why do you think he created characters like Duke of Deception and the Earl of Greed? The WW mythos is not just about the fact that people fight, it's why they fight. War is manufactured and justified via propaganda and misinformation. If you want the Trinity to fight the best answer would be they all end up acting on partial truths, i.e they each only has a piece of the whole story and think the other is acting on false information with the DoD and EoG as the puppet masters. Naturally, Diana having the lasso of truth, Clark being a reporter and Bruce being a detective, quickly realize the deception.

[bardkeep]

You make several points I agree with, but from the point of view of the current continuity? Almost all of Brian Azz and Geoff Johns influence is all about gone, except for the origins. Which isn't important and you can make a case Diana was born from clay and ignore Zeus.

The film pretty much canonized the Zeus origin in the public eye, regardless of what sort of damage control and retconning the comics try to do. "Daughter of Zeus" is her standard byline these days - it's completely supplanted the defining maternal narrative.

There's also the stubbornness of the sword/shield, which I think is just an extension of the issue - removing the things that make her unique, obscuring or removing her core themes, and suiting her to a more palatable archetype, i.e. the generic "proud warrior race guy except female." I don't mind her using the sword when the occasion calls for it, but when it's the staple of her aesthetic it tends to define her characterization.

But I'll give you current comics continuity, where the lack of stories that actually have anything to say just comes down to bad/mediocre writing. At least we have Historia, which IMO is exactly the type of story WW exists to tell.

I wasn't a sociology major, but I did enjoy the subject and took a few classes on it and from my limited understanding of sexism through the ages, that's not Diana's main problem now. I'm sure it's still an issue on a smaller, more individual level (because we still have cavemen living among us), but it hasn't been, like, "company policy" for a while. The problems, from what I can tell, are largely a combination of the sexism of the past, which you point out (Kanigher especially) and the status quo/continuity that established and built. Gonna use an example that always pisses off the posters here but like, under Marston's pen Diana was just as strong as Superman (arguably stronger if you cherry pick your panels) but once he left, Diana's strength was lowered because she was a woman. It was sexism then. But now, it's less about her gender and more about the history and precedent; Diana's been the second strongest hero in DC for so long, sexism no longer factors into it, it's just her defacto setting and ranking.

That's how institutional -isms work, though. Social structures and cultural narratives develop to accommodate and instill biases, and over time those biases become ubiquitous and so thoroughly woven into the fabric of our culture that they're invisible. And it doesn't change on its own. This example is gonna seem really hyperbolic given the context but just look at how much racial segregation persists in the US - the most literal, obvious factors enforcing it (Jim Crow laws) were repealed in the '60s but that doesn't mean racism is no longer the problem.

That may be a stupidly complex explanation for a subject so inane, I'm just saying that's how culture operates. Biases are unconsciously ingrained on both structural and individual levels. The fact that she's perpetually 2nd isn't just an isolated fact now that overt sexism isn't quite as rampant as it used to be.

[WonderLight789]

Why I'm not one for power levels, I'm not sure I follow this logic. WW's strength was originally diminished for so long because of sexism...but because it's been that way for so long it's suddenly not sexist? Not that I'm accusing folks who immediately don't rank WW the strongest as sexist if that's just their preference or think it works for the character but I wouldn't say just because it's been that way for so long is really the best reasoning when the original reasoning was...sexism.

Why would they feel it works for the character. When it goes the opposite way o what she has been meant to represent? And why would they prefere it that way, what reason could there be, other than being sexists that don't want a girl on the same level as their fav male hero?

[Rightoya]

I wasn't a sociology major, but I did enjoy the subject and took a few classes on it and from my limited understanding of sexism through the ages, that's not Diana's main problem now. I'm sure it's still an issue on a smaller, more individual level (because we still have cavemen living among us), but it hasn't been, like, "company policy" for a while. The problems, from what I can tell, are largely a combination of the sexism of the past, which you point out (Kanigher especially) and the status quo/continuity that established and built. Gonna use an example that always pisses off the posters here but like, under Marston's pen Diana was just as strong as Superman (arguably stronger if you cherry pick your panels) but once he left, Diana's strength was lowered because she was a woman. It was sexism then. But now, it's less about her gender and more about the history and precedent; Diana's been the second strongest hero in DC for so long, sexism no longer factors into it, it's just her defacto setting and ranking.

i don't see why cultivating sexism of the past would turn it into something else now, if you would take a fictional black character that was deliberately made dumber than a comparable white character for racist reasons and still portray that character as dumber because that is how it was for so long it would be still racism, because the core of it is still racism. It can not be based on a sexist decision in the past without sexism factoring into it, because the core of it is still sexism, and sexism for basically nostalgic and it has always been like this-narrative reasons is even 1 of the most wide-spread forms of sexism there is as far as i know.

[Ascended]

I'm not sure I follow this logic. WW's strength was originally diminished for so long because of sexism...but because it's been that way for so long it's suddenly not sexist?

What I mean is it's not "active" sexism. Creators and editors aren't sitting down and saying "let's keep Diana down because girls suck!" As someone else said, it's institutionalized. Normally, institutional bigotry is still bigotry, but in the case of fiction and situations like this I'm kinda hesitant to drop that label.

Institutional bigotry is a legit issue, but does it apply here, where (I assume) the policies have changed to be more inclusive both on and behind the page? Yes, we all have problems with how DC treats Diana and they often put bad creators on her, but that can be said for anyone who isn't Batman so that's not a sexism issue it's a Batwank issue. Institutional bigotry tends to stem from leftover policy elements, traditions, and practices that influence current operations. To my very limited knowledge, most of that has been purged from DC (or they've at least tried, it's a tricky thing to kill entirely). Those are the things we tend to talk about when discussing institutionalized bigotry, we say policy needs to change, hiring practices need to change, etc. Hasn't DC changed those things? If so, can we still say that things like Clark being stronger are still sexist, or has it simply become her established ranking?

If DC hasn't changed those things then yeah, absolutely it's still institutional sexism. But I feel like I've read about them purging the people like Berganza from the company and trying to get beyond those institutionalized practices, and if I'm right about that then I dunno if the label still applies in this case?

[Rightoya]

What I mean is it's not "active" sexism. Creators and editors aren't sitting down and saying "let's keep Diana down because girls suck!" As someone else said, it's institutionalized. Normally, institutional bigotry is still bigotry, but in the case of fiction and situations like this I'm kinda hesitant to drop that label.

Are you talking about bad ways to portray sexism inside the fictional stories itself, becase the sexism of making Wonder Woman weaker because she is a woman was real sexism in the real world and anything based on that would be still real and not fictional, or what am i missing? And the biggest problem of institutionalized bigotry in general ist that it is typically not active as far as i know.

Institutional bigotry is a legit issue, but does it apply here, where (I assume) the policies have changed to be more inclusive both on and behind the page?

If the policies have changed why would they not start with changing the sexist decisions from the past?

Yes, we all have problems with how DC treats Diana and they often put bad creators on her, but that can be said for anyone who isn't Batman so that's not a sexism issue it's a Batwank issue.

I don't think for example using Wonder Woman jobbing to Aquaman to ineffectively show what a badass Aquaman is multiple times was a Batwank issue, and as another example the countless of bad portrayals of Wonder Woman in direct contrast to Superman also don't seem like a Batwank issue, and there are quite a bit more were i don't think Batman had much relevance if at all.

Institutional bigotry tends to stem from leftover policy elements, traditions, and practices that influence current operations. To my very limited knowledge, most of that has been purged from DC (or they've at least tried, it's a tricky thing to kill entirely). Those are the things we tend to talk about when discussing institutionalized bigotry, we say policy needs to change, hiring practices need to change, etc. Hasn't DC changed those things? If so, can we still say that things like Clark being stronger are still sexist, or has it simply become her established ranking?

If DC hasn't changed those things then yeah, absolutely it's still institutional sexism. But I feel like I've read about them purging the people like Berganza from the company and trying to get beyond those institutionalized practices, and if I'm right about that then I dunno if the label still applies in this case?

I don't get it, how has it changed without changing in any way, why should we assume that DC has secretly changed the sexist reason for making Wonder Woman weaker than Superman into a not sexist reason, and what not sexist reason should that even be? Are you not just describing a leftover policy element and even moreso a tradition that influences current operations if that became her established ranking?

Why should the sexist label not apply to something that seems to be at it's very core still just sexism, i don't think Berganza or any other people who got recently purged were responsible for the sexist decision to make Wonder Woman weaker than Superman back then, and i still don't understand how they even show that they are trying to go beyond these practises by making 1 of these practices Wonder Woman's established ranking?

[marhawkman]

Marston is disappointed in you guys and wants you to submit yourself to Transformation Island for loving submission.

Why do you think he created characters like Duke of Deception and the Earl of Greed? The WW mythos is not just about the fact that people fight, it's why they fight. War is manufactured and justified via propaganda and misinformation. If you want the Trinity to fight the best answer would be they all end up acting on partial truths, i.e they each only has a piece of the whole story and think the other is acting on false information with the DoD and EoG as the puppet masters. Naturally, Diana having the lasso of truth, Clark being a reporter and Bruce being a detective, quickly realize the deception.

This^^^

War and combat are for reasons, what those reasons are is more important than the war itself.

[Ascended]

If the policies have changed why would they not start with changing the sexist decisions from the past?

That's kinda my question. Let's assume the best of DC for a moment (difficult, I know) and presume that they realized that sexism is bad, and they've done their best to purge it from their offices. Doesn't mean they understand or like Diana or anything, doesn't mean she's a priority, but let's say they no longer work on the "girls = bad" mindset.

So they change their policies. Hire more women, get rid of the small men. All that. You're still sitting on seventy, eighty years worth of continuity and tradition where Diana's been the second strongest hero around. And this is still DC, where they like their rankings and being able to say "this hero is the best at this particular thing." Where things split, maybe, from real-world institutional bigotry is that the continued narrative keeps going. In the real world, when you fix institutional bigotry you fire the small people, change the policy and the culture (more complex than just that, yes, I'm simplifying for discussion) and do better. But in DC, you're not starting over with new employees, you're still working with the same characters and the histories they bring. Do we change Diana's established history because of a century old sin, or do we respect the TLC that has gone into her since? Do you have to make Diana stronger in order to "do better" and if so, what does that say about the creators like Jimenez and Rucka and all the others who did great things with her? Were they not doing better?

Let's consider a more extreme example (that I've made up), just to help illustrate why I'm hesitant about things. Let's say that, gods forbid, we find out Billy Batson was created as a child because the creator, CC Beck, was a pedo. My apologies to the spirit of Mr. Beck for using him in such a gross example. But let's say that we learn this. By the same logic that says Diana's strength should be moved up 1 rank, we should also age Billy into an adult. Right? Diana was made weaker due to sexism, so we make her stronger to erase the sin. Ergo, we'd age up Billy for the same reasons. I gotta say, that doesn't really make sense to me. And I know it's an extreme example and Diana's strength isn't the same thing but my point/question is, in a serialized fiction where century-old characters are still running around with all that history, everything can be traced back to less enlightened times, and unlike the real world where you just fire the bad people and improve policy, these characters persist and so does the precedent they set. I don't know if you can fight institutional bigotry within the fiction in the same way you fight it in the office?

[Guy_McNichts]

An issue with Diana's powers relative to Superman is less the literal one-to-one scaling, but the function and purpose in the story.
To put it another way, if we are to call Wonder Woman equal to Superman, do we mean that literally or essentially?

To use video game balance as an example...
You have a game with multiple characters to play as. Say one has high stats in offensive power, but is low in defense or speed. Meanwhile, there's another character who has high speed, but a low attack power. In the grand scheme, the two characters are effectively equal...you can easily beat the game with either one of them...but they have particular strengths/weaknesses.

I imagine that is what most Wonder Woman fans want in regard to her and Superman.
Though I know some want exact one-to-one equal, "If Superman can lift this much and move this fast, Diana must therefore lift the exact same and be just as fast," I think the majority who want her to be Superman's equal want it in the sense of "They have strengths and weaknesses that balance out."
Ultimately, if Superman can prevail in the story, Diana should be able to even if it's not in the same manner. Like how you can easily beat the game with either character, there should be nothing either of them can't overcome.

The problem is too many creators in DC have crafted stories that go out of their way to demonstrate in no uncertain terms, "If Superman can't prevail, NO ONE can...least of all Wonder Woman."
"If Superman turned evil, NO ONE can stop him...certainly not Wonder Woman."
"If Superman's not around, EVERYONE dies...Diana the first to drop."

That goes beyond "Superman is the strongest hero because that's his gimmick and we have to preserve it." That's "Wonder Woman has her place and we'll be damned if it threatens our boys in any way."
Look no further than Phil Jimenez revealing, when he wanted to establish Diana is the best fighter, the editors insisted she can only be the best fighter *on the ground*

Even the thing she should be best at comes with an asterisk.

I don't care if Superman can lift a 1000 tons while Diana can only lift 999 tons. That's arbitrary and semantics.
I do care about stories where Diana can hit guys like Mongul or Steppenwulf with everything she has and still fail...only for Superman to swoop in and beat them with ease. I care when Wonder Woman's function in the DC universe is to be the 'close, but not quite good enough' hero.

And the fact she so often falls into that role does stem from sexism on some level.


The real solution, if you refuse to portray them as equals, is to keep them in separate universes so they can both be all they can be within their own contexts. That way Superman can be the one and only that the Earth depends on. Diana can be the best and strongest woman she was created to be.
Some people might call that merely being the big fish in a small pond, but if putting said fish in the ocean means chaining it to the bottom and refusing to feed it...yeah, the small pond might be better.

[Rightoya]

That's kinda my question. Let's assume the best of DC for a moment (difficult, I know) and presume that they realized that sexism is bad, and they've done their best to purge it from their offices. Doesn't mean they understand or like Diana or anything, doesn't mean she's a priority, but let's say they no longer work on the "girls = bad" mindset.

That should be hopefully the case, but my understanding of institutionalized sexism is that it don't even requires such a mindset.

So they change their policies. Hire more women, get rid of the small men. All that. You're still sitting on seventy, eighty years worth of continuity and tradition where Diana's been the second strongest hero around. And this is still DC, where they like their rankings and being able to say "this hero is the best at this particular thing."

Yeah, but we are talking about an obviously sexist tradition, and the only thing Wonder Woman truly might be the best at is getting screwed over by DC and not even getting portrayed as the second strongest hero at all.

Where things split, maybe, from real-world institutional bigotry is that the continued narrative keeps going. In the real world, when you fix institutional bigotry you fire the small people, change the policy and the culture (more complex than just that, yes, I'm simplifying for discussion) and do better. But in DC, you're not starting over with new employees, you're still working with the same characters and the histories they bring. Do we change Diana's established history because of a century old sin, or do we respect the TLC that has gone into her since?

Why should we respect an unfortunately sexist part of the history of a character who is even meant to be be a glowing symbol against sexism, and how could that possibly show any TLC?

Do you have to make Diana stronger in order to "do better" and if so, what does that say about the creators like Jimenez and Rucka and all the others who did great things with her? Were they not doing better?

Were they even allowed to do better, i remember reading quite a few time that Wonder Woman writers got especially in comparisions with Superman often limited by their editorials.

Let's consider a more extreme example (that I've made up), just to help illustrate why I'm hesitant about things. Let's say that, gods forbid, we find out Billy Batson was created as a child because the creator, CC Beck, was a pedo. My apologies to the spirit of Mr. Beck for using him in such a gross example. But let's say that we learn this. By the same logic that says Diana's strength should be moved up 1 rank, we should also age Billy into an adult. Right?

I don't understand why we should do that, what would be pedophile or truly problematic about Billy being a child even if the creator would have been pedophile?

Diana was made weaker due to sexism, so we make her stronger to erase the sin. Ergo, we'd age up Billy for the same reasons. I gotta say, that doesn't really make sense to me.

This comparison-example with Billy would just make any sense to me if the creator would have drawn child Billy in suggestive poses or worse, and in that case we should of course change these problematic things and even rigorously delete them from his past for any future publications.

And I know it's an extreme example and Diana's strength isn't the same thing but my point/question is, in a serialized fiction where century-old characters are still running around with all that history, everything can be traced back to less enlightened times, and unlike the real world where you just fire the bad people and improve policy, these characters persist and so does the precedent they set. I don't know if you can fight institutional bigotry within the fiction in the same way you fight it in the office?

Why not, the true bigotry still happened in reality and therefore can get changed in reality after all?

An issue with Diana's powers relative to Superman is less the literal one-to-one scaling, but the function and purpose in the story.
To put it another way, if we are to call Wonder Woman equal to Superman, do we mean that literally or essentially?

To use video game balance as an example...
You have a game with multiple characters to play as. Say one has high stats in offensive power, but is low in defense or speed. Meanwhile, there's another character who has high speed, but a low attack power. In the grand scheme, the two characters are effectively equal...you can easily beat the game with either one of them...but they have particular strengths/weaknesses.

I imagine that is what most Wonder Woman fans want in regard to her and Superman.
Though I know some want exact one-to-one equal, "If Superman can lift this much and move this fast, Diana must therefore lift the exact same and be just as fast," I think the majority who want her to be Superman's equal want it in the sense of "They have strengths and weaknesses that balance out."
Ultimately, if Superman can prevail in the story, Diana should be able to even if it's not in the same manner. Like how you can easily beat the game with either character, there should be nothing either of them can't overcome.

The problem is too many creators in DC have crafted stories that go out of their way to demonstrate in no uncertain terms, "If Superman can't prevail, NO ONE can...least of all Wonder Woman."
"If Superman turned evil, NO ONE can stop him...certainly not Wonder Woman."
"If Superman's not around, EVERYONE dies...Diana the first to drop."

That goes beyond "Superman is the strongest hero because that's his gimmick and we have to preserve it." That's "Wonder Woman has her place and we'll be damned if it threatens our boys in any way."
Look no further than Phil Jimenez revealing, when he wanted to establish Diana is the best fighter, the editors insisted she can only be the best fighter *on the ground*

Even the thing she should be best at comes with an asterisk.

I don't care if Superman can lift a 1000 tons while Diana can only lift 999 tons. That's arbitrary and semantics.
I do care about stories where Diana can hit guys like Mongul or Steppenwulf with everything she has and still fail...only for Superman to swoop in and beat them with ease. I care when Wonder Woman's function in the DC universe is to be the 'close, but not quite good enough' hero.

And the fact she so often falls into that role does stem from sexism on some level.


The real solution, if you refuse to portray them as equals, is to keep them in separate universes so they can both be all they can be within their own contexts. That way Superman can be the one and only that the Earth depends on. Diana can be the best and strongest woman she was created to be.
Some people might call that merely being the big fish in a small pond, but if putting said fish in the ocean means chaining it to the bottom and refusing to feed it...yeah, the small pond might be better.

I agree with all of that, but would add to the first part that the respective stats and abilities advantages need to be clear-cut enough that even the most incompetent or questionable DC writers, have not much chance to screw it up or any easy excuses like we saw so often with the now even almost vanished fighting skill of Wonder Woman.

[WonderLight789]

That's kinda my question. Let's assume the best of DC for a moment (difficult, I know) and presume that they realized that sexism is bad, and they've done their best to purge it from their offices. Doesn't mean they understand or like Diana or anything, doesn't mean she's a priority, but let's say they no longer work on the "girls = bad" mindset.

So they change their policies. Hire more women, get rid of the small men. All that. You're still sitting on seventy, eighty years worth of continuity and tradition where Diana's been the second strongest hero around. And this is still DC, where they like their rankings and being able to say "this hero is the best at this particular thing." Where things split, maybe, from real-world institutional bigotry is that the continued narrative keeps going. In the real world, when you fix institutional bigotry you fire the small people, change the policy and the culture (more complex than just that, yes, I'm simplifying for discussion) and do better. But in DC, you're not starting over with new employees, you're still working with the same characters and the histories they bring. Do we change Diana's established history because of a century old sin, or do we respect the TLC that has gone into her since? Do you have to make Diana stronger in order to "do better" and if so, what does that say about the creators like Jimenez and Rucka and all the others who did great things with her? Were they not doing better?

Let's consider a more extreme example (that I've made up), just to help illustrate why I'm hesitant about things. Let's say that, gods forbid, we find out Billy Batson was created as a child because the creator, CC Beck, was a pedo. My apologies to the spirit of Mr. Beck for using him in such a gross example. But let's say that we learn this. By the same logic that says Diana's strength should be moved up 1 rank, we should also age Billy into an adult. Right? Diana was made weaker due to sexism, so we make her stronger to erase the sin. Ergo, we'd age up Billy for the same reasons. I gotta say, that doesn't really make sense to me. And I know it's an extreme example and Diana's strength isn't the same thing but my point/question is, in a serialized fiction where century-old characters are still running around with all that history, everything can be traced back to less enlightened times, and unlike the real world where you just fire the bad people and improve policy, these characters persist and so does the precedent they set. I don't know if you can fight institutional bigotry within the fiction in the same way you fight it in the office?

If she is still portrayed as weaker because of a sexist approch from the past, then it is still sexist. And Diana is not the second strongest hero. In the past 10 years from comics to movies, she has weaker strength feats than Aquaman, Flash, Green Lasntern, etc. Some of you seem to be talking from headcanon. Go to a battler thread and prove with quantifiable feats(not lipservice ranking) that she is the secobd strongest. Her durability, strength and speed feats are for the most part very low since 2011.

[Ascended]

That should be hopefully the case, but my understanding of institutionalized sexism is that it don't even requires such a mindset.

Mine as well. It's simply maintaining practices so commonplace they don't even always register as problematic. Once it's recognized and policies/practices are changed, you can hopefully start to work it out of the system. That's the basic idea anyway, from what I recall of those classes.

Why should we respect an unfortunately sexist part of the history

I'm obviously not saying anyone should respect the sexist opinions that shaped Diana's history. But all the stories and characters that made us love her are part of that same history. We can respect the character's journey and what she's grown into without condoning the sexism that played a role in shaping it, or allowing that attitude to continue. We can respect the work by good creators and the world/s they built. Do right by her with quality stories and strong roles in major events, put quality talent on her. That's what will drive the remnants of sexism out of the franchise, not saying she can bench press as much as somebody else.

Were they even allowed to do better, i remember reading quite a few time that Wonder Woman writers got especially in comparisions with Superman often limited by their editorials.

Yeah them and everybody else. DC's heavy handed editorial happens to everyone. Remember the stories during the New52 that came out of the Bat office? Nightmarish. DC has absolutely screwed over Diana more than the others, and they definitely struggle to understand her more than the rest, but we can't lay the blame for that entirely on sexism either. Once upon a time, yeah obviously it was. Not even all that long ago really. But a lot of it now isn't sexism, it's just basic incompetence. That's worthy of its own derision, but not the "sexism" label.

I don't understand why we should do that, what would be pedophile or truly problematic about Billy being a child even if the creator would have been pedophile?

And what's inherently sexist about Diana being stronger than every other hero on the planet, all the men included, except one? We know the people who originally made the choice were sexist yes, but the idea that there's one person stronger than her and it just happens to be a dude, on its own, isn't. It'd only be sexism if he was stronger *because* he was male. That was the case, then. Is it the case now? Is DC, now, really saying Diana's not stronger only because she's a woman? Because I don't know if I buy that. And if Diana's not #2 now because of sexism, then why is it a problem?

Why not, the true bigotry still happened in reality and therefore can get changed in reality after all?

Because in real life you can get rid of the people, change the policy, and start fresh (again, just simplifying for discussion). You can't do that with these characters. Change your policy, hire quality people of diverse and varied backgrounds and opinions, do all the right things at the office, and you still have characters shaped during less enlightened times. Seems to me we don't fix that just by saying Diana has better stats. We fix that by doing a better job of writing the character. The video game style semantics of power ranking is an illusion. Everyone at DC gets a crown to wear, "best at X" and otherwise it's just narrative. Diana's always as strong/fast/durable as the story needs her to be. Her strength level isn't a problem, it's when her strength level is handled poorly because she's a woman that it becomes an issue.

An issue with Diana's powers relative to Superman is less the literal one-to-one scaling, but the function and purpose in the story.
To put it another way, if we are to call Wonder Woman equal to Superman, do we mean that literally or essentially?

Clearly I've always come down on the "spiritually" side of it. Marston started off with the idea to call her Suprema or however he spelled it, and likely intended a 1:1 basis when he first started, but since Diana ended up with skills, resources, and powers Clark didn't have, and he had things she'd didn't, I'd guess everyone settled on the idea of "different but equal." So that's the approach I take with her. I'm less interested in whether she's exactly as strong as some guy from a totally different franchise and more interested in seeing the unique elements she brings to the table used to their fullest. I demand that she be equally capable, not that she do all the exact same things the exact same way.

Look no further than Phil Jimenez revealing, when he wanted to establish Diana is the best fighter, the editors insisted she can only be the best fighter *on the ground*

Which was what, twenty five years ago or more? Back when Berganza was still kicking around? Assuming my memory is correct and DC did put actual effort into rectifying their poor choices, Phil would've been long before that. Unless this is a more recent development I missed? In any case, it seems DC changed their mind on this and embraced Diana's "best warrior" crown. They went overboard with that for a while (still do sometimes), but policy seems to have changed since Phil. I don't give DC any points for being so heavy handed on warrior woman, but I do give them points for putting the crown squarely on her head.

[bardkeep]

That's kinda my question. Let's assume the best of DC for a moment (difficult, I know) and presume that they realized that sexism is bad, and they've done their best to purge it from their offices. Doesn't mean they understand or like Diana or anything, doesn't mean she's a priority, but let's say they no longer work on the "girls = bad" mindset.

So they change their policies. Hire more women, get rid of the small men. All that. You're still sitting on seventy, eighty years worth of continuity and tradition where Diana's been the second strongest hero around. And this is still DC, where they like their rankings and being able to say "this hero is the best at this particular thing." Where things split, maybe, from real-world institutional bigotry is that the continued narrative keeps going. In the real world, when you fix institutional bigotry you fire the small people, change the policy and the culture (more complex than just that, yes, I'm simplifying for discussion) and do better. But in DC, you're not starting over with new employees, you're still working with the same characters and the histories they bring. Do we change Diana's established history because of a century old sin, or do we respect the TLC that has gone into her since? Do you have to make Diana stronger in order to "do better" and if so, what does that say about the creators like Jimenez and Rucka and all the others who did great things with her? Were they not doing better?

Somehow you've found yourself at the ideological center of the "liberal vs. leftist," reform vs. revolution conversation. A liberal would agree with you; a leftist would argue that the 2 cases are actually kinda the same, because all institutions are fundamentally defined by their histories and the biases at their roots. And you have to admit, liberal fixes aren't exactly rock solid - the pendulum is designed to swing back, and if change were as simple as putting new people in charge and changing policies, we wouldn't still be dealing with **** like drag bans and continued threats to women's reproductive rights.

But in the example we're talking about here? "Strength rankings" are 100% fake, they're dumb and amorphous and can be easily ignored if they don't serve a story. There was a whole canon Marvel vs. DC comic where fights were settled via fan votes and Spider-Man beat Superboy without any trouble. Hell, we just had a whole thing where The Rock rolled up and said "okay Black Adam is Strongest Guy now because I said so" and people were totally game for it until the movie wound up sucking.

Wonder Woman being stronger/weaker than Superman isn't a fundamental aspect of her character, nor is Superman being stronger/weaker than Wonder Woman a fundamental aspect of his. It doesn't matter who wins the hypothetical arm wrestling contest because the answer to that is always the same - "depends on what the writer is trying to do."

The issue at hand is when WW's lore, characterization, and storytelling undermine the feminist themes at her core. And stuff like imaginary strength levels becomes a problem when a story that centers women and celebrates their power has to actively remind the reader that at the end of the day, a man is still the dominant force. The vibe is "seeing a bunch of straight couples making out at a gay club" - it's supposed to be one of the few places where you don't have to think about the power dynamics that keep you down.

Though for my money, they should be consistently depicted as equals. If you put their central character concepts against each other you've got the definition of unstoppable force vs. immovable object - the man who's absolutely dominant vs. the woman who can't be dominated.

Let's consider a more extreme example (that I've made up), just to help illustrate why I'm hesitant about things. Let's say that, gods forbid, we find out Billy Batson was created as a child because the creator, CC Beck, was a pedo. My apologies to the spirit of Mr. Beck for using him in such a gross example. But let's say that we learn this. By the same logic that says Diana's strength should be moved up 1 rank, we should also age Billy into an adult. Right? Diana was made weaker due to sexism, so we make her stronger to erase the sin. Ergo, we'd age up Billy for the same reasons. I gotta say, that doesn't really make sense to me. And I know it's an extreme example and Diana's strength isn't the same thing but my point/question is, in a serialized fiction where century-old characters are still running around with all that history, everything can be traced back to less enlightened times, and unlike the real world where you just fire the bad people and improve policy, these characters persist and so does the precedent they set. I don't know if you can fight institutional bigotry within the fiction in the same way you fight it in the office?

Not the same thing at all. You're talking about a pattern of systemic bias vs. one guy who's a pedo.