How "Fascist" is WONDER WOMAN?

[kelly_warrior_princess]

Orwellian brainwashing? lol WHAT?

Not trying to be rude, but have you actually read either of Orwells works: Either Animal Farm or 1984?

Orwell actually does a lot with the idea of "peace through complete surrender to authority." Its essentially surrendering the role of the family to the state, something that 1984 & animal farm cover in great depth: It actually has a name these days; "Social Marxism." Thing is that Social Marxism is agreed to be one of the base concepts of contemporary feminism. So while i do disagree with a lot of what was in the article, the general statment isn't far wrong: On this point i'd say its the right information, but the wrong conclusion.

[americanwonder]

Not trying to be rude, but have you actually read either of Orwells works: Either Animal Farm or 1984?

I've read both.

Orwell actually does a lot with the idea of "peace through complete surrender to authority." Its essentially surrendering the role of the family to the state, something that 1984 & animal farm cover in great depth: It actually has a name these days; "Social Marxism." Thing is that Social Marxism is agreed to be one of the base concepts of contemporary feminism. So while i do disagree with a lot of what was in the article, the general statment isn't far wrong: On this point i'd say its the right information, but the wrong conclusion.

Sure, there are comparisons that can be made regarding 'peace through surrender,' and sure, any and all social ideas can (and likely have) be/been abused. But I think it's a stretch to try to paint it as fascist or even brainwashing. If any and all attempts at reform are considered "brainwashing," then isn't parenting a form of brainwashing, too? I doubt many would want to get rid of parenting altogether. So, where do we draw the line?

So, I can't even agree that the article has the right information - for starters, he seems to have only bothered to read one issue, and then projected a lot onto it (reads as if written for a film theory class or something - lots and lots that has very little to do with WW).

[kelly_warrior_princess]

I've read both.

Good, that makes discussing them as a base much easier (since its very hard to discus books people haven't read).

Sure, there are comparisons that can be made regarding 'peace through surrender,' and sure, any and all social ideas can (and likely have) be/been abused. But I think it's a stretch to try to paint it as fascist or even brainwashing. If any and all attempts at reform are considered "brainwashing," then isn't parenting a form of brainwashing, too? I doubt many would want to get rid of parenting altogether. So, where do we draw the line?

We draw the line when its not an option, its literally rewriting. Transformation Island for instance wasn't about teaching people a better way, it was literally using magic to change peoples mind by force. Thats akin to using psychotropic drugs to change peoples personalities for the worse. Actually 1984 does something similiar with the scene with the face cage & the rat (i'm sure you know the scene i'm talking about).

So, I can't even agree that the article has the right information - for starters, he seems to have only bothered to read one issue, and then projected a lot onto it (reads as if written for a film theory class or something - lots and lots that has very little to do with WW).

Except that other people have taken the same works & come to similiar conclusions & can substantiate them with the base source material.

[americanwonder]

Good, that makes discussing them as a base much easier (since its very hard to discus books people haven't read).

I didn't say I remembered them that well - it's been a few years.

We draw the line when its not an option, its literally rewriting. Transformation Island for instance wasn't about teaching people a better way, it was literally using magic to change peoples mind by force. Thats akin to using psychotropic drugs to change peoples personalities for the worse. Actually 1984 does something similiar with the scene with the face cage & the rat (i'm sure you know the scene i'm talking about).

Well, part of the problem in comparing the two is the simple fact that one author was writing a magic story for kids. And then we want to go all literary analysis on it? Sometimes our literary tries too hard to be too literal when even kids know it's just magic. imo.

How is this akin to using "psychotropic drugs to change peoples personalities for the worse?"

Sorry, but Steve never got the cage and the rat - he's just simply a fan of WW.

Except that other people have taken the same works & come to similiar conclusions & can substantiate them with the base source material.

Who are these "other people"? Even if others had the right information, I don't think the author in this article has the right information, because he doesn't bother to read more than a single issue. One issue. Not much of a data set. And he doesn't even try to find more info, just jumps to a sensational conclusion (after rambling about movie characters for awhile).

[jancy]

remember that the audeince for this and kids, and ask yourself: would you tell kids that if they "want to be slaves there's no harm in that?" This seems to suggest that it's OK to have someone else do your thinking for you; but I think you have to teach kids that they should respect and listen to others but ultimately learn to think for themselves.

Again, Marston didn't support actual, historical fascism at all--far from it--so the question for me is whether his ideas, or his way of teaching, would encourage people to yield to authoritarian rule. Do you know about Milgram's obedience experiment? It's described at http://www.integratedsociopsychology...xperiment.html . Inspired by the question of why people were willing to be Naxi prison guards and other tools of dictators, Milgram wanted to find out under what conditions people would obey an order to give an electric shock to other people. What I'm wondering about, I guess, is whether teaching people to take erotic pleasure is obedience would make them more likely to administer that shock. I'm just wondering; I don't know for sure.

Ah, but don't forget the OTHER part of Marston's/Wondy's message regarding "no harm in wanting to be slaves", which is "Under a good mistress". That means (like I said before in a previous post) it all depends on who the master is, the authority. Is the authority loving or not? If it is, then there's nothing to worry about.

For instance, kids submit themselves to their parents all the time. And the "master" need not be an actual person. It could be a concept that one submits to and lives by.

Now as far as that quote you all are referencing that Wondy says ("If girls want to be slaves, there's no harm...."), an authority on Marston's work told me that with that quote that he put as Wondy's dialog, he was trying to say something very specific. Which was: Marston was talking in metaphor about the common woman (especially of the WW2 era?) who is naturally subservient, who wants to serve rather than be the master. And that for THOSE types of women, the best thing for them is to make sure they are following a trusted, loving authority ("mistress").

So basically: Its good to be dominant, as long as you use it for good rather than basing it off of your destructive ego. If you're going to be a slave, then at least make sure you're submitting to a quality master.

[kelly_warrior_princess]

Well, part of the problem in comparing the two is the simple fact that one author was writing a magic story for kids. And then we want to go all literary analysis on it? Sometimes our literary tries too hard to be too literal when even kids know it's just magic. imo.

Um, i'm not sure which book your thought was for kids, but the predominate demographic for Wonder Woman when it was first released wasn't kids it was militarty servicemen on deployment. After that the demographic was young teen boys. Neither of which would be considered kids.

How is this akin to using "psychotropic drugs to change peoples personalities for the worse?"

Because with a psychotropic drug, you can't say "no thank you, i'm not interested in purchasing what you are selling" you just swallow, because there is no alternative. Where as a p[arents influence can be mediated by the influence of other more positive influences. Ones a pick and mix based on choice, the other is literal mental programming. Same goes for the rat cage approach in 1984.

Sorry, but Steve never got the cage and the rat - he's just simply a fan of WW.

An some people where just fans of the orwellian state as discussed in 1984. Actually the biggest advocates in the book were actually women, who shamed men into going along with the program, kind of like the white feather brigades shaming men into fighting in war.

Who are these "other people"?

Gosh darn it, i was just reading one... Now where did i put it? I'll try and find it again, it was pretty surreal. It had scans from the comics of Diana hunting women in doe suits, skinning them of the doe suits & then preparing them to cook... It was frankly a little disturbing.

[carabas]

Stalin's USSR was just as facist as Germany. Communism was just Lennon's vision that died with him.

Ahem...

LENNON


LENIN

[slvn]

Is the authority loving or not? If it is, then there's nothing to worry about.

I disagree. Even a loving leader isn't necessarily a perfect one, and we don't want to be lovingly led over a cliff. (For example, I like President Obama a lot and I believe he is lovingly leading our country, but that doesn't mean that I should blindly follow every part of his agenda.As a citizen in a democratic country, I should listen to what he and others say and then judge for myself.) Sure, kids should learn to be good followers, students, employees, etc., and sure, they should find good teachers and leaders. But, they should also know that the best teachers and leaders--and parents--they will ever have are still flawed human beings, and even after you have found good leaders, you still have to keep weighing their instructions and taking responsibility for your own actions. It's a good thing to teach people to quiet their egos and submit to the common good, and I think that's a lot of what Marston was about; I would just argue that you need to also teach them to think for themselves and be responsible for their own actions. I don't think Marston would disagree with this; he just puts heavy emphasis on submission, even as the source of strength. For example, you're right that Irene, in #28, gains strength from having been "transformed" on Transformation Island; but does she demonstrate critical thinking? As Mala says, the girdle "compels complete obedience to loving authority." ( http://hoodedutilitarian.com/2012/05...nder-woman-28/ ) Well, if the obedience is compelled, it's not chosen and freely given, and we don't know if Irene has learned to discern which authority is loving and to think for herself. And even when the girdle comes off, she still seems to have been changed by its influence--changed for the better, but she's not necessarily thinking for herself. For me, there's an important balance to strike, or a reconciliation to make, between "loving submission" and critical thinking.

Now as far as that quote you all are referencing that Wondy says ("If girls want to be slaves, there's no harm...."), an authority on Marston's work told me that with that quote that he put as Wondy's dialog, he was trying to say something very specific. Which was: Marston was talking in metaphor about the common woman (especially of the WW2 era?) who is naturally subservient, who wants to serve rather than be the master. And that for THOSE types of women, the best thing for them is to make sure they are following a trusted, loving authority ("mistress").

And I respectfully disagree with Marston about that (though I think it was progressive back when he wrote it). I think that while a good mistress (or master) is better than a bad one, everyone can learn to think for him- or herself, and it's better --even for those who have been taught or culturally conditioned to be subservient-- to learn to think for yourself (even while being respectful of leaders) than to be any kind of "slave."

[slvn]

Orwellian brainwashing? lol WHAT?

I'm not saying that Marston brainwashed his readers. He wrote a comic book with a message that I mostly admire. But here, Steve seems to be approvingly saying that Transformation Island will make the villainess love Wonder Woman, whether she likes it or not. I think forcing someone to to feel a certain way, against their will, sounds a little like brainwashing. It certainly seems to blur the line between coercion and real love. What were the state's slogans in 1984? "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." I think "Coercion is love" would fit right in.

(Eros' love guns blur the line between love and coercion too, but Azz's depiction of the blurring isn't exactly approving--except POSSIBLY in the last scene of #10, which, much as I like it, may become a critical crux in the Journal of Azzarello Studies some day. :) )

Why is it that for interpretations of Azzarello's WW, you almost always seem to paint in the brightest shades of optimism, but for Marston's it's Orwellian brainwashing instead of something as simple as enthusiastic support?

Because Marston's work is complete and because, so far, I take Marston more seriously as a cultural force. His work was intended to deliver an educational and social message, and it's only right to hear and evaluate that message. He has earned this level of ideological analysis. Azzarello is telling a really interesting story that I'm enjoying a lot, but the jury isn't even really out yet on its significance and meaning as a cultural artifact. As it's still in progress and I'm still enjoying it, I remain optimistic.

Marston himself seems to have thought comic books for "kids" should be ideologically critiqued; he thought most superhero comics were glorifying macho violence, and he wrote Wonder Woman partly to counter that. I agree with him about this, and so I think his comic should be subject to ideological critique, too.

Gosh darn it, i was just reading one... Now where did i put it? I'll try and find it again, it was pretty surreal. It had scans from the comics of Diana hunting women in doe suits, skinning them of the doe suits & then preparing them to cook... It was frankly a little disturbing.

It's from Wonder Woman 3, and besides being possiby a little disturbing (or maybe just weird), it's also pretty funny--but anyway, here's an example:



There's more at http://shehulk.sliverofice.com/wonde...3-part-1-of-4/

One shudders to think what some people would have had said if Azzarello had slipped these images into one of his issues. :)

[Superdog]

Looking at history, I think it's safe to say the worst atrocities come from people submitting themselves to authority, not from "ego" or any kind of individualism. Outside of a family enviroment, the idea of submission to authority falls apart. Who are these loving authorities we're supposed to obey?

[americanwonder]

I'm not saying that Marston brainwashed his readers. He wrote a comic book with a message that I mostly admire. But here, Steve seems to be approvingly saying that Transformation Island will make the villainess love Wonder Woman, whether she likes it or not. I think forcing someone to to feel a certain way, against their will, sounds a little like brainwashing. It certainly seems to blur the line between coercion and real love. What were the state's slogans in 1984? "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." I think "Coercion is love" would fit right in.

"Coercion is love." lol. It can't be that Steve honestly loves WW, thinks she's great, and does so without being brainwashed? So, it can't be that he honestly thinks that anyone who truly gets to know WW will end up loving her? Nope, it must be brainwashing?

(Eros' love guns blur the line between love and coercion too, but Azz's depiction of the blurring isn't exactly approving--except POSSIBLY in the last scene of #10, which, much as I like it, may become a critical crux in the Journal of Azzarello Studies some day. :) )

Possibly? She and Heph manipulate Hades and shoot him, trying to force him to love himself (they don't give him a choice, nor do they try to teach him to love himself). Look how many fans cheer (including you, no?). Now, it may come back later to bite her, but she's definately trying to force love into Hades and doing so to the roar of the crowd.

Because Marston's work is complete and because, so far, I take Marston more seriously as a cultural force. His work was intended to deliver an educational and social message, and it's only right to hear and evaluate that message. He has earned this level of ideological analysis. Azzarello is telling a really interesting story that I'm enjoying a lot, but the jury isn't even really out yet on its significance and meaning as a cultural artifact. As it's still in progress and I'm still enjoying it, I remain optimistic.

Marston himself seems to have thought comic books for "kids" should be ideologically critiqued; he thought most superhero comics were glorifying macho violence, and he wrote Wonder Woman partly to counter that. I agree with him about this, and so I think his comic should be subject to ideological critique, too.

True, Marston's work is complete, while Azzarello's is not, thereby giving Azzarello's run more open space to change and offer new information. But if we're going to "ideologically critique" one, then I think the same standards should be held to the other, or at least, what we have thus far of the other (eg, Azzarello). To me, you seem much more willing to give Azzarello plenty of optimism, even on the parts we already have, and aren't as willing to extend the same to Marston's.

eta: Ok, just read your reply to Jancy above - there, I think your comments are a more fairly balanced take/critque of Marston's WW. Kudos. :)

[slvn]

"Coercion is love." lol. It can't be that Steve honestly loves WW, thinks she's great, and does so without being brainwashed? So, it can't be that he honestly thinks that anyone who truly gets to know WW will end up loving her? Nope, it must be brainwashing?

Did you see that I said "Steve seems to be approvingly saying that Transformation Island will make the villainess love Wonder Woman, whether she likes it or not"? I'm NOT saying Steve is coerced to love her; I'm saying that he's telling the villain that she's going to be made to love Wonder Woman, whether she's willing or not. And that's coercion--even though it's for a good cause. What does he need to say to sound coercive--"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated"? :)

Try to forget for a second that you know Marston wrote that panel. When Steve dismisses her resistance and carts her away, saying "Horsefeathers!You'll end up loving Wonder Woman like all the rest of us!," doesn't it seem just a little creepy? Putting a criminal in prison? Great! Telling her she's going to be made to love someone? Not so great.

Seriously, there's a big difference between Steve's love for Wonder Woman and the love he says Tigra Whatsername is going to experience. He fell in love with Wonder Woman the old fashioned way; Tigra is going to be reeducated at Transformation Island. The former is beautiful; the latter is possibly a little creepy. Unless you think that "coercion is love."

Possibly? She and Heph manipulate Hades and shoot him, trying to force him to love himself (they don't give him a choice, nor do they try to teach him to love himself). Look how many fans cheer (including you, no?). Now, it may come back later to bite her, but she's definately trying to force love into Hades and doing so to the roar of the crowd.

Are we going to quibble over the word "possibly" now? :) I was admitting that this particular scene, much as I do like it, can be read as coercion--although Hades seems in both #9 and #10 to regret being unable to love or be loved, so they're giving him what he wants. Moreover, someone who loves himself--if it's a healthy kind of self-love--is presumably less likely to be ruled by others without thinking for himself, so arguably they're not taking his autonomy away. They may even be strengthening it. (Look how quick he he was to fall for the queen-sharing plan, or how easily he was led by Strife. Would he have gone along with those ideas if he had the self-respect that he hopefully now has?) It would be much worse, in my view, if they forced him to love Persephone or submit to Aphrodite's authority or something like that. Anyway, this is a very interesting and very debatable scene. But I could pick other scenes in issues 7 to 10 that seem critical of the idea of coercion as love (starting with the pathetic condition of the man on whose behalf Eros used the love guns, and running through Wonder Woman's speech about trust and her explanation of why the guns didn't work). I wonder if it would be as easy to find such scenes in Marston's run. Maybe it would; I'd be interested if you see some. The first appearance of Dr. Psycho would be a good place to look.

True, Marston's work is complete, while Azzarello's is not, thereby giving Azzarello's run more open space to change and offer new information. But if we're going to "ideologically critique" one, then I think the same standards should be held to the other, or at least, what we have thus far of the other (eg, Azzarello). To me, you seem much more willing to give Azzarello plenty of optimism, even on the parts we already have, and aren't as willing to extend the same to Marston's.

In the fulness of time, sure they should both be critiqued--especially if Azz's version turns out to be as message-driven and influential as Marston's. Right now, being incomplete, Azz's doesn't seem to be fully ripe for ideological analysis, nor has Azz's version really earned as much serious attention as Marston's, which has become a part of our culture. I'm optimistic about Azz's run for now, just as I uncritically enjoyed Marston's comics first time. I may be critical of Azz's run later, when the time for retrospection and analysis comes. And I may have some ideological disagreements with it but still think it's an excellent story. We'll see.

[americanwonder]

Did you see that I said "Steve seems to be approvingly saying that Transformation Island will make the villainess love Wonder Woman, whether she likes it or not"? I'm NOT saying Steve is coerced to love her; I'm saying that he's telling the villain that she's going to be made to love Wonder Woman, whether she's willing or not. And that's coercion--even though it's for a good cause. What does he need to say to sound coercive--"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated"? :)

Try to forget for a second that you know Marston wrote that panel. When Steve dismisses her resistance and carts her away, saying "Horsefeathers!You'll end up loving Wonder Woman like all the rest of us!," doesn't it seem just a little creepy? Putting a criminal in prison? Great! Telling her she's going to be made to love someone? Not so great.

Seriously, there's a big difference between Steve's love for Wonder Woman and the love he says Tigra Whatsername is going to experience. He fell in love with Wonder Woman the old fashioned way; Tigra is going to be reeducated at Transformation Island. The former is beautiful; the latter is possibly a little creepy. Unless you think that "coercion is love."

Yes I read your line/question -thanks so much for asking. ;) But it's your line, not Steve's. Steve does not say, "whether you like it or not." You do. It's your addition. Does Steve say, "Coercion is love," or is that from you? So, to me, your depiction comes across as you distorting the picture to better fit your predetermined view.

Steve got to know WW and thinks she's great; it's quite possible he thinks that given the time, others can get to know her and "end up" loving her as well. It's a very simple explanation that doesn't require adding in your own Orwellian depiction.

In the fulness of time, sure they should both be critiqued--especially if Azz's version turns out to be as message-driven and influential as Marston's. Right now, being incomplete, Azz's doesn't seem to be fully ripe for ideological analysis, nor has Azz's version really earned as much serious attention as Marston's, which has become a part of our culture. I'm optimistic about Azz's run for now, just as I uncritically enjoyed Marston's comics first time. I may be critical of Azz's run later, when the time for retrospection and analysis comes. And I may have some ideological disagreements with it but still think it's an excellent story. We'll see.

In the fulness of time? How long is this decompressed story? ;)

WW herself became part of our culture, but I find it kind of a little odd when you focus so much analysis on the elements of Marston's WW that didn't. In your view, does Marston's "loving submission" really seem all that "influential" on our culture?

eta: Don't people oft complain that our prison system doesn't do enough to reform criminals?

[slvn]

But it's your line, not Steve's.

Well, yeah. That's why I said "Steve seems to be saying...." And it's also why I didn't put the line in quotation marks, except in my second message, when I was quoting myself in order to show you that I never said Steve was coerced to fall in love. I also put Marston's actual panel in the message for you to look at--so it's a little hard for me to see why you think I was trying to distort what he said. I was paraphrasing.

Here's why I think my paraphrase is an accurate interpretation: 1. As the villain is saying that she wants revenge on Wonder Woman, it seems unlikely that she wants to love Wonder Woman. 2. Nevertheless, Steve tells her that she "will" come to love with Wonder Woman, not that she "may" come to love Wonder Woman. "Will" implies inevitability, not choice. 3. As Steve is taking her as a prisoner to Transformation Island, and as his statement starts with "Horsefeathers!," his manner seems scornful and imperative , not empathetic; it doesn't seem to me that he's just reassuring her that she may come to see Diana's fine qualities as he has. He's telling his prisoner how it's going to be. and 4. We know from other issues--like Wonder Woman 28, discussed and linked in my most recent response to jancy--that prisoners on Paradise Island are compelled to submit to loving authority; it's not optional.

(Oh, and of course "coercion is love" is my line--I was making the point that equating forced transformation with "love" seemed comparable to the oxymornic slogans form 1984. Sorry if that wasn't clear.)

In the fulness of time? How long is this decompressed story? ;)

I'll probably be ready to fully, objectively critique Azzarello's run as well as I can critique Marston's sometime in the next 70 years. Check back with me then. :) Right now, I'm rooting for him to succeed, and I'm staying optimistic.

WW herself became part of our culture, but I find it kind of a little odd when you focus so much analysis on the elements of Marston's WW that didn't.

The thread's question, as we have reinterpreted it, is whether Marston's Wonder Woman promotes authoritarianism. To answer that question, it seems to me that we have to, at least, look at parts of his run that could possibly be interpreted as authoritarian, and see if that interpretation is justified.

If the question were "How liberating is Wonder Woman?," I might cite the end of "The Battle for Womanhood" in Marston's #5, when Wonder Woman advises Dr. Psycho's wife to learn to be independent and to make her own way. There's no magic, compulsory transformation there; just good advice. (I'd link to it, but I can't find that panel online.)

In your view, does Marston's "loving submission" really seem all that "influential" on our culture?

Not necessarily, though he certainly meant for it to be; he had an educational agenda for the book (whereas I think Azz is mainly just trying to tell a good story). Did Marston influence many readers in the way that he intended? It's hard to say. I think a lot of people submit all too easily to what they may perceive as "loving authority"--whether it's a televangelist or a talk radio host or a political movement or a cult--without thinking for themselves, but I do not (repeat, NOT) blame Wonder Woman for that! But, if we're going to discuss the book, should we ignore the parts that have not become most popular?

eta: Don't people oft complain that our prison system doesn't do enough to reform criminals?

I complain about that myself. But there's a difference between being offered optional GED classes and being forced to wear a girdle that changes your attitude. Let me try a sci-fi question on you: suppose we could implant microchips that would have the same effect on prisoners as the girdles of Venus. You wouldn't be in favor of mandatorily implanting them, would you?

[Gothos]

Ah, but don't forget the OTHER part of Marston's/Wondy's message regarding "no harm in wanting to be slaves", which is "Under a good mistress". That means (like I said before in a previous post) it all depends on who the master is, the authority. Is the authority loving or not? If it is, then there's nothing to worry about.

For instance, kids submit themselves to their parents all the time. And the "master" need not be an actual person. It could be a concept that one submits to and lives by.

Now as far as that quote you all are referencing that Wondy says ("If girls want to be slaves, there's no harm...."), an authority on Marston's work told me that with that quote that he put as Wondy's dialog, he was trying to say something very specific. Which was: Marston was talking in metaphor about the common woman (especially of the WW2 era?) who is naturally subservient, who wants to serve rather than be the master. And that for THOSE types of women, the best thing for them is to make sure they are following a trusted, loving authority ("mistress").

So basically: Its good to be dominant, as long as you use it for good rather than basing it off of your destructive ego. If you're going to be a slave, then at least make sure you're submitting to a quality master.

Of all the takes on Marston here so far, I'd agree with this one the most. I'd add that though Marston didn't leave us a fully-hammered-out doctrine for WONDER WOMAN, I tend to think that there's a big difference between brainwashing and the type of socialization that Marston applies to both citizens of a given society and to criminals who break the society's laws.

In a further development of the essay I mentioned above, I've now done a piece on another Venus girdle story HERE.