How "Fascist" is WONDER WOMAN?

[Gothos]

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?

But the authority of a Hitler stems from his individualism, does it not? The conviction that he wants to do what he alone believes to be absolutely right?

[americanwonder]

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.

It's a little hard for me to read that panel, then read your "paraphrase" and wonder how you can not see your distortion via paraphrase.

1. Many villains are a little grumpy at the time of arrest. Not really the best time to discuss new ideas with them.
2. "Will" does not necessarily mean there's no choice. "Will" can simply mean Steve is confident.
3. "Horsefethers!" is scornful? He may not be overly emphathetic at the time, but I hardly read that as some authoritarian "scornful and imperative" mandate about brainwashing.
4. Prison usually isn't option for prisoners. ;) Submitting is part of prison. Just as children have to learn "acceptible" behavior, we take away freedoms, and force prisoners to do things against their will, in part, in the hopes they can re-learn what is acceptable behavior. There are consequences for unacceptable behavior.

Sorry, but I really don't see how you can not see Steve's comment as something very simple, without the need to read "brainwashing" into it.

(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.)

Oh, it was very clearly part of your distortion campaign. ;)

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.)

Interesting way of putting it - I guess, I'm not really sure you can answer either question in full without addressing the other, which is the heart of my issue here. By leaving out data - picking and chosing only the parts that we think directly fit the question, ala "Is WW Fascist?" - I don't think don't get a good look at the whole picture.

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?

I'm not saying we should ignore the parts that aren't popular. But I had to scratch my head a bit when you mentioned "influencial" in this topic. People have been submitting long before Marston came along, and we've been protesting authority long after as well. I don't think the "submit" part of Marston's WW has had a lot of influence.

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?

Honestly, I'm open to the idea. Repeat criminals are not high on my sympathy list. Indio rings for everyone!

[slvn]

It's a little hard for me to read that panel, then read your "paraphrase" and wonder how you can not see your distortion via paraphrase.

You may not agree with my interpretation, but it's obviously not intentional distortion; I included the panel so you could interpret it for yourself. I wasn't trying to fool you.

To me, it seems clear that a. she didn't want to love Wonder Woman; and b. Steve was taking her off to Transformation Island and telling her she was going to love Wonder Woman. So, even though she didn't want to love Wonder Woman, she was going to love Wonder Woman. I don't think "whether she wanted to or not" is such a stretch.

"Horsefethers!" is scornful?

Uh, yeah..".language, behavior, or ideas that are absurd and contrary to good sense <horsefeathers! don't believe everything you read in the papers." Synonyms include bull, baloney, rot, rubbish and stupidity.(http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/horsefeathers) So I don't think Steve is exactly in the mood to comfort her with kind words about how she will see the same fine qualities in Diana that he does. He's telling his prisoner how it's going to be when she transforms on Transformation Island. I'm sure Marston doesn't mean for it to be creepy, but the idea of a prison that makes its prisoners love their captors is creepy to me.

4. Prison usually isn't option for prisoners. ;) Submitting is part of prison. Just as children have to learn "acceptible" behavior, we take away freedoms, and force prisoners to do things against their will, in part, in the hopes they can re-learn what is acceptable behavior. There are consequences for unacceptable behavior.

At Transformation Island, it's not just going to prison that's mandatory--it's transformation. In Wonder Woman 28, as I interpret it, the girdle actually changes Irene's mind, not just her behavior. If you want, take a look at the panels on the page I linked to and see if you agree. To involuntarily change someone's way of thinking is pretty close to brainwashing, isn't it? And to call it loving submission, even though it was compelled, seems a little euphemistic (if you prefer that term to "Orwellian.")

Interesting way of putting it - I guess, I'm not really sure you can answer either question in full without addressing the other, which is the heart of my issue here. By leaving out data - picking and chosing only the parts that we think directly fit the question, ala "Is WW Fascist?" - I don't think don't get a good look at the whole picture.

Would you like me to quote the entire run? :) Certainly, if we can establish that some scenes or issues seem authoritarian, we can go on to ask whether they are balanced out by other scenes that seem anti-authoritarian. That's why I quote Wonder Woman's empowering advice from the end of #5.

Honestly, I'm open to the idea. Repeat criminals are not high on my sympathy list. Indio rings for everyone!

Ah. Well, then, I can see why you wouldn't be troubled by what I see as some of the more authoritarian ideas in Marston's run. :)

[americanwonder]

... Ah. Well, then, I can see why you wouldn't be troubled by what I see as some of the more authoritarian ideas in Marston's run. :)

Did I say I wasn't at all troubled by the more authoritarian ideas or are you jumping to conclusions? ;)

eta: I am open to exploring troubling ideas. Doesn't mean I don't see any potential trouble with them.

[slvn]

All right, sir; by chance, are you troubled by any of the more authoritarian ideas in Marston's run?

[americanwonder]

All right, sir; by chance, are you troubled by any of the more authoritarian ideas in Marston's run?

To paraphrase you from earlier in the thread, any social idea can be used poorly. So, I often find myself somewhere between uncomfortable and intrigued.

eta: I can certainly undersdtand finding the idea of "venus girdles" a little "creepy." But I don't read Steve that way. I tend to read him as rather earnest. Enthisiastic and optimistic. But not creepy. Then again, I tend to not take Golden Age comics all that seriously, and tend not to hold them to literal standards of today. So much analysis of them often seems like over-analysis to me and my lil' point of view.

[Superdog]

But the authority of a Hitler stems from his individualism, does it not? The conviction that he wants to do what he alone believes to be absolutely right?

And then having millions of people invest their identity and self worth into a nebulous concept like a "strong state" or "social purity" on his say-so. That's pretty much the definition of submission to authority. Everyone listening to the radio and doing exactly as their told, the cornerstone of every terrible government in history.

[americanwonder]

And then having millions of people invest their identity and self worth into a nebulous concept like a "strong state" or "social purity" on his say-so. That's pretty much the definition of submission to authority. Everyone listening to the radio and doing exactly as their told, the cornerstone of every terrible government in history.

How many of those governments would have been terrible had the people in positions of power been good? In order words, to have these terrible governments, don't you need both leaders behaving poorly and a populous that submits to the authority? I mean, you can have a dictator and still have a great government, assuming the dictator uses his/her power for good, right? Which brings us back to the point of choosing one's authority figures well.

[slvn]

To paraphrase you from earlier in the thread, any social idea can be used poorly. So, I often find myself somewhere between uncomfortable and intrigued.

I understand. I'm just about a half block over, at the intersection of Intrigued and Skeptical. I like being skeptical, and I'm not sorry the weirder parts for there; they make for interesting moments, even if I don't necessarily buy into every bit of the the theories behind them.

eta: I can certainly undersdtand finding the idea of "venus girdles" a little "creepy." But I don't read Steve that way. I tend to read him as rather earnest. Enthisiastic and optimistic. But not creepy.

Earnest can be creepy too. :) If he's enthusiastic and optimistic about brainswashing--even if he doesn't realize that it's brainwashing--than that, to me, is creepy. :0

And I'm curious whether it seems a little more like brainwashing to you after looking at a few couple of panels from 28. First, there's this:



Her evil desires are involuntarily washed away; her mind is involuntarily altered, right? It's done in the service of good, but does that make it not brainwashing? And now see what this alteration of desires leads to:



Look at the top middle panel. As a result of the indoctrination that she received while the girdle was changing her attitude, she now loves Wonder Woman (and Hippolyta). Does that make it any less far-fetched to think that, in my previous example, when Steve tells Tigra she'll love Wonder Woman, he's describing a change that will be compelled by Transformation Island?

One could argue that the "end" of removing evil justifies the "means" of compelling people to undergo psychological change. Is this part of the theory of loving submission that Marston meant for the comic to teach? If so, it doesn't sound too bad in the comic book, since we trust that the Amazons absolutely know what is evil and what is not and would never abuse their power; but in reality, I'm uncomfortable with human authorities having this kind of power.

Then again, I tend to not take Golden Age comics all that seriously, and tend not to hold them to literal standards of today. So much analysis of them often seems like over-analysis to me and my lil' point of view.

OK. But as a lot of people who are bothered by Azzarello's changes often point out, Marston was a psychologist and social theorist and did intend for his comic to teach a serious message. I don't think there's anything wrong with taking that message seriously enough to analyze it.

[carabas]

So... Does any of this remind people of Identity Crisis? (No, not the rape bits, the main plot where the JLA figured, hey, let's start having Zatanna magic supervillains into nicer people?)

[NotSuper]

But the authority of a Hitler stems from his individualism, does it not? The conviction that he wants to do what he alone believes to be absolutely right?

Indeed it does. When you believe you're completely right and have serious egomania, others become little more than objects needed to fulfill your goals.

In other words, those with such egomania tend to want to build the world in their own image and crush egos that aren't like them. It's the ultimate form of self-love and hatred of all that is different from oneself.

[Lord Bravery]

Indeed it does. When you believe you're completely right and have serious egomania, others become little more than objects needed to fulfill your goals.

In other words, those with such egomania tend to want to build the world in their own image and crush egos that aren't like them. It's the ultimate form of self-love and hatred of all that is different from oneself.

The ironic thing with Hitler was that he said the "perfect race" was tall, well built blondes with blue eyes. Well, he was pretty much the exact opposite of that.

[Superdog]

How many of those governments would have been terrible had the people in positions of power been good? In order words, to have these terrible governments, don't you need both leaders behaving poorly and a populous that submits to the authority? I mean, you can have a dictator and still have a great government, assuming the dictator uses his/her power for good, right? Which brings us back to the point of choosing one's authority figures well.

The concept of a dictatorship is neccesarily bad because it means they destory any political challengers. There is no "good" dictatorships, I suppose if we looked throughout history we could find the "least bad dictator". I'm not sure what that would prove though.

[Superdog]

Indeed it does. When you believe you're completely right and have serious egomania, others become little more than objects needed to fulfill your goals.

In other words, those with such egomania tend to want to build the world in their own image and crush egos that aren't like them. It's the ultimate form of self-love and hatred of all that is different from oneself.

Maybe it's egomania for the leader and his high command, but what about all the millions of people who do what they tell him to? An egomaniac with no one to listen to him has no power. I have hard time seeing how hordes of people with matching uniforms marching in unison can be chalked up to "rampant individualism".

[slvn]

How many of those governments would have been terrible had the people in positions of power been good? In order words, to have these terrible governments, don't you need both leaders behaving poorly and a populous that submits to the authority? I mean, you can have a dictator and still have a great government, assuming the dictator uses his/her power for good, right? Which brings us back to the point of choosing one's authority figures well.

Picking good leaders is important, but sometimes a good person might get corrupted once they have power. So the people should probably at least retain the power to remove their leader. (Your know----"when in the course of human events..."). Plus, even a really good person and good leader isn't perfect probably can't be equally familiar with every point of view in the society; with a representative government, you can have checks and balances and input from all quarters. Finally I think people should take responsibility for what the government does on their behalf--and ideally, taking responsibility should entail exerting some control over our own government.