How "Fascist" is WONDER WOMAN?

[jancy]

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 ev

Nobody said that a loving AUTHORITY is perfect. And it doesnt have to be!
And Obama is NOT a loving authority, dude.
Try Jesus.

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.

Well, if you're a prisoner, then you have no choice! Prisoners are compelled to do this or that. They still have their basic human rights, just as Transformation Island inmates do.
And yes we DO know that Irene has learned to discern which authority is loving. Her actions speak for themselve

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.

First of all, you can't learn Marston's teaching JUST from reading the comics. its not complete. You have to read all his books. Either that, or have an authority on Marston's work explain it to you.
Marston's philosophy doens't discourage thinking for yourself. Its about your EMOTIONS. The assertive ego is connected to emotions. You can still think INTELLECTUALLY...just not SELFISHLY.

Understand the difference?

And I respectfully disagree with Marston about that (though I th

Again, you're going way past the point. Marston was simply prescribing a better remedy for THOSE particular types of girls. You keep talking about "thinking for yourselves", but if the girls don't want to dictate things, and are always seeking out a master to serve under, then it IS the best thing to make sure they follow under a good loving master/mistress.

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.

Well first off, you have to realize that that particular passage wasn't a Marston comic. It was written by some subsequent writer who didn't quite get it. Consider the writer.

But besides that, You also have to take into account who Steve Trevor was. He's not Wonder Woman.

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!

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?

Those televangeslist followers aren't submitting to a loving authority. They're actually following their selfish egos. The televangelist just happens to appeal to their ego's whims.

And there is a BIG difference between Girldes and micro chips planted in you! Just think of the Girdles as being shackles that prisoners MUST wear. Or even like prison uniforms.

Of all the takes on Marston here so far, I'd agree with this one the most. I'd add th

The things I posted above were NOT my "takes" on Marston. They are FACTS as they were explained to me by a Marston authority.

[slvn]

Nobody said that a loving AUTHORITY is perfect. And it doesnt have to be!
And Obama is NOT a loving authority, dude.
Try Jesus.

I'm not saying Obama is a messiah; he may not even be fully qualified as what Marston calls a "love leader";i just think he's literally a loving authority--an authority figure who loves the subject of his authority (in this case, his country). Even McCain agreed that Obama loves his country.

I know that no one said a loving authority is perfect or that it has to be. I'm saying that because no human authority is perfect (and if there is divine authority, it's not perfectly known and understood by humans), when we submit to authority, we should not submit so completely that we stop thinking for ourselves and lose the ability to withdraw our submission if we think the authority is leading us astray. I don't think Marston necessarily would have disagreed with me about that; I just haven't seen that his work emphasizes it as much as I would like.

Well, if you're a prisoner, then you have no choice! Prisoners are compelled to do this or that. They still have their basic human rights, just as Transformation Island inmates do.

Prisoners in our society lose a lot of rights, but they don't lose freedom of thought. Irene wears a girdle that compels "complete" submission and prevents her from having "evil desires," according to Mala; and, according to Irene, her desires and overall attitude are lastingly transformed while she is wearing the girdle, and they don't change back even when she takes it off. If it's forcing her to change the way she feels and thinks, then I don't think, even though the change is for the better and even if she ends up liking it, that her basic human rights are being respected.

And yes we DO know that Irene has learned to discern which authority is loving. Her actions speak for themselve

Her actions are great, but we don't know that she has "discerned" that Wonder Woman and Hippolyta are loving authorities; we hear that she has come to love them after being compelled to change her desires. It doesn't appear tobe a free choice made through her own discernment.

First of all, you can't learn Marston's teaching JUST from reading the comics. its not complete. You have to read all his books. Either that, or have an authority on Marston's work explain it to you.

I'm not claiming to be an expert; I could learn a lot more about his psychological theories beyond the comics. I'm reading Emotions of Normal People, and I don't see anything in the section on "emotional reeducation of men to follow love leadership" that explains how people are supposed to recognize a loving leader or resist her if she goes wrong. If you know of parts of Marston's work that are particularly compelling, let me know and I'll get to them sooner rather than later, if I haven't read them already.

Marston's philosophy doens't discourage thinking for yourself.

I didn't say that it does. In fact, I said I think he'd agree that we should think critically and independently. I just don't think, based on what I'm familiar with, that he emphasizes it as much as submission and obedience. I suspect that there could be a better balance. If you know of places in his work where i could find more of that balance, I'd be interested.

Its about your EMOTIONS. The assertive ego is connected to emotions. You can still think INTELLECTUALLY...just not SELFISHLY.

Understand the difference?

Sure. I said somewhere above that something I like about Marston is the idea of quieting our egos and serving the common good. You seem to think I'm anti-Marston. I'm not. I think we can respect and learn from his ideas and still think critically about possible weaknesses or dangers in them.

I talk about thinking for ourselves because that's something people sometimes fail to do when they take pleasure in submitting to an authority which they believe, rightly or wrongly, to be a loving authority. It can feel really good to let someone else do all of our thinking or make all of our decisions for us, but I don't think it's very responsible. I do believe that it's possible to submit to loving authority and the common good without checking our brains at the door; I just haven't, so far, seen as much emphasis on critical thinking in Marston as I personally would like.

Again, you're going way past the point. Marston was simply prescribing a better remedy for THOSE particular types of girls. You keep talking about "thinking for yourselves", but if the girls don't want to dictate things, and are always seeking out a master to serve under, then it IS the best thing to make sure they follow under a good loving master/mistress.

I understand that he's talking about 'those particular types of girls," and I understand that his ideas were progressive for his day, but in my opinion "the best thing" for even "those particular types" would be to help them learn to think more independently--not necessarily to "dictate things," but to take responsibility for themselves. This is what Wonder Woman teaches Dr. Psycho's wife in #5, and that's one of the moments in Wonder Woman that I really like.

Well first off, you have to realize that that particular passage wasn't a Marston comic. It was written by some subsequent writer who didn't quite get it. Consider the writer.

No--it's from "The Mistress of the Beasts" in number 26, by Marston.

But besides that, You also have to take into account who Steve Trevor was. He's not Wonder Woman.

No--but what are you saying? That Marston doesn't mean for us to think that it's a good thing for Tiigra Tropica (or whatever her name was) to be made to love Wonder Woman? That's also part of what happens to Irene in #28. In my view, loving Wonder Womanis great; but having a prison or reeducation camp make you love someone is not so great.

Those televangeslist followers aren't submitting to a loving authority. They're actually following their selfish egos. The televangelist just happens to appeal to their ego's whims.

I agree, but they probably think they're submitting to a loving authority--and I think that there's some risk in teaching people to take pleasure in submission to loving authority if one is not also teaching people how to recognize a loving authority and how to recognize and respond if the authority stops acting so lovingly. There may well be places where Marston emphasizes the need to teach this as much he emphasizes the need to teach the taking of pleasure in being (metaphorically) bound; i f you can point out such places, I'd love that.

And there is a BIG difference between Girldes and micro chips planted in you! Just think of the Girdles as being shackles that prisoners MUST wear. Or even like prison uniforms.

Shackles don't prevent people from experiencing evil desires, as Mala says the girdle does. (Getting rid of evil desires may be great, but I wouldn't trust a human authority to decide which desires are so evil that we should compel people not to feel them.) Shackles also don't compel people to submit so completely that they radically and lastingly change their personalities, as Irene suggests that her time in the girdle did.

The things I posted above were NOT my "takes" on Marston. They are FACTS as they were explained to me by a Marston authority.

I haven't challenged many of your claims of fact (except for a few comic-specific things, like who wrote the comic with the "horsefeathers!" line, or what is said in the comics about the girdles of Venus). For the most part, your descriptions of Marston's ideas echo what I have read of and about those ideas before. I'm just not as completely sold on this whole package of ideas as you seem to be.

[Venomous Mask]

In response to Wonder Woman fighting fascists in WWII, that in itself is not a strong point. After all, German and Russia fought the bloodiest campaign in history.

Yeah, and every superhero at the time fought the Nazis, even if it made no sense for them to do so:

[jancy]

I haven't challenged many of your claims of fact (except for a few comic-specific things, like who wrote the comic with the "horsefeathers!" line, or what is said in the comics about the girdles of Venus). For the most part, your descriptions of Marston's ideas echo what I have read of and about those ideas before. I'm just not as completely sold on this whole package of ideas as you seem to be.

I was talking to Gothos.

[slvn]

So you were. Sorry about that!

[NotSuper]

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.

True enough. But he probably wanted to look like his Aryan ideal, as it's likely how he saw his inner self. If he had won the war, I could easily see him using plastic surgery to alter his appearance to his ideal (his scientists were doing similar things like trying to dye eye-color blue).

[Gothos]

I was talking to Gothos.

You said:

The things I posted above were NOT my "takes" on Marston. They are FACTS as they were explained to me by a Marston authority.

The way you explain those facts still constitutes a "take." People draw different conclusions from the same evidence all the time.

[jancy]

The way you explain those facts still constitutes a "take." People draw different conclusions from the same evidence all the time.

Not when I basically copy & pasted what I was told. You know, relaying exactly how it was explained to me.

[BeccaBlast]

slvn,

While holding onto a position is admirable in a debate competition, it is not a necessity on a forum thread. You pulled a section of a page from "Villainy, Inc." to show what you believe is the coerced reform of the prisoners on Transformation Island. But your selection and argument pretty much founder on the rock of that story itself.

We never see Irene again -- and we haven't seen her before this story, either -- but you manage not to notice the panels a page or two before. Eviless has escaped the influence of the girdle, and with Mala her prisoner, takes control of the facility. She tells the prisoners she will remove their girdles -- and the overwhelming majority of them refuse -- only the recognized rogues actually join in, and take Eviless up on her offer. That's a lot of choice right there, and a lot of people being able to resist the magical coercion that troubles you. Even Eviless feels the pull of the girdle -- and resists it. It's not inescapable. (Oddly enough, when Hippolyta is caught in one -- at a time where she was considered no less than Diana's equal, and quite probably her better -- she is completely docile.)

But, Irene DOES have a choice -- she just doesn't join the other villains -- because she hadn't refused the generous treatment of the Amazons. I've seen you spin all sorts of theories on other threads as to things that might have happened off panel so that this reboot of the Amazons' history and culture might not be as awful as what is printed on the page -- but here, you want a definitive panel where Irene chose to reform? We see her rejecting rebellion when others choose to return to their old ways; we have an ungirdled woman realizing her own strength and skills -- and how she HAS changed for the better ("I LOVE Wonder Woman and Queen Hippolyta -- I can't bear to see them hurt!"), and you'd rather believe that she has been brainwashed.

How did Irene get there? We know how; she went up against Wonder Woman and lost -- but Diana, because that was her way back then, offered her a chance at reform rather than merely being incarcerated in an American prison. That's how all the prisoners wound up there, even the Saturnians, who begged for it because the punishment for their failure would have been far worse at home. Like them, not everyone who took the offer was sincere; maybe that's how they were able to resist. But even that implies a choice -- a choice to deceive. I think you could make a fair argument that Transformation Island worked only on those who were sincere about wanting to change. Transformation Island was the Golden Age forerunner of Arkham -- Cheetah made three escapes herself -- so its success rate is far from perfect. Its failures are far more indicative that the choice rested with the individuals than any idea of totalitarian brainwashing -- so climb off that branch before it snaps under you -- there's not much support there!

[slvn]

We never see Irene again -- and we haven't seen her before this story, either -- but you manage not to notice the panels a page or two before.

I actually did allude to those panels, just this morning--but I can't blame you for not knowing that, because that message got deleted. (I'm not complaining; the message had to go because it was a response to another one that got deleted.) Anyway, it was just a quick allusion, and I don't think it would have won you over. :)

Eviless has escaped the influence of the girdle, and with Mala her prisoner, takes control of the facility. She tells the prisoners she will remove their girdles -- and the overwhelming majority of them refuse -- only the recognized rogues actually join in, and take Eviless up on her offer.

The narrator says "some prisoners are not yet reformed." Notice the word "yet." Perhaps these prisoners hadn't been wearing the girdle long enough. Maybe it takes longer to work on some prisoners than on others. Or maybe the device isn't 100% effective; what device is? Or maybe, as you say, they were the ones who didn't want to reform. We're not told or shown why it didn't work on everyone, as far as I can see, so there's really no right answer (other then "otherwise there wouldn't have been much of a story.") BUT, the girdle's purpose and function, according to Mala, is to compel complete submission and stop people from having evil desires. I don't see anyone saying that the belt, by design, is only supposed to stop the wearer from having desires that she chooses not to have, or that the wearer is meant to be able to choose to have those desires anyway. To me, Mala's word "compel" suggests that it's not their choice (or, at least, not supposed to be their choice). A mind control procedure that sometimes fails is still a mind control procedure, and still not intended to afford free choice. And it looks to me like the prisoners who stay make that choice because they have been made to love their captivity. So, is staying really a free choice if it is predicated on a transformation that they didn't choose?

The final panel of #28--and of Marston's run--seems to suggest that even the hard cases will submit eventually; "the girls are ashamed and glad to be back," Wonder Woman reports. Certainly, I'm sure everyone who works in rehab hopes for 100% success; but they realize that it's not going to happen, because people make their own choices. I don't see much of that recognition here--though maybe there is a happy glimmer of it in Cheetah's repeated escapes. One thing I'll say on your side of the argument--maybe there is one thing that is structurally anti-totalitarian about the superhero genre, in that it can never sustain and celebrate complete hegemony, because if it did, there would be no villains left to fight.

I can sympathize with what I think is the desire to read generously and assume that Irene and the others made a free choice to transform. But it seems fair to say that Marston didn't emphasize or make clear that the prisoners could freely choose not to change. Freedom of choice in the face of a loving authority doesn't seem,to me, to have been a major part of his message. And that bugs me a little, personally, because authorities that seem loving sometimes aren't, and even authorities that are loving can be mistaken and can lead us in the wrong direction. Sometimes he does seem to recognize this; as I've said, I really like it when Wonder Woman tells Dr. Psycho's wife, in #5, why she should become more self-reliant.

You're right that I have indulged in speculation--and lots of it--about what could account for the behavior of the Amazons (and other things) in Azzarello's run. And that speculation may be backed up or shot down by future developments in that run. Marston's run, unfortunately,ended prematurely--and , even it hadn't, it would have been long over by now; there no more room for prediction, only for interpretation of what he wrote.

In his non-fiction writing, Marston was clear that he was proposing a program of emotional reeducation (his term, from Emotions of Normal People) to make obedience sexy. I have no doubt that his intentions for doing that were noble; he wanted to discourage violence. I'm just saying that if you condition people to enjoy taking orders from anyone who seems loving and lovable, you may make inadvertently make them more likely, not less, to become docile subjects in an authoritarian (and maybe even violent) regime. Do you know the Milgram obedience experiment, which I mentioned and linked to upthread? I don't know for sure,but I tend to suspect that someone educated according to Marston's plan would be more likely to obey the order to give someone an electric shock, as long as the order came from kind-looking, soft-spoken woman who said it would be the best thing for society. And it's ironic, because I'm pretty sure that that kind of result is not what Marston was trying to enable.

I'm not trying to besmirch the guy's reputation. I imagine he was a kind and gentle man, as well as a learned and creative one. His comics are fun and in many ways inspiring, and the non-fiction I've read by him is thought-provoking even when I disagree. I'm glad he wrote, and if anyone wanted to pull his books from school libraries, I'd strongly oppose that. I just think it's important to realize the dangers and limitations of reeducating people to be easily led. I see that the Texas GOP adapted a platform plank in opposition to the teaching of critical thinking skills, for fear that this kind of education might lead to "undermining parental authority" or having kids question their "fixed beliefs." (http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/...inking-skills/) So seeing people endorse the cultivation of submissive attitudes, without necessarily balancing that off with a healthy dose of critical thinking skills, makes me nervous--even when the person doing it was intelligent, well-intentioned, and a whole lot more progressive than the Texas Republicans.

[Red Mask]

If Wonder Woman worked for Amanda Waller in Man's World this wouldn't be a problem.

[BeccaBlast]

"It looks to me like the prisoners choose to stay because they've been made to love their captivity."

You're not the first person to have that impression -- Eviless figured that, too -- that they would love their captivity so much they would make useful slaves. That lasted until Irene and company were left alone tied up in their cells. Obviously, Marston was trying for something more complex that that -- but free will is a tricky doctrine for any religion or philosophy designed to propel humanity to its ultimate. Liberation through submission is the core mystery of the most successful human religions -- whether through contemplation or faith, we're continually told the only way to achieve peace, happiness and fulfillment is through submission to whatever is presented as the nature of the cosmos.

I suppose you could say that the very concept of God is fascistic, then; and I wouldn't be surprised if there were more than a few scholarly papers gathering dust that posited just that.

[carabas]

I don't get this thread...

Someone comes up to you and tells you they don't like the way you're thinking. You're locked up in a prison and forced to wear a magical contraption that will forcibly change the way you think until agree with your captor.

How this is not pure black and white supervillainy I just do not understand. "It's okay if you do it only to bad people" doesn't fly with me.

Nobody would even blink if Lex Luthor did something like this. It's Anti-Life. Darkseid territory.

[Auguste Dupin]

I don't get this thread...

Someone comes up to you and tells you they don't like the way you're thinking. You're locked up in a prison and forced to wear a magical contraption that will forcibly change the way you agree with your captor.

How this is not pure black and white supervillainy I just do not understand. "It's okay if you do it only to bad people" doesn't fly with me.

Nobody would even blink if Lex Luthor did something like this. It's Anti-Life. Darkseid territory.

Heh. it actually reminds me of "A Clockwork Orange", where they pretty much did that to killers and rapists. Or that Justice League TAS episode where an alternate version of the JL turned bad lobotomized the criminals in Arkham to make them obedient and harmless.
Of course, in both cases, we are not supposed to agree with the method.

[BeccaBlast]

I don't get this thread...

Someone comes up to you and tells you they don't like the way you're thinking. You're locked up in a prison and forced to wear a magical contraption that will forcibly change the way you think until agree with your captor.

How this is not pure black and white supervillainy I just do not understand. "It's okay if you do it only to bad people" doesn't fly with me.

Nobody would even blink if Lex Luthor did something like this. It's Anti-Life. Darkseid territory.

Oh I see your issue -- you're conflating thought and action. No wonder you can't distinguish between criminal actions, which got those people on Transformation Island, with irritating and obnoxious thought.

Which gets you hundreds or thousands of posts on message boards.