Wonder Woman by Brian Azzarello / What is Your Verdict?

[Gaelforce]

Loving this discussion, but not loving the tone some of you are taking.

Stop addressing other posters in a hostile fashion, please, or I will be forced to start deleting and issuing warnings.

Keep it civil :)

[Outside_85]

That isn't the point and if you ever bothered to read the story, you'd know that. NO ONE left the island prior to Steve's arrival. No one even considered it. Steve's arrival was what got the Amazons to reconsider their isolationist stance. And Golden Age Wonder Woman was not the weak, constantly-pining-after-Steve fool that Silver Age Wonder Woman was. AT ALL.

Ah, so it wasn't just Diana, it was all of them.

You are reading into (without reading) the Golden Age stories something you expect to see there but wasn't actually the way you assume it to be. Or you are lumping Golden Age Wonder Woman in with the Silver Age garbage that came after Marston left the book, as if it were all the same thing.

Such a nice way to mention he died.

[brettc1]

We could be inspired by Wonder Woman to believe that redemption is always possible.

I actually dont believe that. Anakin Skywalker should burn in hell.

[brettc1]

He makes it clear that he thought at least that women had superior potential for being good leaders of society. In Emotions of Normal People, he wrote that "I have reached the tentative conclusion that male love leadership is virtually impossible." (393) The conclusion was tentative, but he doesn't seem to have changed his mind by the time he wrote Wonder Woman; he told the All-Star editor that "the entire aim and purpose" of Wonder Woman was to reveal the "universal truth" of "women taming men so they like peace and love better than fighting." Liking peace and love better sounds great, but "women taming men" doesn't exactly sound like the language of gender equality.

It could, if one assumes that since both genders bring something to the equation without female input society exists in an unbalanced state, causing problems to arise.

[slvn]

It could, if one assumes that since both genders bring something to the equation without female input society exists in an unbalanced state, causing problems to arise.

By that logic, you could also say that a company's humblest workers are equal to its upper management in that both are equally necessary to the effective functioning of the company. In a deep sense, I even think that this is true. But they're not equal in terms of power. If Marston thought some women should be leaders and all men should be followers--and he was pretty explicit that he did think this--then that's not what we normally mean by gender equality.

Of course, the catch is that women, according to Marston, should be selfless leaders. In practice, they might get all the responsibilities of leadership and none of the perks. And men get an excuse for not having to live up to the high standards that women are expected to live up to. I believe that true equality would be better for both men and women.

[Wonder39]

On Azz's work-- I think he's a fine storyteller, 'tho wayyyy too decompressed for my taste. I don't mind his actual storytelling abilities on WW-- I object to certain aspects of the mythos that he altered to suit his needs.

... if I may chime in just one little bit on the earlier discussion about the Amazons (on the previous page)-- for the Perez Amazons, one thing is forgotten-- they were victims in their previous lives. They were (as was mentioned) a random selection of regular women who had died through man's ignorance and violence, then the Goddesses reincarnated those womens' souls as new women-- the Amazons. The Amazons tried to live among society as equals to man until their fall at the hands of Heracles and his men. And only then did they retreat to the island-- not because they wanted to get away from man and live on their own, but because the Goddesses decreed they do so.

Also, on the subject of Diana and Steve, I know it's rather simplistic-- Diana falling in love with the first man she sees.... but I never look at it from the standpoint of her falling in love with literally the first man-- as in, any man would have fit the bill. She falls in love with Steve-- because it's Steve. And her finding love with him shows her that despite how perfect and peaceful their society is, something is missing. And that love actually honors their patron Goddess, Aphrodite.

M

[stk]

Ah, so it wasn't just Diana, it was all of them.

Why do you make such a lavish display of your not having read the original stories? I can't understand why it seems like such a point of pride for you to remain ignorant and so dismissive of the Golden Age. You are doing yourself a real disservice. They are wonderful stories and way ahead of the time they were published, not to mention way ahead of the Silver and Bronze Age stories that followed, written by men who either didn't understand or didn't believe in the message of the original character.

I don't understand your glee in disparaging something you clearly haven't read beyond a very brief and superficial level.

[_Tim_]

Well, if it means anything, this is one of the two New 52 books I still read regularly (though I'm planning on picking up the Flash HCs)...

To me, he gave WW an interesting edge by bringing in the mythological aspect to her story...and, as far as the New 52 being a reboot, this feels like the only title that really changed from the status quo beforehand...had this series been something else other than WW but a different lead character I would still most likely be reading it and I think that says a lot...

I'm really excited to see where the upcoming New Gods storyline leads to...

[brettc1]

By that logic, you could also say that a company's humblest workers are equal to its upper management in that both are equally necessary to the effective functioning of the company. In a deep sense, I even think that this is true. But they're not equal in terms of power. If Marston thought some women should be leaders and all men should be followers--and he was pretty explicit that he did think this--then that's not what we normally mean by gender equality.

Yes, but he also said that the men should practise loving submission, not that women should forcibly enslave them. So the men have the choice as to how they act.

People often confuse gender equality with gender sameness. Men and women are not the same. I dont agree with all of Marston's specific ideas, and I take note of your point before that he had a tentative conclusion about how the genders should operate on a societal level. But I also dont agree that there is evidence to suggest that he thought men were actually inferior to women.

[slvn]

Yes, but he also said that the men should practise loving submission, not that women should forcibly enslave them. So the men have the choice as to how they act.

Sure. But if someone said that deep down, women desire men to rule over them, and that the only hope for peace in the world is to have men in control, I wouldn't say that this person believes in gender equality. Believing the opposite was far more progressive, because it was counter to the actual social inequality of women--but it still wasn't a belief in gender inequality

From Olive Byrne's interview with Marston for Family Circle:

Byrne: "Will war ever end in this world; will men ever stop fighting?"

Marston: "Oh, yes. But not until women control men....

"The fact that both sexes are beginning to recognize the desire for the supremacy of strong and loving women is by far the most hopeful sign of the times. [After WWI,] Women definitely emerged from a false, haremlike protection and began taking over men's work. Greatly to their own surprise they discovered that they were potentially as strong as men-in some ways stronger. Women have more emotional power than men, they have greater endurance and more resistance to disease they live longer, and they can endure pain far better. The moment women began doing things to develop their strength, it increased enormously...Women will win! Give them a little more time and the added strength they'll develop out of this war and they'll begin to control things in a serious way. When women rule, there won't be any more because the girls won't want to waste time killing men."

http://www.wonderwoman-online.com/ar...c-marston.html

So I can think we can at least say that Marston wanted women to be superior to men in power, and that he thought other men and women also wanted this deep down, and that he thought women should rule the world. Certainly equality doesn't have to be sameness, but if someone thinks that one gender should "rule the world" or "control things," than that person doesn't want gender equality, right?

Again, though, I think the idea of women as having more "emotional power" and being morally superior is theoretically much more dangerous to women than to men, as it would, if widely held, hold women to an unfairly higher standard of selflessness.

[brettc1]

Sure. But if someone said that deep down, women desire men to rule over them, and that the only hope for peace in the world is to have men in control, I wouldn't say that this person believes in gender equality. Believing the opposite was far more progressive, because it was counter to the actual social inequality of women--but it still wasn't a belief in gender inequality

From Olive Byrne's interview with Marston for Family Circle:

Byrne: "Will war ever end in this world; will men ever stop fighting?"

Marston: "Oh, yes. But not until women control men....

"The fact that both sexes are beginning to recognize the desire for the supremacy of strong and loving women is by far the most hopeful sign of the times. [After WWI,] Women definitely emerged from a false, haremlike protection and began taking over men's work. Greatly to their own surprise they discovered that they were potentially as strong as men-in some ways stronger. Women have more emotional power than men, they have greater endurance and more resistance to disease they live longer, and they can endure pain far better. The moment women began doing things to develop their strength, it increased enormously...Women will win! Give them a little more time and the added strength they'll develop out of this war and they'll begin to control things in a serious way. When women rule, there won't be any more because the girls won't want to waste time killing men."

http://www.wonderwoman-online.com/ar...c-marston.html

So I can think we can at least say that Marston wanted women to be superior to men in power, and that he thought other men and women also wanted this deep down, and that he thought women should rule the world. Certainly equality doesn't have to be sameness, but if someone thinks that one gender should "rule the world" or "control things," than that person doesn't want gender equality, right?

Again, though, I think the idea of women as having more "emotional power" and being morally superior is theoretically much more dangerous to women than to men, as it would, if widely held, hold women to an unfairly higher standard of selflessness.

Hmmmm.

It would seem I was wrong about Marston. I hate being wrong - on the rare occasions it happens it is always dreadfully depressing.

On the other hand, my wife visited three different shops this afternoon to find blackberry jam because she heard me say I really liked it this morning. I dont really understand the attraction since my body looks nothing like Ryan Goslings, but its still nice.

Also, I just listened to this talk between the EverQueen and Gwen...

EQ: Where did you get a Wonder Woman comic?

Gwen: From the comic shop. Daddy got it for me and she's flying.

EQ: Wonder Woman can't fly.

Gwen: Yes she can, because she is a total hero. I love Wonder Woman because she's awesome.

So, what do I take away from all this.

Marston was wrong about gender equality. But I am right. Not because Marston agrees with me, but because I personally am very intelligent.

Which means I am cleverer than the man who was clever enough to invent Wonder Woman and the lie detector.

Damn, I'm awesome.

[slvn]

Marston was wrong about gender equality. But I am right. Not because Marston agrees with me, but because I personally am very intelligent.

Which means I am cleverer than the man who was clever enough to invent Wonder Woman and the lie detector.

Damn, I'm awesome.

That's the spirit!

(Incidentally, I have extensive experience being wrong. In fact, I'm usually wrong and my wife is usually right. Hey, Maybe Marston was ri-- nah!)

[Outside_85]

Why do you make such a lavish display of your not having read the original stories? I can't understand why it seems like such a point of pride for you to remain ignorant and so dismissive of the Golden Age. You are doing yourself a real disservice. They are wonderful stories and way ahead of the time they were published, not to mention way ahead of the Silver and Bronze Age stories that followed, written by men who either didn't understand or didn't believe in the message of the original character.

I don't understand your glee in disparaging something you clearly haven't read beyond a very brief and superficial level.

If you dont understand my points, dont bother asking about them, it appears it would just hurt your head.

Oh, and don't presume to know what I have and haven't read.

[Gaelforce]

Last warning - next person in this thread to get off the topic by addressing another poster gets the watering can.

I mean it.

[brettc1]

That's the spirit!

(Incidentally, I have extensive experience being wrong. In fact, I'm usually wrong and my wife is usually right. Hey, Maybe Marston was ri-- nah!)

In the interests of full disclosure, I should point out that I am not counting times my wife disagrees with me. Though naturally on such occasions 'wrong' does seem to be my default setting.

Which Marston was half right - women may not be innately superior, but they will win.