If they want the amazons to have kids this is the way to do it

[Fate's Faith]

She once came from an advanced culture which combined the ancient and modern. She loved a man. She didn't want to preach to the world, she wanted to fight for it because she belonged to it as much as anyone else. She wasn't better than others because she was chosen, she was better because she proved it.

Quoting myself here because I wanted to expand on something. By Perez taking away the love for Steve, he magnified the way men are portrayed in the history of the Amazons going all the way back to their creation in an even more bad light than before. He is the catalyst for her heroism. She always possessed those attributes but it was Steve that started the reaction. Its like when you fall in love with someone with children. Its the love for that person that makes it possible to love their children. Same with Diana. Her love for Steve developed her ability to love the world outside of Paradise Island. It wasn't there before and when Perez took that away, he also made her love for the outside world hollow. She made a home for herself in Man's World because of Steve even after his death(s). But without him, she didn't have that. Paradise Island felt like her only real home. Where she could be just Diana. It took away her ability to just be Diana out in Man's World. And that love for Steve wasn't just platonic. It was passion. Sexual. But it made the character exactly what Marston had wanted. A character with all the strengths of Superman and the love and compassion of a woman. Part of that was lost by losing the love for Steve. And it made all the anti-male trappings of the Amazons seem even more pronounced. You can't have a character believe that love conquers all when that character doesn't experience love.

And again, this is where the current run is working for me. That love is restored. Whether the Amazons are men haters in reality or only build a society excluding men doesn't change Diana's reason for becoming Wonder Woman. She's out loving the world thanks to Steve. While their relationship hasn't been smooth, it still exists even if they can't be together because of some perceived danger she brings to his life. Its not a weakness for her be motivated by that love. Its a strength that heroes share. Deep down, its the same for all. Whether its Batman's need to avenge his parents due to his love for them or Superman's need for justice due to his love of his adopted home. Diana just has this in its purest form. And when it was gone, what was she fighting for?

[JimRaynor55]

Don't make me break out the watering can to douse any flames, guys. Keep it civil and please stop directing posts at the person and/or their reasons for posting.

Thank you :)

Yeah, I don't want things to get ugly either, and I'm sure others don't as well. I think we're all trying to have a real discussion here, but I don't think you can completely separate the poster from the post when someone is writing about why they feel a certain way. Still, I think we're all capable of being civil from here on out.

I made no such implication. I said thank you for keeping my paragraphs together since your post responded to my request to not pull single sentences from individual paragraphs in an attempt to argue. You kept them together. I said thanks.

You said something about how it was "rude" to take apart your posts, right after I posted in response to you. I believed that you were talking about me. I thought your response after that was sarcastic. If it's just a misunderstanding, then I'm sorry. Let's move past that.

And about my claims. I can claim anything I want. I can claim the comic is attacking men. That Diana is ice. I don't have to support those arguments though I do make the attempt to do so.

If you can support your arguments then you just should. Nobody should be going around claiming things otherwise.

Redefining the Amazons as victims of men even before their birth and for writing her so sexually repressed she makes a nun feel ashamed doesn't do much to sway me that there wasn't a undercurrent feeling that post-Crisis Wonder Woman was meant to be anti-male from its beginnings.

Of course she's sexually repressed. She grew up on an island entirely populated by women, and didn't see a man until adulthood. Men are new to her, as are the feelings that they arouse. Now I do think that it's ridiculous that writers haven't been able to create a long, stable relationship for Diana in the nearly three decades since the start of the Post-Crisis era. But the early Post-Crisis issues were not anti-male or trying to write her as against the idea of ever being with a man.

To me, there's little to be said when you make the Amazons victims of the violence of men, and men only, even before their actual birth. It set the tone of what was to come and it all came to pass. The island filled with lost in time Greek women who seemed to have only achieved never growing beyond their beginnings. Yet they had so much to teach the world. I wonder would they have felt the same if they knew the outside world had running water.

The technology of Themyscira is a separate issue, although I will agree that taking away all technological advancement from the Amazons Post-Crisis does undercut their power as teachers to the rest of the world. The Amazons were still far more peaceful than most Earth nations, swearing off vengeance and being isolationist at their worst. At the end of the Challenge of the Gods arc, they also demonstrate incredible forgiveness.

[Fate's Faith]

You said something about how it was "rude" to take apart your posts, right after I posted in response to you. I believed that you were talking about me. I thought your response after that was sarcastic. If it's just a misunderstanding, then I'm sorry. Let's move past that.

It is a bit rude. I try to make my paragraphs short enough that if anyone wants to comment on one they don't have to fill the entire screen with a quote. But at times that's fine its when they take the entire paragraph apart making comments on each sentence... or phrase (had that before too). If you feel the need to comment on the entire paragraph at least show me the courtesy of keeping the context. That's what I was saying. Its rude to do that in that manner. I don't know if you did that because I tend to just ignore the response when I see a small paragraph of mine cause me to have to scroll the screen to see the response because they've been so torn apart. Are they commenting on my thoughts or looking for an angle to argue? But I'm not keeping score and it was just an offhanded comment.

Of course she's sexually repressed. She grew up on an island entirely populated by women, and didn't see a man until adulthood. Men are new to her, as are the feelings that they arouse. Now I do think that it's ridiculous that writers haven't been able to create a long, stable relationship for Diana in the nearly three decades since the start of the Post-Crisis era. But the early Post-Crisis issues were not anti-male or trying to write her as against the idea of ever being with a man.

This is only an issue when you look at the situation in total. The post-Crisis situation added onto an already sexist society. By sexist, I mean one sex wasn't seen as worthy for whatever reason. The pre-Crisis Amazons did have the no boys allowed island. One commanded by their gods. Same with the post-Crisis only we have the added crimes of men even before their birth on top of that. So, a little more anti-male touch to the Amazons than before. But its Diana's love for Steve that balanced that out. After all, if the best of the Amazons could love a man, can they really be so bad? So the post-Crisis gave us added anti-male sentiment but no balance. I never said it was intentional. Just the buildup of one thing with another changed the whole concept for me. I've said before, as I was reading, I didn't take that much notice. It was only after a few years into the title that something didn't seem right. Steve being older couldn't be it because I liked the way his story merged with the Amazons. But that's exactly what it was. Steve. That one variable changed it all.

I also have said I like the new version of the Amazons and they are clearly even more anti-male than ever before. But it seems cleaner and more true. Whether they still have the same creation story or not doesn't matter. There's no portraying them as one thing when they seem clearly the other. A fully anti-male society who doesn't feel shame in being just that. But we know they are wrong for that belief. Again, Diana leads against the idea. So in this version, she may be an outsider to our world, she's also clearly an outsider in her own. I doubt we'll see her preaching about the virtues of her own world because she's got as much to fix there and here. Before she may have been no differ than those around her but now she certainly is. She stands alone. But thankfully, not lonely this go around.

The technology of Themyscira is a separate issue, although I will agree that taking away all technological advancement from the Amazons Post-Crisis does undercut their power as teachers to the rest of the world. The Amazons were still far more peaceful than most Earth nations, swearing off vengeance and being isolationist at their worst. At the end of the Challenge of the Gods arc, they also demonstrate incredible forgiveness.

I think the technology side of things only made the idea just a bit offensive. And since its something of a homogeneous society that might explain the peaceful side. Not to forget the religious aspect. So backward, all the same on some level, and all the same religion. That's like some people's idea of the perfect society. Which the Amazons are often considered.

[JimRaynor55]

It is a bit rude. I try to make my paragraphs short enough that if anyone wants to comment on one they don't have to fill the entire screen with a quote. But at times that's fine its when they take the entire paragraph apart making comments on each sentence... or phrase (had that before too). If you feel the need to comment on the entire paragraph at least show me the courtesy of keeping the context. That's what I was saying. Its rude to do that in that manner. I don't know if you did that because I tend to just ignore the response when I see a small paragraph of mine cause me to have to scroll the screen to see the response because they've been so torn apart. Are they commenting on my thoughts or looking for an angle to argue? But I'm not keeping score and it was just an offhanded comment.

People can choose to comment on the whole thing or any angle they choose. That is normal conversation and forum posting, it is not automatically an attack against you. Picking one thing to talk about is not the same as taking things out of context, which is why I asked for an explanation about it before.

This is only an issue when you look at the situation in total. The post-Crisis situation added onto an already sexist society. By sexist, I mean one sex wasn't seen as worthy for whatever reason. The pre-Crisis Amazons did have the no boys allowed island. One commanded by their gods. Same with the post-Crisis only we have the added crimes of men even before their birth on top of that. So, a little more anti-male touch to the Amazons than before. But its Diana's love for Steve that balanced that out. After all, if the best of the Amazons could love a man, can they really be so bad?

If anything, I think the Post-Crisis version offered more balance. As you say, the Pre-Crisis Amazons very much had a "no boys allowed" rule on Paradise Island. That may have been a decree from the goddesses, but it was arbitrary and could at best be chalked up to man's inferiority. William Moulton Marston had lots of great ideas about female empowerment, and how the world would be a better place if it were ruled by love and compassion rather than violence. But his early comics very simplistically portrayed the Amazon females as better than men, claiming that violence was inherently a male trait.

The Post-Crisis comics acknowledged the suffering of women and showed the Amazons enduring atrocities committed against them. It also threw away the strictness of the "no boys allowed" rule (Pre-Crisis Amazons would literally lose their immortality if even one GOOD man physically set foot on their island). It made the point that perhaps the Amazons were somewhat wrong to set themselves apart from the rest of the world like that.

I also have said I like the new version of the Amazons and they are clearly even more anti-male than ever before. But it seems cleaner and more true. Whether they still have the same creation story or not doesn't matter. There's no portraying them as one thing when they seem clearly the other. A fully anti-male society who doesn't feel shame in being just that. But we know they are wrong for that belief. Again, Diana leads against the idea. So in this version, she may be an outsider to our world, she's also clearly an outsider in her own. I doubt we'll see her preaching about the virtues of her own world because she's got as much to fix there and here. Before she may have been no differ than those around her but now she certainly is. She stands alone. But thankfully, not lonely this go around.

A lot of people really dislike this because it's one-sided, and completely threw away all nuance and positivity from the Amazons. For decades they weren't just a symbol of female independence, they were Diana's family, support network, and the reason she was the good person that she was. At this point, is a near future story about Diana going to war against her own people to prevent their next series of mass killings out of the question?

I think the technology side of things only made the idea just a bit offensive. And since its something of a homogeneous society that might explain the peaceful side. Not to forget the religious aspect. So backward, all the same on some level, and all the same religion. That's like some people's idea of the perfect society. Which the Amazons are often considered.

The Amazons swore off violence and vengeance before they even got to the island. And what sold them to me was at the end of the Challenge of the Gods when they all stood up and cheered after Heracles showed that he had turned a new leaf. I even thought that it was a bit much, but it accomplished the goal of demonstrating the Amazons' capacity for love and forgiveness. The comics after that showed the Amazon nation grappling with the debate of whether to reconnect with Man's World in order to both teach and learn from outsiders. Some Amazons were against it, out of feelings of distrust and isolationism. I liked how the comics took a balanced approach, while still portraying the Amazons as good people who stood out from others.

[Fate's Faith]

If anything, I think the Post-Crisis version offered more balance. As you say, the Pre-Crisis Amazons very much had a "no boys allowed" rule on Paradise Island. That may have been a decree from the goddesses, but it was arbitrary and could at best be chalked up to man's inferiority. William Moulton Marston had lots of great ideas about female empowerment, and how the world would be a better place if it were ruled by love and compassion rather than violence. But his early comics very simplistically portrayed the Amazon females as better than men, claiming that violence was inherently a male trait.

The Post-Crisis comics acknowledged the suffering of women and showed the Amazons enduring atrocities committed against them. It also threw away the strictness of the "no boys allowed" rule (Pre-Crisis Amazons would literally lose their immortality if even one GOOD man physically set foot on their island). It made the point that perhaps the Amazons were somewhat wrong to set themselves apart from the rest of the world like that.

I never saw it as arbitrary on the part of the Amazons. It was the decree of Aphrodite. The pre-Crisis Amazons often spoke of men as not knowing or accepting the power of women. Love as a strength, yes, but women as able also. Those that didn't accept that power or tried to tame it were often the villians. The common men though weren't seen as lacking (maybe in example) since they did decide they had to get involved in what was happening in Man's World at the time. For me, this is a critical difference. Pre-Crisis, Diana goes to Man's World to fight with them. To show them the power of women but to work beside them. Post-Crisis, it did feel to me as if Man's World just didn't know better so Diana went out into Man's World to fight the battle in their place. Not with them necessarily and though she did find allies, I wouldn't say they joined her in her mission. So it seems she loses that joining with the world to fight an evil to replace it an evil only she could face... alone. I do think the claim that violence is male only odd simply because Wonder Woman confronts violence with violence. Its what she's sent to do. That's her main goal, stop the tyranny of the Nazis.

A lot of people really dislike this because it's one-sided, and completely threw away all nuance and positivity from the Amazons. For decades they weren't just a symbol of female independence, they were Diana's family, support network, and the reason she was the good person that she was. At this point, is a near future story about Diana going to war against her own people to prevent their next series of mass killings out of the question?

I would point out that Paradise Island was the first place Diana headed to for assistance. So they still were her family and support. The revelations and events afterwards have taken them from the moment but I still expect them to hold that in her life. Now, the good person aspect, I admit to liking that she's a good person because that's who she is and not like that due to something outside herself. Still, I don't see why her mother couldn't have helped nuture that in her. Certainly she's more complex a character now than ever but still probably does play that same role. The postive aspects of the Amazons will have to live beside their negatives. Like I've said before, I've thought there some negative aspects to them all along now its clear (from what we know at this point). Can you have both in the same people? Sure. Entirely possible for a people to have noble sides to their characters as well as terrible ones. How it plays out remains to be seen. I don't suspect a war between the Amazons and Diana though. That would require no redeeming qualities and I think Diana herself shows there has to be some there.