Should Amazons be shown as remorseful

[Rob_Olivera]

When you put it that way--especially with that caveat, which I appreciate :) --I pretty much agree.

I also agree with SacredKinght that they have little-to-no reason to repent doing the things that got them turned into snakes (or stone). Hopefully, the shame will come in when Diana confronts them about she has since learned. I'm assuming Diana's peers, the younger Amazons, also don't know about the raids (or at least about the boys), and they'll probably be shocked and horrified to find out all of a sudden, without all the rites of passage that the Amazons no doubt would have put them through. So the older generations will have some explaining, and I hope rethinking, to do.

Also, I think it could be that a lot of the "man-hating" in their culture is the result of rationalizing what they have to (for reasons to that I don't think are entirely clear yet) do three times of century. If they're freed of having to do those deeds, then the rationalizations might start to melt away.

If this sex-pirate business has been in place (as suggested) in their society for so long, they see no wrong in it. It is their way of life. Maybe that's just who they are.. a secluded, merciless society. I'm sure we seem no less merciful by some societies that may not agree with killing cows, for example.

For Diana to come in and preach about how "wrong" it is they might have a reaction somewhat like this:



"HUNH??"

I believe that to think they would repent for those particular actions it would be a little out of character at a very basic level. The most realistic way of handling this is to let them own their actions and stand by them. I think it is also a little unrealistic (although OK to speculate about) that the younger ones don't know of these rituals. To hide it would be an admission of guilt, and I don't think they have (or should have) any for the reasons stated above.

But.. that's just me of course.

This is NOT to say that they don't have options. Such as infiltrating the outer world for a few nights and returning to Paradise Island without killing their mates. But these are not options we were presented with... so far.

[jabu46]

Yeah the part of that whole tale where they kill them after mating seemed unnecessary.

It actually was very necessary. A lot of people have been looking at that whole thing wrong.

It was brutal, but all societies have brutality in their history. And the Amazons needed a realistic way to keep their society going without bringing men into it.

And if you want to remain a hidden, secretive, society and island, the LAST thing you need is a ship full of sailors going back to their respective ports to talk and brag about "women who came out of the water" and made it with everybody. Because then they won't be that secret anymore. And eventually it will get around so much that people will go looking for them, and maybe eventually find them.

So killing them, while brutal, and amoral, is the most expedient way of dealing with them so this won't happen. They didn't kill them because they hate them, it was just the most expedient way of dealing with an inconvenient matter. It's harsh, but those times were harsh.

And who knows what the Amazons will say about it when they come back? Maybe they don't do it anymore. Maybe they have regrets about it. Maybe Hippolyta ordered to abandon it. We'll have to see. But personally, I'm more interested in the Amazons now than I've ever been.

[slvn]

If this sex-pirate business has been in place (as suggested) in their society for so long, they see no wrong in it. It is their way of life. Maybe that's just who they are.. a secluded, merciless society. I'm sure we seem no less merciful by some societies that may not agree with killing cows, for example.

And I know a lot of people who eat meat but have mixed feelings about the rightness of that choice, especially when we think about how the animals are raised and housed. (And I actually am one of those people, on the rare occasions that I let myself think about it.)

It's not uncommon for cultures to hold onto practices that at least some people feel uneasy about. Just look at how some white Southerners wrote about slavery. They came up with all kinds of rationalizations--and those rationalizations hardened and deepened the racism in our country, just as the Amazons' rationalizations might have hardened and deepened the misandry among them--but the contradiction between slavery and an American belief in equality or a Christian belief in loving our neighbors was glaringly obvious. There was a minority of Southerners who were openly ashamed of what they called their "peculiar institution" of slavery.

If you read a story about someone whose family had owned slaves for generations but who nevertheless felt enough remorse to free all his slaves, you might consider that "unrealistic," too; but it actually happened: http://www.amazon.com/The-First-Eman.../dp/0375508651
Of course, Southern abolitionists didn't manage to persuade the majority of their compatriots to own and act upon whatever remorse they might have felt; but a princess who has just brought her people back from living death (if it happens that way) may have better luck, depending on the circumstances.

If the Amazons were keeping their princess (and probably all of their young people) in the dark about their reproductive practices, and if one woman in the story Heph tells felt grief at having her son taken from her, then chances are that they felt something like shame about those practices. The fact that the Amazons who took the sons wore hoods (though it could possibly be explained in other ways) fits in nicely with the idea that they wanted to distance themselves from their thrice-centennial actions (like hooded executioners).

[Rob_Olivera]

And I know a lot of people who eat meat but have mixed feelings about the rightness of that choice, especially when we think about how the animals are raised and housed. (And I actually am one of those people, on the rare occasions that I let myself think about it.)

It's not uncommon for cultures to hold onto practices that at least some people feel uneasy about. Just look at how some white Southerners wrote about slavery. They came up with all kinds of rationalizations--and those rationalizations hardened and deepened the racism in our country, just as the Amazons' rationalizations might have hardened and deepened the misandry among them--but the contradiction between slavery and an American belief in equality or a Christian belief in loving our neighbors was glaringly obvious. There was a minority of Southerners who were openly ashamed of what they called their "peculiar institution" of slavery.

If you read a story about someone whose family had owned slaves for generations but who nevertheless felt enough remorse to free all his slaves, you might consider that "unrealistic," too; but it actually happened: http://www.amazon.com/The-First-Eman.../dp/0375508651
Of course, Southern abolitionists didn't manage to persuade the majority of their compatriots to own and act upon whatever remorse they might have felt; but a princess who has just brought her people back from living death (if it happens that way) may have better luck, depending on the circumstances.

If the Amazons were keeping their princess (and probably all of their young people) in the dark about their reproductive practices, and if one woman in the story Heph tells felt grief at having her son taken from her, then chances are that they felt something like shame about those practices. The fact that the Amazons who took the sons wore hoods (though it could possibly be explained in other ways) fits in nicely with the idea that they wanted to distance themselves from their thrice-centennial actions (like hooded executioners).

While you bring up some valid points, I'm not quite sure that the emancipation of slaves is quite a lateral analogy. While it does point at a change in mentality over the years I would isntead compare the Amazons (in a way) to some of the cannibalistic tribes still found today in New Guinea and I'm sure other regions that are quite Google-able.

The world changes, and it evolves as it should, but it is a collaborative effort. People learn from each other and advance. Progress leaves behind platforms that can be built on. These amazons have been in seclusion for thousands of years. While what they are doing is wrong to other people who have not lived in that environment (us, for example) it is a way of life from them. I'm sure that if presented with options they might do something different, but their hatred of "men" might make that difficult (albeit not impossible).

As far as their hooded attitude in the comic (see below)... Again, good point and speculation. However, I think that may just be due to artistic-rendition for visual impact. If you think about it, they really have no reference point to think that what they're doing is "wrong". I'm sure they wouldn't kill EACH OTHER, but they see absolutely nothing wrong with offing males on those ships.

[brettc1]

It actually was very necessary. A lot of people have been looking at that whole thing wrong.

It was brutal, but all societies have brutality in their history. And the Amazons needed a realistic way to keep their society going without bringing men into it.

And if you want to remain a hidden, secretive, society and island, the LAST thing you need is a ship full of sailors going back to their respective ports to talk and brag about "women who came out of the water" and made it with everybody. Because then they won't be that secret anymore. And eventually it will get around so much that people will go looking for them, and maybe eventually find them.

So killing them, while brutal, and amoral, is the most expedient way of dealing with them so this won't happen. They didn't kill them because they hate them, it was just the most expedient way of dealing with an inconvenient matter. It's harsh, but those times were harsh.

And who knows what the Amazons will say about it when they come back? Maybe they don't do it anymore. Maybe they have regrets about it. Maybe Hippolyta ordered to abandon it. We'll have to see. But personally, I'm more interested in the Amazons now than I've ever been.

This seems extremely wishful thinking. We have seen on every occasion where your rank and file Amazons mentiosn men that they have nothing but contempt for them - even Herms councils Zola to avoid mentioning the idea that she actually enjoys sex with them. Steve reports in Justice League that they want simple to be left alone, but considering Diana did not even know at that stage what was going on it seems unlikely he knew of the sex raids either.

Killing the sailors is no amoral - its just wrong. The Amazons in the story as told decide that for them to live other people that are not in a position to do them harm must die - the only risk here is because the Amazons CHOOSE to show themselves. They are no different to vampires, and I've never been one to shed a tear when one of those undead parasites got dusted.

Also - there must logically be a reason for that information entering the story. Chekov's gun. My frustration is coming from it taking such a long time for us to find out its significance to the tale. Of course it could have just been put in for shock value, which for me would be very disappointing.

[brettc1]

There's a couple of reasons the Amazons might want to wear hoods. Heph here mentions failures, so perhaps their shame comes from the fact that they had boys. Except for Diana no Amazons are identified as 'mother' so I get the feeling that all the children are put in a communal group and the village raises them. Perhaps the priestess and her attendants are the only ones who know who has had who and keep that information secret. The otehr Amazons never mention it because they know some of them must have had boys and dont want to label their sisters with that 'stigma'.

Also, and this never occured to me til now, those workers in the pic with Heph are likely be male Amazon offspring. The Amazons appear naked to the men on the boats, but then they die. It could be that they feel for any man to see them nude is a death sentence for the offending "male pig", and so they conceal their face and bodies here to avoid being sullied by male eyes. That would seem to fit their current disposition [and might also explain why Diana had to help Steve 'escape' the island]

[cgh]

It actually was very necessary. A lot of people have been looking at that whole thing wrong.

It was brutal, but all societies have brutality in their history. And the Amazons needed a realistic way to keep their society going without bringing men into it.

And if you want to remain a hidden, secretive, society and island, the LAST thing you need is a ship full of sailors going back to their respective ports to talk and brag about "women who came out of the water" and made it with everybody. Because then they won't be that secret anymore. And eventually it will get around so much that people will go looking for them, and maybe eventually find them.

So killing them, while brutal, and amoral, is the most expedient way of dealing with them so this won't happen. They didn't kill them because they hate them, it was just the most expedient way of dealing with an inconvenient matter. It's harsh, but those times were harsh.

And who knows what the Amazons will say about it when they come back? Maybe they don't do it anymore. Maybe they have regrets about it. Maybe Hippolyta ordered to abandon it. We'll have to see. But personally, I'm more interested in the Amazons now than I've ever been.

Great post, and I fully agree. Historically, the Amazons inspired dread and respect from the Greek patriarchy. Hard women making hard choices are a rare thing in comics.

[brettc1]

Great post, and I fully agree. Historically, the Amazons inspired dread and respect from the Greek patriarchy. Hard women making hard choices are a rare thing in comics.

There's no hard choice here. These guys are a threat - lets kill them, we hate them anyway.

Hard choices are when you risk your own safety to help others or do what's right. Screwing over other people is the easiest thing human beings do, and why in the comics Ares is so powerful.

[slvn]

While you bring up some valid points, I'm not quite sure that the emancipation of slaves is quite a lateral analogy. While it does point at a change in mentality over the years I would isntead compare the Amazons (in a way) to some of the cannibalistic tribes still found today in New Guinea and I'm sure other regions that are quite Google-able.

It would be an interesting comparison, but I don't really have any way of knowing whether the practice of cannibalism has ever been controversial within those tribes. Some of them may have felt remorse, for all I know.

The world changes, and it evolves as it should, but it is a collaborative effort. People learn from each other and advance. Progress leaves behind platforms that can be built on. These amazons have been in seclusion for thousands of years.

Intercultural contact is one of the very important ways in which cultures change, but I don't think it's the only way. It would certainly be possible for an Amazon to reason that if it's bad to kill a fellow Amazon, and if it was bad for men in the time of Greek antiquity to murder each other and women, and if the "monsters and murderers" that they imprison deserve to be imprisoned, then maybe killing the fathers of their children is not ideal. If it was possible for young Diana to realize that killing a helpless opponent would not be the right thing to do, that it's possible that other Amazons have had glimmers of a similar concept. We've already seen one Amazon who apparently felt that taking her son away was a very bad thing to do--and I've seen no reason to suppose that she was the only one.

And they have had intercultural contact. First of all, they know Greek mythology (and presumably some of the history and thinking of the ancient world. Some of that mythology and history may support what they've been doing (by suggesting that men deserve this kind of treatment, or that there are precedent for abandoning unwanted children, for example) but other parts may not. Secondly, we've heard in Demon Knights that they sent an emissary to look for Exoristos; it's possible that they have sent other emissaries over the millennia. We don't know what points if view that such emissaries have brought back. Thirdly, the Amazons now probably have accounts from Diana abut what it's really like in the rest of the world. Fourthly, who knows what will happen in this storyline? For example, what if they fin out that they have been used by some deity who has somehow benefitted from the raids, or what if their abandoned sons help bring them back to life?

Of course it's possible that none of them are culturally capable of feeling remorse for these actions. As I said, the hoods could signify something else, or perhaps nothing much at all. But it's also quite possible that they ARE culturally capable of feeling remorse for these actions, and that, to me, would be more interesting.

[jabu46]

This seems extremely wishful thinking. We have seen on every occasion where your rank and file Amazons mentiosn men that they have nothing but contempt for them - even Herms councils Zola to avoid mentioning the idea that she actually enjoys sex with them. Steve reports in Justice League that they want simple to be left alone, but considering Diana did not even know at that stage what was going on it seems unlikely he knew of the sex raids either.

Killing the sailors is no amoral - its just wrong. The Amazons in the story as told decide that for them to live other people that are not in a position to do them harm must die - the only risk here is because the Amazons CHOOSE to show themselves. They are no different to vampires, and I've never been one to shed a tear when one of those undead parasites got dusted.

Also - there must logically be a reason for that information entering the story. Chekov's gun. My frustration is coming from it taking such a long time for us to find out its significance to the tale. Of course it could have just been put in for shock value, which for me would be very disappointing.

To be frank, I've been watching this WW forum for a while, and seen your posts, and I think your view is honestly blinded by your own high morality and sense of righteousness and justice. That's not a bad thing per se, but it doesn't really allow to approach a subject unbiased, and thus logically. They did something highly despicable to you, so due to your high sense of morality, you need to see them as evil, what they did has no excuse, without any consideration of the time they lived in, or the circumstances. As if many societies, even ours, have not done similar things, for FAR less reason.

It's honestly a convenience for those who live in a safe, civilized society to be able to think and judge that way. Some places in the world can't afford to hold a high sense of morality like that, even today. Some hard choices have to be made depending on circumstances, and they're not always pleasant. You should go to poorer parts of Africa.


Maybe these Amazons do hate men, which would not be a far cry from how they were before, or how they were in actual mythology. But I doubt they just went out to have sex with men and kill them for kicks. That would make no sense. And I do think Azzarello's smarter than that. And if they didn't kill them, tell me, how else would they avoid these men going back to port and telling everyone of their existence? A mind erasing purple ray? How else, tell me, we're they supposed to keep their society going while not living among, or having contact with, men?

It makes sense when you think about it, and approach it objectively and without a high sense of morality that, due to the society I assume you've lived in, you can afford to have. And maybe Azzarello is taking too long to explain it fully in the story, but he's not and shouldn't rush it just to appease some people's sense of what is right and wrong. He should deal with it when it fits the story.

[Outside_85]

This seems extremely wishful thinking. We have seen on every occasion where your rank and file Amazons mentiosn men that they have nothing but contempt for them - even Herms councils Zola to avoid mentioning the idea that she actually enjoys sex with them. Steve reports in Justice League that they want simple to be left alone, but considering Diana did not even know at that stage what was going on it seems unlikely he knew of the sex raids either.

It is likely the Amazons consider what they do an necessary evil.
Besides, do you know of any people that were so righteous that they'd embrace extinction?

Killing the sailors is no amoral - its just wrong. The Amazons in the story as told decide that for them to live other people that are not in a position to do them harm must die - the only risk here is because the Amazons CHOOSE to show themselves. They are no different to vampires, and I've never been one to shed a tear when one of those undead parasites got dusted.

The world isn't as black and white as you think it is.
Have you read Planet Hulk by any chance? There's a race of aliens that the local ruler covertly uses as a form of terror weapon (like deploying a zombie virus in any given area and then arrive with the cure for it), everyone one the planet is saying how horrible these aliens are before the Hulk is introduced to the Elders of the species. Through him everyone learns that these aliens were kept on the borders of starvation and, as far as I can recall, normally lived off something other than people.

Also - there must logically be a reason for that information entering the story. Chekov's gun. My frustration is coming from it taking such a long time for us to find out its significance to the tale. Of course it could have just been put in for shock value, which for me would be very disappointing.

In a new/relaunced series you can always expect some degree of 'fluff', stuff that will not be explained by the current writer, simply so future writers might one day remember it and craft a story around it. (Ala Bana-Mighdall that Perez introduced but wasn't really dealt with until Loebs decided to do something with it.)

While you bring up some valid points, I'm not quite sure that the emancipation of slaves is quite a lateral analogy. While it does point at a change in mentality over the years I would isntead compare the Amazons (in a way) to some of the cannibalistic tribes still found today in New Guinea and I'm sure other regions that are quite Google-able.

Actually cannibal tribes were mostly a rumour spread by Christian missionaries meant to validate their own jobs (because being Christian fills your stomach obviously) and gain the financial support of their superiors. While cannibalism did exist, as you mention, in New Guniea and the surrounding area elsewhere it was only under extreme circumstances they'd resort to something like that.

[UsagiTsukino]

I personally think the amazons could have been like the Bana-Mighdall in that they would caught the men and use them to be slaves. Also, I hope I least the amazons in some aspect return in how their views on men will change like in golden age and post crisis. I not saying they should do a 180 but at least try to be more loving. In some sense the amazons in emotions in a general sense in everyday life is more warrior but I would like to see a more human side instead of a the hateful side we have seem.

[Rob_Olivera]

It would be an interesting comparison, but I don't really have any way of knowing whether the practice of cannibalism has ever been controversial within those tribes. Some of them may have felt remorse, for all I know.



Intercultural contact is one of the very important ways in which cultures change, but I don't think it's the only way. It would certainly be possible for an Amazon to reason that if it's bad to kill a fellow Amazon, and if it was bad for men in the time of Greek antiquity to murder each other and women, and if the "monsters and murderers" that they imprison deserve to be imprisoned, then maybe killing the fathers of their children is not ideal. If it was possible for young Diana to realize that killing a helpless opponent would not be the right thing to do, that it's possible that other Amazons have had glimmers of a similar concept. We've already seen one Amazon who apparently felt that taking her son away was a very bad thing to do--and I've seen no reason to suppose that she was the only one.

And they have had intercultural contact. First of all, they know Greek mythology (and presumably some of the history and thinking of the ancient world. Some of that mythology and history may support what they've been doing (by suggesting that men deserve this kind of treatment, or that there are precedent for abandoning unwanted children, for example) but other parts may not. Secondly, we've heard in Demon Knights that they sent an emissary to look for Exoristos; it's possible that they have sent other emissaries over the millennia. We don't know what points if view that such emissaries have brought back. Thirdly, the Amazons now probably have accounts from Diana abut what it's really like in the rest of the world. Fourthly, who knows what will happen in this storyline? For example, what if they fin out that they have been used by some deity who has somehow benefitted from the raids, or what if their abandoned sons help bring them back to life?

Of course it's possible that none of them are culturally capable of feeling remorse for these actions. As I said, the hoods could signify something else, or perhaps nothing much at all. But it's also quite possible that they ARE culturally capable of feeling remorse for these actions, and that, to me, would be more interesting.

I'm all for the 'modernization' of these Amazons. I'm all for seeing 'progress' in their ways of thinking. Honestly, I just don't see remorse. This isn't to say it isn't there... but I just don't see it. The only thing resembling any kind of remorse I've seen from these Amazons is this graphic below my text.

On the left, I see what I think is the Oracle in glee over the fact that it wasn't 'one of those disgusting males' born. On the right I see the mother of one of the male children whom obviously has some of the [apparently] redeeming qualities you speak of, as she suffers when her child is taken away to be given to the gods.



... so you MIGHT be right down the line if we see any redeeming qualities later. It's just that (as many have said) Azzarello isn't a man of many words when it comes to the Wonder Woman comic and it seems to me that when he does make a statement, one should listen. The statement he DID make here in issue 7 seems very definite.

In issue 13 we see Diana making the point that keeping Hera around may help to restore the Amazons later. Had it not been for that, I would've said that the task of restoring them and actually DEALING with this issue might come later even with a different writer.

[brettc1]

To be frank, I've been watching this WW forum for a while, and seen your posts, and I think your view is honestly blinded by your own high morality and sense of righteousness and justice. That's not a bad thing per se, but it doesn't really allow to approach a subject unbiased, and thus logically. They did something highly despicable to you, so due to your high sense of morality, you need to see them as evil, what they did has no excuse, without any consideration of the time they lived in, or the circumstances. As if many societies, even ours, have not done similar things, for FAR less reason.

Yes, and that was wrong.

Logically [and I am a big fan of logic - go Spock] I can understand the Amazons reason for what they did. It does not alter the immoratily of it.

It's honestly a convenience for those who live in a safe, civilized society to be able to think and judge that way. Some places in the world can't afford to hold a high sense of morality like that, even today. Some hard choices have to be made depending on circumstances, and they're not always pleasant. You should go to poorer parts of Africa.

The situations do not equate. The Amazons are not suffering oppression. Quite the contrary, they apparently live in an island paradise. They choose to go out and kill others.

Those poorer parts of Africa would not be in the state they are in except for real people acting like the fictional Amazons here. Hate and fear causing people to act in their own best interest and oppressing others for their own percieved survival. Its a vicious cycle but I have to believe that is not one mandated by universal law.

Maybe these Amazons do hate men, which would not be a far cry from how they were before, or how they were in actual mythology. But I doubt they just went out to have sex with men and kill them for kicks. That would make no sense. And I do think Azzarello's smarter than that. And if they didn't kill them, tell me, how else would they avoid these men going back to port and telling everyone of their existence? A mind erasing purple ray? How else, tell me, we're they supposed to keep their society going while not living among, or having contact with, men?

There's your answer right there. Maybe they don't. If they want to live in isolation fine, but if that means they die out then they die out. Their desire to survive does not give them any excuse to kill others when they are other options available. My mother would describe that as 'wanting to have your cake and eat it too.'

And from what I have seen, they didn't do this for kicks, no. Doesn't matter. They did it. Deathstroke and the Joker dont have the same motivations to murder people, but that doesnt mean they aren't both guilty.

It makes sense when you think about it, and approach it objectively and without a high sense of morality that, due to the society I assume you've lived in, you can afford to have. And maybe Azzarello is taking too long to explain it fully in the story, but he's not and shouldn't rush it just to appease some people's sense of what is right and wrong. He should deal with it when it fits the story.

The only question here is a simple one - what woud Wonder Woman do? Would Diana approve of them killing those men for babies? Will she allow the practice to continue? Part of my high senese of morality you talk about comes from reading Wonder Woman. Let that be the guide on whether this was necessary or right.

[Eliseu Gouveia]

Yeah, I wish that would go away, that's one of the two things I don't like about the New 52 WW. I don't like that the Amazons kill the men they mate with (I could stand if they just didn't care for them outside of procreation but left them alone otherwise).

Pretty much.

I don´t mind the amazons using men for procreation, killing them afterwards is what bugs the hell outta me.