What do Women think of the current Wonder Woman book?

[TrekkieGal]

I must apologize, I shouldn't offer my opinion in this none the less. One I'm no where near the demographics as I am 48 (49 tomorrow), and a staunch continuity freak (Which is impossible when you're a Trekkie). If anything I have a love for Wonder Woman that dates back to the 70's. From Comic books, to the Super Friends. Instead of continuing following her in the Perez years I went back in time and read the stories from the Golden Age, so ye I'm a stubborn old goat when it comes to her, and comics in general because I was a kid. While my brothers where talking about Spiderman, the Green Lantern, and whoever was the flavor of the week, I had my Wonder Woman. So I am sorry if I came on a bit too harsh, that's just the way I am when it comes to something i love and feel passionate about.

As far as finding WW sexist? I can say visually nothing sticks out except Diana in her bedroom. I was more freaked out about the horse decapitation in the first issue tell you the truth. But hey, I wasn't expecting it.

[swatkat]

Isn't part of the difference of treatement between the genders also due to the fact that women don't find that kind of objectification arousing?
I mean, you could argue that pictures of almost naked men do exist. Conan by Buscema or Frazzetta, for instance, wears absolutely nothing but boots and an underpant made of beast skin. Same for Tarzan. And both of them are pretty handsome boys with big muscles and all. But when you look at the way they are drawn, they don't look sexualized the way women are. They look......powerful. Of course, you could take it as the proof that only women are sexualized. But I would tend to think that portraying men as objects of power is actually a way of objectifying them. It's especially obvious with Conan, who is a half naked mountain of muscles stiff as an erection and who generally have a huge phallic symbol (aka: a sword) in his hands (and between his legs, if you go with his most famous picture by Frazzetta). And if you look at Batman, or Superman, what do you have generally? Mountains of muscles stiff as an erection in tights. They're just lucky enough to be objectified in a way that make them portray something else than mere sexual attractiveness.
Of course, the fact that men are objectified as objects of power, while the objectification of women tend to focus on their boobs and asses says a lot about the role each gender tend to be attributed on our western society's subconcious. But men in comic books are objectified as well, if you think about it, and that's what makes the parodies when they are objectified the way a women would be (the Vartox picture) especially disturbing just like men used to be disturbed by overly muscular women (although not quite as much nowadays). It just goes against what we're used to.
Personally, I find the picture of WW that was used a a model for the second Hawkeye parody to be as ugly as said Hawkeye parody. I like sexy women as much as the next guy, but I prefer when they are classy about it.

I wouldn't call Conan or Tarzan's images 'objectifying', because I largely associate the word with representation as objects of lust. But your point stands -- men are represented as powerful; women are represented as sexyyyyy.

This, on the other hand, is an example of an objectified male (as I define it) in comics:



The day this becomes the standard pose for male superheroes in comics, we can talk about the rampant sexualization of men.

[swatkat]

I must apologize, I shouldn't offer my opinion in this none the less. One I'm no where near the demographics as I am 48 (49 tomorrow), and a staunch continuity freak (Which is impossible when you're a Trekkie). If anything I have a love for Wonder Woman that dates back to the 70's. From Comic books, to the Super Friends. Instead of continuing following her in the Perez years I went back in time and read the stories from the Golden Age, so ye I'm a stubborn old goat when it comes to her, and comics in general because I was a kid. While my brothers where talking about Spiderman, the Green Lantern, and whoever was the flavor of the week, I had my Wonder Woman. So I am sorry if I came on a bit too harsh, that's just the way I am when it comes to something i love and feel passionate about.

I'm glad you spoke up! My own discomfort with the origin change comes from the fact that the clay story was so lovely and unique - based in mythology, championing a mother's desire for a child. Hippolyta wanted Diana so much that she fashioned her out of clay - there's something magical about that. There's nothing magical or unique about this origin (even if I'm enjoying the story Azz is telling).

[Mecegirl]

Isn't part of the difference of treatement between the genders also due to the fact that women don't find that kind of objectification arousing?

Who said that is a fact? Gender wise (because gender is a social construct) men are allowed to enjoy such treatment of women, not the other way around. Go look up some fan art and you will find that a lot of women have no problem with overt sexulization. However everything has it's place. Even a woman who enjoys overt sexulization is not likely to enjoy it in a story if it is out of context and constantly shoved into her face. Most likely because we are too used to seeing female characters treated as sexual objects first, and everything else second, that we do not wish to treat others that way.

I mean, you could argue that pictures of almost naked men do exist. Conan by Buscema or Frazzetta, for instance, wears absolutely nothing but boots and an underpant made of beast skin. Same for Tarzan. And both of them are pretty handsome boys with big muscles and all. But when you look at the way they are drawn, they don't look sexualized the way women are. They look......powerful. Of course, you could take it as the proof that only women are sexualized. But I would tend to think that portraying men as objects of power is actually a way of objectifying them. It's especially obvious with Conan, who is a half naked mountain of muscles stiff as an erection and who generally have a huge phallic symbol (aka: a sword) in his hands (and between his legs, if you go with his most famous picture by Frazzetta). And if you look at Batman, or Superman, what do you have generally? Mountains of muscles stiff as an erection in tights. They're just lucky enough to be objectified in a way that make them portray something else than mere sexual attractiveness.
Of course, the fact that men are objectified as objects of power, while the objectification of women tend to focus on their boobs and asses says a lot about the role each gender tend to be attributed on our western society's subconcious. But men in comic books are objectified as well, if you think about it, and that's what makes the parodies when they are objectified the way a women would be (the Vartox picture) especially disturbing just like men used to be disturbed by overly muscular women (although not quite as much nowadays). It just goes against what we're used to.

This is a genre that is action oriented. This is a genre were the characters are expected to perform amazing feats of strength and dexterity. How is piling Superman up with muscles, just so that he looks like he can actually pick up a truck (when part of the allure of his character type is that he can pick up a truck), just as bad as drawing Wonder Woman (who can also pick up a truck) as a sexually exploitable waif? There is also the fact that men are objectifying themselves and apparently enough men are okay with it to keep the fan base majority male.

The point you are missing about those pictures is the revulsion people feel when seeing those pics of Hawkeye, is the same way that a lot of female readers can be made to feel on the weekly trip to their LCS. Like throw the comic down level of revulsion. Like, maybe that is part of the reason why it is less likely for female readers to pick up mainstream comics, level of revulsion. Like, we wouldn't keep having this discussion if it were natural for women to be drawn that way because women wouldn't find it problematic, level of revulsion. The point is "We don't like it when you draw us that way, it makes us uncomfortable when you draw us that way, but when we tell you that you don't listen. Maybe if we show you how uncomfortable it is you will get the point. Maybe then you will know how it feels and adjust your behavior." It is not just disturbing when it is done to Hawkeye, it is disturbing in general.

I'm glad you spoke up! My own discomfort with the origin change comes from the fact that the clay story was so lovely and unique - based in mythology, championing a mother's desire for a child. Hippolyta wanted Diana so much that she fashioned her out of clay - there's something magical about that. There's nothing magical or unique about this origin (even if I'm enjoying the story Azz is telling).

Considering the fact that there are stories of people being molded from clay in Greek myth I don't understand why some say that her being Zeus (or any of the gods) daughter somehow better ties her to Greek myth. It is simply a more well known origin for stories based off of Greek myths. So well known that it boarders on the stereotypical.

[Auguste Dupin]

I wouldn't call Conan or Tarzan's images 'objectifying', because I largely associate the word with representation as objects of lust. But your point stands -- men are represented as powerful; women are represented as sexyyyyy.

This, on the other hand, is an example of an objectified male (as I define it) in comics:



The day this becomes the standard pose for male superheroes in comics, we can talk about the rampant sexualization of men.

Notice how "erected" he is on the picture.
Actually my point was trying to be more "nuanced" than that. I think it's not so much that objectification of men is more rare than different in its application and purpose.
Men are often presented as......overly manly if you will: big muscles, always kind of erected/ straight up, generally in postures that show them as powerful, very "me alpha male, me strong, me good mate, me take girls". While women are more.....exagerated in a more stereotypically "feminine" way, with focus of very feminine parts of the body, like the breasts. Both are very stereotypical in different ways.
But both are kind of supposed to be sexy (although the "Conan" like sexyness tend to be more ridiculed nowadays, and to be more associated with a certain form of homosexuality).
When I talk about men looking powerful, it's also supposed to make them attractive. Very often in the early days of our society, men were supposed to be strong so they can be able to protect the "weak woman" and the rest of the family. That's the whole basis of the relationship between the damsel in distress and the knight in old fairy tales for instance: the damsel doesn't fall in love with the knight because of his personality or even because he has nice butt, but because he's strong enough to defeat the dragon. Which puts her as a prize, and him as a mindless killer.
So you could argue that both genders are actually objectified to represent a certain role "society" want them to fulfill, while limitating them to this role. And because this model of society is in crisis, it tends to disturb people more and more.

[swatkat]

Notice how "erected" he is on the picture.
Actually my point was trying to be more "nuanced" than that. I think it's not so much that objectification of men is more rare than different in its application and purpose.
Men are often presented as......overly manly if you will: big muscles, always kind of erected/ straight up, generally in postures that show them as powerful, very "me alpha male, me strong, me good mate, me take girls". While women are more.....exagerated in a more stereotypically "feminine" way, with focus of very feminine parts of the body, like the breasts. Both are very stereotypical in different ways.
But both are kind of supposed to be sexy (although the "Conan" like sexyness tend to be more ridiculed nowadays, and to be more associated with a certain form of homosexuality).
When I talk about men looking powerful, it's also supposed to make them attractive. Very often in the early days of our society, men were supposed to be strong so they can be able to protect the "weak woman" and the rest of the family. That's the whole basis of the relationship between the damsel in distress and the knight in old fairy tales for instance: the damsel doesn't fall in love with the knight because of his personality or even because he has nice butt, but because he's strong enough to defeat the dragon. Which puts her as a prize, and him as a mindless killer.
So you could argue that both genders are actually objectified to represent a certain role "society" want them to fulfill, while limitating them to this role. And because this model of society is in crisis, it tends to disturb people more and more.

Okay, yes, I get your point here. I would like to point out, however, that this sort of representation isn't really made with the female audience/readership in mind the way Nicola Scott's drawing of Nightwing is -- that's precisely why, as you say, women (largely) do not find it attractive. It's not drawn for us -- it's an exaggerated expression of what the male artist thinks is powerful and sexy about a man.

[Superdog]

What is this Hawkeye cover you guys are talking about it?

[swatkat]

What is this Hawkeye cover you guys are talking about it?

The Hawkeye Initiative is a fan thing, in which fan artists draw Hawkeye in the various ridiculous poses that female characters are normally drawn in:



You can see the rest of it yourself here: http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/ I find it hilarious.

[Superdog]

That is highly amusing. It would be funnier if it was Wolverine or Punisher i.e. hyper masculine characters.

[brettc1]

A question about issue #15 actually. What were the thoughts from the women this issue on the interaction between Hera and Zola. Spoilers below. Click and drag to see.

[SPOILER]I thought it was pretty weird that Zola is now so non-homicidal around Hera. She says "You tried to kill me" but shouldn't that have been "You tried to kill me AND my baby" ? I didnt think a mother would be so forgiving of the latter. [/SPOILER]

[Superdog]

You guys have actually convinced me about the origin a bit. I don't think the new hurts her per se, it has its positive aspects and is perhaps more conducive to spinning additional stories out of, but the old one was more compelling as a mythos for the character in and of itself. If that makes sense.

[americanwonder]

Thanks for the reply, LostinFandom (do you hope to become 'unlost' someday?).

A small apology first. I meant to say "Gender essentialism" not "gender existentialism". I wasn't really paying attention to what the auto correct was correcting.

Ah, the joys and misadventures of auto-correct (which often isn't very correct - I blame Bat-mite). For "gender existentialsim," I was picturing Hippolyta leading the Amazon chant, "I have boobs, therefore I am." Of course this would include some back-breaking pose where both chest and backside were highlighted. (please don't hit me)

On the one hand I respect and admire Marston's goal to make traits like "nurturing", "comforting", "peaceful", "loving" often derided as "feminine" more appealing, and using a female character to do so goes a long way in rectifying the real gender disparity in Superhero comments. All of those qualities are good and it is a shame that they tend to be under-appreciated in our society. That said, I don't agree that women are natural "nurturers", "Peace makers" etc. Insisting that this is true leads to the type of problem with no name Betty Friedan wrote about. It's the type of set up that makes being a "good mother" an impossible thing, and calls women (like me) who don't see themselves as maternal as betrayers of our sex. (Also it does nothing to diminish the male gaze regularity that leads to women in media being sexualized in a way that men aren't.)

I see. I agree that simplistic stereotypes, such as gender roles and differences, can be problematic, even when well-intended. And while I wouldn't go so far as to say that all women are natural nurturers and peace makers, etc., I don't think Marsten's view was without merit either. In general, women have been the primary nurturers and have been far less violent. Obviously, the trends don't apply to each and every individual, but the trends do still exist across the globe.

I don't mind the dated misogynist myth as much because it is more connected to the historical myth of Amazons. Also it goes with that horror story trope that "we are being punished as we deserve, which is potent. I like that the Amazons no longer exist to demonstrate some ideal society that we should look at and learn from. I'm uncomfortable with a society of women existing primarily for display.

Hmm, not sure what to make of this. I guess I can see where you (and others) would like these Amazons to tie-in to the more historical (using the term rather losely here) version. To me that's rather dull as I've seen it before in countless places, and few, if any, really do much that's interesting with it - it's a tired old trope and not unique to WW in any way.

I prefer Marston's more unique approach, turning it around, challenging assumptions. As I said before, I think it still needed work - the Amazons still needed more interesting things to do, rather than simply sitting around. I'm fine with the Amazons not being perfect, but I don't like that Marston's basic premise - that we, in our messed up little world, could learn a few good things from these women - has been distorted and inverted to - these horrible women need to learn a few good things from us. I'm uncomfortable with a society of women existing for little more than a shallow boogyman horror story. But that's just me.

Glad that you seem to be enjoying the new set-up, and thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[americanwonder]

I must apologize, I shouldn't offer my opinion in this none the less. One I'm no where near the demographics as I am 48 (49 tomorrow), ...

HAPPY B-DAY! Let there be cake!



And I, for one, think that there's no need to apologize for sharing your opinion. I don't care if you're in the "demographic," your thoughts are still welcome and valid.

I'm glad you spoke up! My own discomfort with the origin change comes from the fact that the clay story was so lovely and unique - based in mythology, championing a mother's desire for a child. Hippolyta wanted Diana so much that she fashioned her out of clay - there's something magical about that. There's nothing magical or unique about this origin (even if I'm enjoying the story Azz is telling).

This is why I miss the clay origin as well. :(

[americanwonder]

Okay, yes, I get your point here. I would like to point out, however, that this sort of representation isn't really made with the female audience/readership in mind the way Nicola Scott's drawing of Nightwing is -- that's precisely why, as you say, women (largely) do not find it attractive. It's not drawn for us -- it's an exaggerated expression of what the male artist thinks is powerful and sexy about a man.

I'm not sure if I should laugh, cry, or scream at Auguste's "powerful men are so objectified" argument. Conan was made for MEN. It's a MALE fantasy, created by MEN and designed for a MALE audience. Same goes for Batman flexing his muscles on the nearest gargoyle (cause men love their men in tights). ;)

[Rob_Olivera]

I'm not sure if I should laugh, cry, or scream at Auguste's "powerful men are so objectified" argument. Conan was made for MEN. It's a MALE fantasy, created by MEN and designed for a MALE audience. Same goes for Batman flexing his muscles on the nearest gargoyle (cause men love their men in tights). ;)

I had this strange need to read your post repeatedly!