This is not my Wonder Woman

So as you probably know by now, the image above is the new Wonder Woman, as she will appear in her first (official) theatrically-released motion picture role. It’s pretty much exactly what I expected her to look like. The design is focused predominantly on her Greek warrior origins. The image is meant to sell her first and foremost as badass and intimidating. Surprisingly, despite details like her bandolier leaning toward utilitarianism, Wonder Woman still apparently fights evil in high heels, which will probably rub some people the wrong way*. It’s hard to tell from this sepia-toned image, but it looks like there’s next to no color in the outfit; dark brown, bronze, and a dull silver seem to have replaced the traditional American flag color scheme, which is new. Presumably, the idea is to make her more in sync with the muted color scheme of the film, which will likely carry over from Man of Steel. Overall, it does nothing for me, but it’s not a horrible costume. Gal Gadot certainly looks the part, and it’s actually quite faithful to the spirit of who Wonder Woman has been for the last twenty years or so. The problem is, it’s not my Wonder Woman.

This is not my Wonder Woman

[*The high heels thing has never bothered me personally, and while I understand those who don’t like them, I wish we could steer the debate away from “high heels are impractical”, because that’s not really what this is about. Of course they’re impractical. So are capes, cowls, domino masks, and brightly colored spandex. The aesthetics of superhero fashion have never had anything to do with practicality. What’s bothering people isn’t that high heels are an impractical accessory, it’s that they’re a gender-specific accessory. People are upset because it’s bullshit that women in flat-soled footwear are considered less attractive, and hence rarely drawn. And yes, that is a problem. I get the complaint, and if it bothers people, they should absolutely speak up. But say what’s really on your mind, because “practicality” is completely beside the point.]

The article continues after these advertisements...

Wonder Woman, as a character and as an icon, means a great deal to me. She is by far my favorite comic book superhero, and has been for a long time, so much so I once made a makeshift costume of her to wear when I was five. Seriously, I did that. I was a weird kid.

So naturally, I have pretty strong feelings about Wonder Woman. Which is not easy for a character who’s had such a strange and tumultuous existence. One of the reasons I love her is that she has by far one of the most bizarre and fascinating histories and origins of any superhero. And while that’s a source of her charm, it’s also her greatest weakness. Despite being inarguably the most recognizable female superhero of all time, she remains strangely obscure for someone so iconic. Her image is universal, yet her character almost unknown. Her media presence is constant, yet strangely few adaptations of her comics exist compared to her male counterparts. She’s managed to stay in constant publication for 73 years now, yet unlike Superman, Batman, or Spider-Man, she’s almost never had more than one concurrently-running title at a time.

Why is this? Why has Wonder Woman traveled such a rockier path than other superheroes? Why does everyone know who Batman and Superman are, but know very little about Wonder Woman beyond her name and costume?

There are a lot of complicated reasons for this, but one way or another, most of them have to do with one simple fact: she’s a woman. No one likes to admit it, but even in this day and age, the comic book industry at its best has an… awkward relationship with women. Study the history of any female character who’s been in publication for a decade or more, and things get weird and often uncomfortable.

For example, Lois Lane, the most well known woman in superhero fiction outside of Wonder Woman, started out strong, willful, and career-minded, one of the first to break the mold of how damsels in distress were meant to act. She had agency and goals of her own outside of her relationship with Superman. And keep in mind, this was the 1940s. But then the ‘50s came around, and Lois’s character turned towards an outright psychotic obsession with marrying Superman. The pages of Superman’s Girlfriend Lois Lane are packed with bizarre, misogynist stories that frame Lois as a shrill harpy constantly scheming to entrap Superman into marriage and failing, like some matrimonial version of a Road Runner cartoon. Things have gotten better for Lois lately, though they do have a tendency to write her as a gun-toting commando ninja, because that’s obviously the only way a woman can be empowered. It seems like the writers are constantly overcompensating for Lois’s perceived status as a damsel in distress.

This is not my Wonder Woman

What’s the disconnect? Well, for the majority of its history, comics books have been written, drawn, edited, and published almost exclusively by men, and while that’s becoming less and less the case, male attitudes still tend to dominate the industry. And male creators tend to overthink their female characters at best, and at worst, imprint their own warped views of the opposite sex onto them. This is especially true in Wonder Woman’s case. In fact, Wonder Woman comics are so predictably influenced by changing attitudes towards women that you can actually see the last 70 years of the feminist movement reflected in her publication history.

You remember the feminist movement, right? That thing that apparently we don’t need anymore? Yes, this is going to be a bit of a rant, but unfortunately there’s no way to talk about Wonder Woman without talking about feminism. The two are essentially joined at the hip. The character was created by a feminist based on his own radical gender politics, and essentially co-opted by the feminist movement as their mascot. Basically, as Wonder Woman is perceived, so is feminism perceived, and vice-versa.

Any given era of Wonder Woman comics in some way reflects what the popular image of a “strong woman” was at the time. The ‘40s through the ‘60s saw Wonder Woman’s alter ego Diana Prince as the mousy, secretly-overqualified secretary pining away for a man who barely notices her. You can see shades of everything from Bewitched to Woman of the Year in early Wonder Woman. The Robert Kanigher era especially was all about Diana apologetically emasculating her boyfriend Steve Trevor.

The ‘70s briefly saw her morph into a fashionable, liberated “modern woman”, a powerless kung-fu detective with more than a little of Emma Peel in her. 1980s Wonder Woman had more of a Princess Leia vibe, as a regal, dignified ambassador with no steady romance in her life. Finally, the ‘90s began the rise of “Straw Feminist Wonder Woman”.

What do I mean by “Straw Feminist Wonder Woman”? Well, do you remember that episode of The Powerpuff Girls called “Equal Fights”?

This is not my Wonder Woman

It was about a costumed lady bank robber named Femme Fatale, who justifies her crimes to the Powerpuff Girls by citing gender discrimination against women, and the fact that all men are jerks. She essentially has a persecution complex: as a member of an oppressed minority group, anything she does if justified in her eyes. Femme Fatale was designed as an archetypical Straw Feminist: man-hating, irrational, and abrasive. While not in the least bit subtle, “Equal Fights” was an admirable attempt to educate its audience on the true purpose of feminism. Unfortunately, the episode ended up being strangely prophetic. Except, in the real world, Femme Fatale won.

And this is where I get ranty. Feminism has had a bit of a PR problem over the last twenty years, which has recently come to a head. There’s a new online movement calling itself “Woman Against Feminism”, involving women declaring they “no longer need feminism”. In some ways, the movement has admirable goals. Many of its members clearly have their hearts in the right place. They want equality and understanding between the sexes, and simply don’t understand that that is exactly what feminism is about. (A few of them, of course, are just plain slut-shaming or belittling the suffering of others, but I’m just going to ignore them. Let’s talk about the actual problem here.)

This is not my Wonder Woman

This one image for me sums up the entire problem here. For some people, the word “feminism” has come to mean something else. What a “feminist” actually is is someone who believes in equality between the sexes. That’s it. That’s all there is to it. If you believe women should be allowed to vote, you’re a feminist. If believe women should have control over their own bodies, equal pay, and the right to make their own financial choices, then you are a feminist. It doesn’t matter if you choose to self-identify as one*, those are the ideals the movement is defined by. That has not changed. Only the popular conception of the movement has changed.

[*And since this always manages to come up, yes, there’s something to be said for the idea that we shouldn’t need the word “feminism” anymore. Yes, I also saw and agree with Joss Whedon’s excellent Equality Now speech. Yes, it would be great if gender equality was at the same place that racial equality is now in the national conversation, where we no longer need a word for “not racist” because not being racist is just assumed to be common sense. But for feminism, we’re not there yet. And as the video below points out, removing the word “feminist” from the discussion isn’t helping, because it’s not actually changing the public discourse. It’s just avoiding the issue, and steering the topic away from gender.]

Laci Green articulates things in this video far better than I ever could, but basically, society has somehow become convinced that feminism is some kind of extreme female superiority agenda rather than a simple call for gender equality. Feminism is a dirty word, conjuring up images of shrill, unattractive harpies who hate all men and shame good-looking women purely out of jealousy. People feel the need to distance themselves publicly from the movement in order to be taken seriously when speaking about gender issues. Celebrities like Katy Perry and Shailene Woodley and Lana Del Rey have gone on record claiming to not be feminists. Even Wonder Woman herself fell prey to this recently, when the new creative team set to take over her book said in an interview that they didn’t want her to be feminist.

If I may steer the conversation away from Wonder Woman for a moment: Whenever the topic of “when did feminism go so wrong?” comes up, people always want to play the blame game. Usually people fault the movement itself for going off-message. The notion is feminists let too many extremists join the movement and give it a bad name. And I really don’t think that’s true, mostly because there are so few actual well-known feminist extremists to point to. Usually Andrea Dworkin’s name gets thrown out, and people are always quick to pounce on the Tumblr community. But in my experience, feminist extremists are a very small minority, and not a very vocal one compared to the many, many positive feminist voices out there. No, the reason feminism’s image was so easily distorted is that as much as we hate to admit it, this is still a man’s world. The patriarchy is slowly losing its grip, but it’s still in power.

Men don’t like to admit how much we still benefit from a patriarchal society, and when confronted with reality, we become defensive. We’ve somehow convinced ourselves that sexism is more or less “over”. It isn’t. Not even close. Women still receive less pay for equal work because of their gender. Less than fifty years ago, it was still legal for men to rape their wives. Women still face constant obstacles when trying to make decisions about their bodies. They still (rightly) fear coming forward after being raped because of the likelihood they will somehow be blamed for it. And yet, we often manage to overlook all this.

We’ve decided things are more or less equal now, and anyone still fighting against sexism is perceived to be overreacting, and fighting a war that ended long ago. No one likes to be blamed for the sins of their fathers, but unfortunately, we’re living in a world still dealing with the consequences of those sins, and blaming the victims isn’t helping. It’s making us culpable, and it needs to stop.

But I was talking about “Straw Feminist Wonder Woman”, wasn’t I? As I said before, this image of feminism as bitter and anti-men has been the popular conception since the early ‘90s, and not coincidentally, this is roughly around the time Wonder Woman suddenly got very, very angry. To be fair, everybody was scowling in comics in the ‘90s, but Batman and Superman were scowling because “DARKNESS! NO PARENTS!” Whereas Wonder Woman started scowling because “Ugh, men are dirt, amirite ladies? I’m gonna go back to my island of butch militant lesbians because I hate men so much!”

As previously stated, comics have an awkward relationship with women, due to them being mostly written by men. Men, many of whom aren’t really feminists, and in the case of Wonder Woman, find themselves tasked with writing a character who’s almost literally the living embodiment of feminism itself. Therefore, they always find themselves falling back on what they think a feminist is. She hates all men, or at least looks down on them, and overreacts to every sexual or romantic proposition, because how else are we to know that she’s a modern, independent woman that doesn’t need a man? She’s extremely aggressive, and prone to anger and violence, because how else are we to know that she’s a strong woman who can kick just as much ass as a man?

Trying to distance Wonder Woman from feminism isn’t new either. In the late ‘80s, a new element of the Wonder Woman mythos was added: The Amazons of Bana-Mighdall, a splinter faction of Amazons living in secret in the mortal world. How they’re used varies from writer to writer, but generally their purpose is to provide deliberate straw feminists to contrast against the less extreme, accidental straw feminist Wonder Woman. They’re the man-hating extremists who want to reap bloody vengeance against anyone with a penis. They’re basically there to say, “See? Wonder Woman’s not that kind of feminist! She’s totally cool with dudes! These are the man-hating dykes you so fear and despise!” It’s understandable why the writers feel the need to include them, but they have the effect of delegitimizing Wonder Woman’s position rather than clarifying it.

This is not my Wonder Woman

It may seem like I’ve gone completely off-topic here, but the point I’ve been building towards is that people don’t understand Wonder Woman because people don’t understand feminism. Her comics have always been subject to the changing image of feminism and her writer’s skewed perspective on feminism, so much so that she’s never managed to remain consistent long enough for people to get to know her. Our site’s own Sofie Liv posted an excellent video essay to that effect, putting forth the well-reasoned assertion that maybe Wonder Woman just doesn’t have a character.

And I can’t really argue with that. If nothing important or character-defining about Wonder Woman remains consistent from writer to writer, then what argument can be made about her character? It’s a question I honestly don’t have an answer to. On the one hand, I believe in Death of the Author. I believe that characters in fiction take on a life of their own, independent of the influence of their creators.

Batman has evolved far beyond the original vision of Bob Kane and Bill Finger. The current Superman certainly isn’t what Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster first imagined. On the other hand, I also don’t believe characters are completely defined by popular perception. If that were the case, Batman would be a bloodthirsty Punisher knockoff, based on what a lot of his fans seem to want. So what really defines a character like Wonder Woman, who’s been around forever, but has had so many completely incompatible interpretations?

I don’t have an answer for you. I don’t know if there is a direct answer for that. Maybe it’s all subjective. Maybe who a character is to you personally is all that really matters, and if other people share and enjoy your vision, then great. I can only tell you what Wonder Woman means to me, and unlike Superman or Batman, it comes almost entirely from the mind of her creator.

This is not my Wonder Woman

Outside of Spider-Man, I’m not sure there’s a superhero as popular as Wonder Woman who was as fully formed as she was in her first appearance. William Moulton Marston was one of the most interesting men ever to write for comics, and his vision of Wonder Woman, odd as it may have been, was a fleshed-out, living entity all its own. The seven years’ worth of Wonder Woman comics he wrote before his untimely death remain the highlight of the Golden Age for me.

Wonder Woman was the first notable attempt (to say nothing of success) at creating a female action hero who didn’t need to sacrifice her femininity in order to be powerful. Wonder Woman got to save the day and be the hero with no qualifiers or concessions to male sensitivities. Her stories were almost a complete gender reversal of the superhero formula: In Wonder Woman comics, all the heroes, villains, and otherwise powerful and influential characters were women, including most of Wonder Woman’s rogues’ gallery, while men were usually limited to roles with less agency that were normally occupied by women. Steve Trevor remains one of the only examples of a male damsel in distress.

Marston’s comics were bold and groundbreaking, not to mention nutty as hell and immensely fun. The mythology of Wonder Woman’s world was unique and eye-catching in ways that few comics even today can match. Golden Age Wonder Woman rode giant kangaroos through space, fought seal men and fire warriors from the sun, and rescued WWII soldiers from evil valkyries, all in the name of love and peace.

After Marston left, things got a lot more shaky with regards to Wonder Woman’s “Girl Power”, but the comic itself got no less strange. It was the Silver Age, after all. A strange mix of science fiction and fantasy still remained, and Wonder Woman herself continued to be a mostly peaceful champion of love.

After the reboot in the ‘80s, however, things began to get a lot more conventional, and in my opinion, the poorer for it. Previously, Paradise Island was a wondrous mix of science and magic. They had ancient marble architecture, but communicated with telepathic radios. The invisible jet was one of many unique aircraft. Wonder Woman didn’t just journey through a greatest hits collection of Greek mythology; She travelled to other planets, subterranean worlds, and subatomic universes. The Greek gods themselves would occupy other planets instead of vaguely defined, seemingly earthbound realms. But all of that changed after the reboot.

This is not my Wonder Woman

No longer playing fast and loose with Greek mythology, the comics suddenly began valuing historical accuracy. Paradise Island became Themyscira, devoid of anything remotely fun or interesting. Gone were the giant space kangaroos, replaced with more conventional mythical creatures like pegasi. Gone were the strange space-age gadgets, leaving the Amazons still technologically primitive after thousands of years of immortality. Wonder Woman’s adventures lost their pulp sci-fi edge, confining themselves to the familiar world of Greek myth. Wonder Woman became almost completely earthbound, and those unique elements that remained, like her invisible jet, began to be downplayed.

One of the more subtly subversive changes was that the character’s patron goddess was changed from Aphrodite to Athena. It may seem insignificant, but whatever else she may be (Goddess of Wisdom, Justice, etc.), Athena was still a War Goddess. And war, even justified war as Athena was meant to represent, is not something Wonder Woman should ever be a champion of.

See, whatever else may have changed over the years about Wonder Woman, there’s one thing about her that’s remained consistent enough for her best writers to latch onto: She’s a peacemaker. Always has been. The Marston comics and the Lynda Carter TV show—probably the best and most defining versions of Wonder Woman ever—were both very clear on this. One of the best quotes ever made about the DC Trinity was when Gail Simone said, “When you need to stop an asteroid, you get Superman. When you need to solve a mystery, you call Batman. But when you need to end a war, you get Wonder Woman.”

That’s who she is. She never fights in the name of war, even a just war. War is her enemy. Literally. Her archenemy is Ares, God of War. If there’s one thing Wonder Woman has always been about, it’s preventing conflict. That’s why her signature weapons—her lasso, bracelets, and tiara—are nonlethal and defensive in nature, designed to defend and subdue but never harm. That’s why her patron goddess was the goddess of love. As her theme song says, Wonder Woman’s goal is to “stop a war with love”.

This subtle change in Wonder Woman’s ideology was immediately felt. Wonder Woman wasn’t exactly barbaric at first, but she was definitely more violent, frequently ripping her (admittedly nonhuman and monstrous) enemies apart. But the thing that really cemented Wonder Woman as warlike in readers’ minds was Kingdom Come.

That mini-series featured the image of a sword-wielding Wonder Woman who, at the book’s climax, murdered her human opponent by stabbing him through the chest. That moment was meant to shock and horrify, by showing how far the once noble heroes of the DC Universe had fallen, with the kindest and most nonviolent of them cutting a man in half. The image of Wonder Woman running a man through was meant to feel as wrong as Batman shooting someone. But in a bitter irony, from that moment on, that image would be what defined the popular concept of Wonder Woman.

This is not my Wonder Woman

She’s now frequently seen carrying a sword and other ancient weaponry, her lasso hanging unused from her hip almost as a formality. Heavy, stylized armor is often added onto her costume. Her sisters, the Amazons, have become almost unrecognizable.

Paradise Island was once essentially a highly sexual nunnery, an island of women dedicated to the way of Aphrodite, and the way of love. The whole reason they were on that island to begin with was to escape from the war and violence of Man’s World. Now the modern Themyscira is like an all-girl boot camp, filled with armored, battle-ready Amazons, constantly training and fighting. They act as if they enjoy war and conflict, which completely defeats the whole point of living on a isolated island in the first place. The great Wonder Woman, once a trippy, unique pulp sci-fi heroine, has been reduced to the generic Xena clone that Gal Gadot will apparently be playing onscreen. Because one warrior princess is the same as another, right? No need to go deeper into her character than that!

Look, I like Xena. I like Lucy Lawless. I like badass warrior girls in general. But that’s not who Wonder Woman is. It has never been who Wonder Woman is. Wonder Woman is as much like Xena as Ellen Ripley is like Buck Rogers. Yes, they both fight aliens in space, but that’s about where the similarities end. And giving Wonder Woman a sword isn’t just counter to her whole message of love and nonviolence, it actually disempowers her as a character, which is the opposite of what they’re presumably going for.

Giving Wonder Woman weapons and armor implies that she needs weapons and armor, which she never has before. She’s always been able to take on rogue gods with nothing but a lasso, a tiara, and a pair of bracelets. Giving Wonder Woman a sword and armor just because she’s a warrior princess is like giving Superman a raygun and a jetpack because he’s an alien.

But mostly, a lot of the problems with Wonder Woman stem from how every writer approaches her with the idea that she’s somehow broken and in need of repair. She’s too weird, or she’s too political. Whatever the reason, they all feel the need to junk everything and start over. But they never start by asking themselves who Wonder Woman is. They instead ask who she reminds them of. So not only does Wonder Woman become whatever the current version of a “strong woman” is, she takes on incongruous elements from other, more popular superheroes in the hopes that her books will sell. She reminds us of Superman, so let’s give her the power of flight, even though she’s already got that iconic invisible jet. She reminds us of Thor, so let’s put all the focus on her mythological background. She reminds us of Xena, so let’s give her armor and a sword, and have her take joy in battle.

Wonder Woman is not Superman. She’s not Thor, and she’s not Xena. She’s a wholly unique entity. She is Princess Diana, peacemaker, healer, ambassador. She’s the champion of Aphrodite, pledged to end humankind’s suffering and conflict by teaching them how to love. It’s Wonder Woman who won the Tournament of Grace and Wonder, and the right to bring peace and love to Man’s World. It’s Wonder Woman who reformed Baroness Von Gunther, a Nazi war criminal. It’s Wonder Woman who was so pure and honest of heart as to withstand the scorching breath of Drakul Karfang. It’s Wonder Woman who withstood blow after blow from an angry Green Lantern while continuing to hold out her hand in friendship.

She has the strength to crush armies and the heart not to use it. She’s a woman who’s never had to fear any man, and therefore never has reason to hate. She has the strength of women, yes, but also the empathy and gentleness of women. She fights not to divide or punish the sexes, but to unite them. She is kind, empathic, curious, fierce, loving, dominating, and utterly fearless. She’s the greatest superhero who ever lived.

Well, that’s who she is to me, anyway.

You may also like...

  • MichaelANovelli

    I don’t know if I buy the idea that someone who’s opposed to war would never fight in one.

    Case in point: me.

    Also, as I’ve said many times, I think the *ideas* of feminism are far more important than the *label* of feminism. I don’t think you should have to belong to a special little clubby to be a decent human being.

    • Wizkamridr

      I’m a medic in the u.s. army, and while I don’t agree with war, I would still fight.

      • MichaelANovelli

        Awesome! ^_^

    • Zack_Dolan

      “I don’t know if I buy the idea that someone who’s opposed to war would never fight in one.”

      thank you, mendo, I completely feel (and actually said above) this exact sentiment. and yes, you put that last part perfectly. it’s the idea and it’s actual implementation that matter, not the word and who uses for it for what purpose, altruistic or selfish.

      • MichaelANovelli

        No joke, I’ve actually had a conversation with someone that went something like this:

        Me: I believe all the same things that feminists do. Is it really that big of a deal that I don’t call myself one?

        Them: Yes! Because if you’re not a feminist, you’re part of the problem!

        • Zack_Dolan

          well….that’s certainly ridiculous. as much as we don’t want it to be true, many people who throw the word “feminism” around, don’t actually understand it, and worse some even just use it as an excuse to shit on people bcs they feel like they’ve been shit on and they feel it’s owed to them. it’s a nasty cycle. I for one, believe in leading by example. it’s up to each of us to take the personal responsibility to just…not be a dick to people, regardless of who they are, where they’re from, or what they believe. if everyone (or hell even if just a lot of us) could just stand up and do that, this problem would solve itself, but dickering about the labels instead of learning to just stop being selfish jerks is exactly why it’s not going anywhere

          • Kanonite

            The problem with this is that its against heavily-ingrained human nature. Its in our nature to seek out and destroy targets for their perceived or actual threat. Once folk conquers beast and land, they find themselves without challenge. So they make one up, Its why witch hunts are still popular and going under different titles to this day, masses love a scapegoat that allegedly causes misery.

            This is why a star trek-esque future where there is no internal conflict will never happen, short of a lobotomy that removes the primal parts of our brains.

        • E.Buzz Miller

          That’s just idiocy. If you don’t want to label yourself something, yet have the core beliefs as an ideology that’s not a ‘problem’. The issue is what someone believes, not what they call themselves.

          • MichaelANovelli

            I know, right?

        • CaptainCalvinCat

          I’d say: No – if you support the idea, think, that there should be equality, but you don’t want to label yourself “feminist” – that’s okay.

    • Not saying WW should never fight in war. She started out fighting the nazis in WWII for pete’s sake. But there’s a big difference between fighting a war and championing the idea of war. The dispute is over what WW represents.

    • Jeff Motis

      The classic example is the story of Sgt York. Drafted and sent to war in WWI, he was a pacifist. When it came down to his men dying or him fighting, he fought. Wonder Woman’s primary focus was turning people away from violence. She fought when she had to, but it was to protect others from her attackers.

      • MichaelANovelli

        Or the preacher from The Patriot! Uh, right, I’m the only person who remembers that movie.

        “It’s the sworn duty of a shepherd to guide his flock, and occasionally fight off the wolves.”

  • Great article. Just a minor point: no need to rationalize that WW costume you made. :P I’m a cis straight guy who does male and female cosplays at cons, so there you go. Of course a lot of people reflexively freak out (and go straight for the slurs) when someone is acting against their expected gender, but that’s just it: gender is a performance with many artificial rules; one of the ways inequality gets reenforced among the sexes.

  • Greenhornet

    I could rant about “feminism” (YOU brought it up) but I WON’T.
    People hated the “I-Ching era”, it was a disaster! Yeah, she was a copy of “Emma Peel” and that was it; just a copy. An act. A poor imitation. And she took orders from a MAN, to boot. You want a REAL feminist/heroine? Try the 1930’s Nancy Drew.
    Alas, Nancy never had GOOD movie or TV show because people in charge of such things know ZIP about her.

  • RockyDmoney

    Now in New 52 she is basically a Kratos rip off. A bloodthirsty thug who is yet another illegitimate demigod child of Zeus

    • Alexa

      Aka she’s boring…

      • RockyDmoney

        Yep cuz we cant have anything remotely goofy or fun. Everything has to be like dark, depressing, serious, and gritty. I wish they would stop writing comics for wannabe badass teenagers and man child adults looking to justify reading comics as literature. They are power fantasy characters created for children lets keep some perspective

        • Alexa

          Its not like you can’t have mature themes and what not, they did that on Justice League and then some. Just they go so far to make Supes dark all the time and that’s not how that character works. And having one or two scenes of him just smiling, and the rest him crying out in pain after scene after scene of him destroying a whole city, doesn’t cut it.

      • The_Stig

        Can’t they just get Gail Simone to write her permanently?

  • Alexa

    I will admit my distaste for the boots is a mixture of them being impractical (but you do make a good point about how its comics so its silly to complain about it with heroes wearing capes and spandex and whatnot) but people slap them on her because she is female. Its like “No Superman can’t have those red shorts that’s silly. Oh yeah Wonder Woman can have heels, that makes sense.” NO IT DOESN’T!!! Its a stupid double standard, plus the boots are just butt ugly along with her tiara, and colors aren’t evil, and if they’re absent b/c Warner is still weary of the Schumaucher years, get the fuck over it Warner, b/c colors were the least of those movie’s problems. Really I shouldn’t be surprised this was approved by a guy who made Sucker Punch, but I still held out hope he would have more forethought, but nope :P

    But all in all I love your overview of what Wonder Woman is supposed to be like, and I just know what they come up with isn’t anything what you talked about, since again Superman was supposed to be a symbol of kindness and hope, and we basically got the movie version of Bearded Idiot. So yeah coming next year is the adventures of Bearded Idiot, Bonkers Betty, and Crazy Steve. The “holy” trinity T_T

    • Glad to see other people feel the same way about Bearded Idiot, Bonkers Betty and Crazy Steve. We’re just missing Dick Grayson, age 12.

  • Sisegexe

    I’m ashamed to admit that when I saw the title of this piece I was
    expecting some fanboy wankery about the missing stars on her skirt or
    something. I apologize for the disservice I did to you, Joshua. This is a
    great article and I agree with it very much.

    I also love Wonder
    Woman very very much and want to see her done justice. I think Gal Gadot
    looks absolutely badass. But given the writers and director involved in
    this thing (fucking Suckerpunch), and the lingering taste of bile left over from MoS, I
    despair.

    One brief note about the colors: remember the very
    first image of Henry Cavill as Superman, tearing into a bank vault or
    something? It was washed out and nearly colorless. I thought he actually
    looked pretty good in the film proper. She’ll be muted but I think
    she’ll probably be sporting the classic color scheme in the movie. One
    of the very few things I did like about MoS was the Supersuit, I think
    the Bat- and Wonder-suits will be just fine.

  • ShadowWing Tronix

    I like that version, too. I grew up with Superfriends and reruns of Linda Carter’s Wonder Woman. That’s the Wonder Woman I knew and love as well.

  • Gallen_Dugall

    Mission drift. Through out right co-opting, increasingly broad application, or deliberate misrepresentation “isms” tend to rapidly lose all meaning. We live in a world where the words liberal and libertarian were coined to describe the exact same thing only to have both completely reverse meaning in short order. Feminism will mean what people want it to mean logic be damned.
    You define a character through context and motivation.
    My problem with the Wonder Woman reveal pic is that the costume is a lazy pile of compromises that kinda looks tough, kinda pays homage to the original, kinda fits the dark gritty film ascetic, kinda looks absurd. That said I don’t care. If the script is decent (which I seriously doubt) I can let a lot slide.

  • Muthsarah

    *sigh*

    Just **** the whole DC universe. It clearly doesn’t even WANT me to watch it. Fine. You win. I won’t.

    I’ll just see “Hercules” instead. Even stupid fun is fun, and that looks like it’s at least trying to own up to its inherent cheesiness. This movie has, from the initial casting, been shaping up to be nothing remotely worthwhile. Superficial looks are, like 90% of the entire movie’s image thusfar. Get a model, have her wear “dark, badass” clothing, but still objectify her, make her scowl, put flames and $#!+ behind her….the all-American heroine! Goddammit. There is NOTHING good here.

    P.S. Love all the words, Mr. Joshua. The passion. It, like, rings. I would SO watch “Joshua Bell’s Wonder Woman” at this point. Even in 48fps.

    • I actually do have the rough outline for a Wonder Woman movie floating around in my head. But then, who doesn’t :P

      • Muthsarah

        Let’s see, I’ve got, in my little head, some fairly-complete outlines plus imagery for:

        – Several Star Trek TNG movies (that knock the four we got out of continuity)
        – A follow-up to On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, that links the Connery/Lazenby and Moore eras, set in 1970 Brazil with Blofeld as the villain
        – A steampunk adaptation of The Prisoner of Zenda, with a female lead
        – An R-rated Final Fantasy VI with half the characters and subplots removed

        And a few odds ‘n sods.

        So, yeah, I guess it’s pretty common. >D

        • I want to see that 3rd one SO badly now. The Ronald Coleman Prisoner of Zenda is one of my favorite swashbucklers.

          • Muthsarah

            Seen the 1952 version? It’s 99% the exact same movie. And…arguably a LITTLE bit better, because the last swordfight is much more exciting. Doesn’t have quite the same charm, though, since you know it’s almost a shot-for-shot remake. Book’s quite a bit different at times too, with some deeper themes going on in the background mostly, stuff that would be fun to flesh out with our more modern view on monarchy, inheritance rights, and social inequalities (which is where steampunk comes in, more for the Victorian revisionism than the brass and goggles). It’s already set in a fictional country, so anything else fantastical flows naturally.

            It was a hugely influential story, once upon a time, but it seems to have dropped off the Earth (aside from the Futurama reference). It’s ripe for a remake.

  • wonderking2000

    I agree and am with you 100%. I feel the creative team today want everything other then Wonder Woman. It’s almost like Wonder Woman fans who have waited a long time for this to happen are being ripped off. I’m not against this version for today’s generation. It just isn’t for me.

  • Thomas Stockel

    Personally I liked the Perez era of Wonder Woman, perhaps because I was never all that invested in the Silver Age. I didn’t hate it, but I thought Byrne’s rebooting of the Superman franchise and Miller’s one-two punch with Batman were good things. So when Wonder Woman was given a fresh start I was on board. In retrospect I guess I was digging the fact that it was something different and the novelty roped me in.

    Look, I was nineteen and George Perez draws pretty women. Don’t judge me!

    You raise some excellent points concerning the entirety of her existence: No other character has gone through more visual and/or ideological changes as Wonder Woman. Hell, if you look at the New 52 Geoff Johns’ Wonder Woman bears little resemblance at all to the one written by Brian Azzarello, and they’re both supposed to be the same character in the same universe!

    A great article, man. I hope we see more of you.

    • I don’t hate the Perez era. The man’s a legend and there’s some good stuff in his WW comics. I just wanted to point out that it put her on a path she should’ve never started down.

      • E.Buzz Miller

        That’s hardly Perez’s fault, it was Messner-Loebs who took what Perez introduced a warrior/humanist goddess character and decided that Amazons were like Xena more and more.

  • Michael Martin

    And this right here is why I still love this site, even if the awesome, incredibly long-read recaps (miss em!) are gone. Not only is this spot on and an honestly moving article from someone with great passion, not one douch-bro has shown up in the comments yet. Show me a single place on the Internet that contains this much geekery and so few MRAs and I’ll call you a liar. Well done!

    • E.Buzz Miller

      The AV Club is pretty good, mostly because when MRAs turn up they are called on their crap.

  • Zack_Dolan

    Now I want to make clear before I say this that i actually agree with virtually everything you said here. about feminism, about who wonder woman is and how she’s changed. I’m completely with you there. BUT i have to ask a straight question. what is is about this ONE picture that makes you SO sure that this wonder woman will not be like the wonder woman you see in your head? I must stress again, ONE photograph, that is obviously tone changed to match with the color theme of the pics released. (superman was blue. batman was silver/gray and wonder woman is in the reds – though all skewed darker to match the tone of the films, but it’s kind of an obvious red/white/blue combo theme here) and that’s it. you literally know nothing else about this film except this one photograph and who’s playing her. so how is it exactly you know this wonder woman will go against the spirit of wonder woman as a whole?

    And while we’re on the subject, wonder woman HAS in fact, been a warrior, for literally my entire life. nearly 30 yrs. now while you are completely correct that is not what she started as, you are essentially arguing that this long lived and established reinterpritation is invalid bcs you don’t like it. that’s basically like saying that the keaton batman film, the nolan trilogy, and timm and dini’s animated series (to say nothing of all the JL followup stuff) are all completely invalid bcs you’re personal perception of batman is based on the adam west series. it’s simply selfish to assume your vision is the only one. if that’s how it was there would be no creativity. no growth, we’d just be telling the same stories over and over word for word like some kind of insane jabbering cargo cult with no advancement or enrichment on the myth itself. it’s that kind of thinking that gave us garbage like “one more day”, if you remember. i’m certainly not saying all changes are good. the powerless “emma peal” wonder woman as you put it for example, was a horrifying decision and best forgotten forever. However, you don’t care for the perez reboot in the 80’s, that’s fine, that’s your choice, but you seem to miss the point that it was done to address one of your exact gripes, the fact that no one really knows what she’s about or where she comes from despite being in the top 5 most recognizable superheroes of all time. that reboot simplified what was…let’s admit it, the demented ramblings of a perverted creeper. i wasn’t there, i didn’t know the man, but i think wonder woman’s origins had A LOT more to do with maulton’s off kilter sexual tendencies driving him to write his own wank fiction than any actual attempt to create a female hero every bit as amazing as superman and batman. i’m sure that was in there, but from everything i know about the man, compared to the stories he was writing, you have to at least CONSIDER that motivated him more than you’d like to admit. Perez’s run was a genuine attempt (as with all the post crisis reboots) to make each of the main DC heroes less impenetrable as characters. they had ALL become bloated with contradicting and confusng nonsense and it HAD to be streamlined or it would all fall apart. and i personally don’t think she lost what she was at the core, just the extra crazy stuff that I personally found to be frankly batshit and silly. which i should point out, despite my dislike still does not make me dismiss her golden and silver age interpretations, but only that i prefer this one

    Justice League animated uses this reboot origin where she was raised from birth as a fighter, and it in no way cheapened her or made her less of who she was at her core. she wasn;t the crazed blood drinking maniac she has become in the superdark (and frankly stupid) new 52 continuity, but still her lifetime of training and battle experience is exactly WHY she fights for peace, for those who can’t protect themselves, bcs she KNOWS what war is, what it does, and why it must always be stopped. to assume wonder woman can ONLY be an advocate for peace is bcs she is some sort of pacifist is actually pretty silly. superman fights for the exact same thing and no one complains that he occasionally has to do it by punching a space monster through the moon. and frankly, i’m sure a lot of american soldiers (as with warriors all over the world) would argue with your assertion that you can’t oppose war and still be a warrior. sometimes ONLY warriors can end war, bcs quite frankly…bad guys aren’t very easily convinced to stop being bad by harsh words.

    I feel bad for arguing with you bcs i agree with so much of what you said, i just need to point out that, like so many people (including myself), you literally know NOTHING about this movie, yet have chosen to angrily dismiss it based on your perception of a single press photo. if you’re basing it off the fact you didn’t like man of steel or the nolan bat films then…well…what are the odds you’ll like ANYTHING about this one? that has nothing to do with wonder woman, that’s your experience with the previous films. if that’s not the case….what are you basing this on? what is it about this picture, that you yourself admitted isn;t that bad, makes you so sure this wonder woman will be somehow not capturing her spirit? if it is bcs you only accept golden age wonder woman as the true interpretation then…i feel pretty bad for you, bcs basically you’ve read every story with her you’re ever going to enjoy. that’s not an insult, don’t take it that way, I’m just saying that you are basically telling yourself that the modern comics and films will never be what you want and therefore will never be able to enjoy them and that’s not fair to yourself.

    and frankly, i think the suit looks damn good. i can instantly recognize her, it looks like something a demi god would wear, AND it doesn’t have a leather jacket. I mean…can’t we all just be thankful it isn’t new 52, all black suit crazy psycho hose beast wonder woman? I personally think they got pretty close, as close as they could and fit with the aesthetic of the film. (sure the colors could be brighter, but all the stills of the first man of steel looked really dark and dull, but in the actual film, the colors were much more vibrant and the reds were bright and blazing despite seeming brown in the stills) and uh…let’s be real here. how is this LESS feminist than a red corset, star spangled hot pants and gogo boots? i love wonder woman’s costume and hate when they stray too far away from it, but this here is about as close to what i saw in my head as a 3d real wonder woman suit that just wasn’t the linda carter vers, which again, let’s be real, wouldn’t work on a modern movie screen any more than chris reeve’s baby blue spandex would. times change. either you can accept it, or you can jump ship. you can choose not to like it, but you can’t dismiss it bcs of that.

    I want to state this is not coming from an entitled male perspective that fears the advancement of women. I am a huge advocate for the spotlighting of not just female heroes, but all forms of diverse heroes, basically everyone that isn’t the same doofy blonde/brown haired white dude that make up 85% of all comic (and frankly all fictional) heroes. I am a comic book creator and i co write and draw a female fronted comic where we make a pretty big point of making sure our female protagonist is a “superhero” not a “female superhero”. there are no caveats. no gender exceptions of double standards. she simply is a woman who happens to be an awesome crime fighter. she also dares to fight crime WITHOUT giant breasts proudly displayed through a boob window while simultaneously having the unmitigated gall to wear pants (not “hot pants”) to fight evil. the fact that she’s a woman never comes up. and the second female lead goes even further than that in a way that’s spoiler-ish to the story so i won’t go into details. as does the other of the 3 leads, who is a latino. the fact that they are minorities of various forms NEVER comes up. bcs it SHOULDN’T. that’s not what it’s supposed to be about. they are superheroes. period. full stop. to even ACKNOWLEDGE that you are playing by different rules to write them is failing to improve it. if we want superheroes to escape these stereotypes, we need to just stop using them. blow past them. do it right and ignore them, and it takes away their power. they only still exist bcs it becomes the focus, instead of what makes the character great. if you want change, it’s not just the fight over the issue that’s important, it’s leading by example. I want exactly what you want, and frankly i am making that a reality right this minute, even if it takes forever.

    as i said, i feel bad seeming like i am arguing with you so much, as we really are mostly on the same page. i just really wanted to point out that i think you’re not being fair to this based solely on your own personal taste, which is fine, but that’s not objective at all, and i don;t think it’s fair to condemn this design bcs of that alone.

    • Moppet

      I agree with a lot of what you said, and much of Joshua’s article as well.

      I suppose I have an additional bit to add, but it’s not a big thing. It’s not the most important thing. It’s a small thing. It’s that lack of, “and the American way” in Singer’s Superman. It’s just a few words to say, but they couldn’t say it. I’m talking about the Stars, but, I do so a bit sadly, as I’ve already seen a comment that shot down people that talked about it.

      I suppose I’m always a little saddened when people talk about these, “little details” in the, “you’re going to complain about something so small, why not a bigger issue/something that actually matters?” tone. In my mind, if they can’t be bothered to get a little detail right, something as easy as dying an actresses’ hair red if she’s going to play April O’neil or as tiny as a few stars on the lower part of a costume, then why should I expect them to get the bigger things right?

      But, you know, for bringing it up some people are just going to think I’m a mindless fan that obsesses over meaningless details. Maybe I am. It’s certainly not the only thing to talk about, Joshua’s article, and some of the responses to the article prove that in spades. It’s just one of many things to talk about. A small thing. Still, I honestly can’t complain about the outfit. It looks better than I expected it to, really, I was honestly surprised, possibly even happily so. The Sepia tone does make the colors hard to make out, so I can’t really say anything about that. I suppose we’ll just have to wait and see. A lot of this is wait and see though, especially in regard to how they’re going to choose to play her (though the sword in hand, lasso on hip and general posturing does say something).

      • Zack_Dolan

        I am with you 100% the “american way” thing irritated me a lot as well. there has been a great deal of effort to distance superman from america in the last few years and i really don’t agree with it. now i like the sentiment that superman is the entire world’s champion, and that he is here to protect absolutely everyone, don’t get me wrong. what i love about superman is that he is literally a god with the power of nature itself, but never feeling superior to us, instead superman actually puts every single one of the countless trillions of lives on earth (to say nothing of the rest of the universe) on down to the tiniest microbe ahead of his own, putting himself dead last to literally everyone else’s needs. that’s the part of superman that is at his very center that some writers completely forget. and there’s totally a happy middle ground where superman, who was raised in friggin kansas, one the most americaniest places in america, would not be ashamed to be american, but would also still be there for everyone who needed him regardless of borders or policy.

    • Mostly because it’s because this is still technically a sequel to Man of Steel, and very little about the tone seems to have changed based on everything we’ve heard so far. We do know they’re basing it on The Dark Knight Returns heavily, and that version of WW is by far the worst Wonder Woman EVER. Like, OMFG do I hate Frank Miller’s WW. And yes, she technically doesn’t show up until The Dark Knight Strikes Again. But given the juvenile, self-involved, meaningless angst of Man of Steel with lines of perfectly with the feel of TDKR’s writing, it’s not exactly a wild guess to assume that the WW we’re in for probably won’t be that different. Forgive me if I’m a little cynical, but I gave Man of Steel the benefit of the doubt and I got my heart broken. So I’m a little guarded. Sue me.

      Also, I spent a significant portion of this article talking about WW’s history, how wildly inconsistent it is, and how I have no real ground to call any one version more valid than any other. I went to great lengths to emphasize how this is only the character as I perceive her and what she means to me. Lighten up, man. I’m not calling anyone wrong for liking Xena Wonder Woman, and I honestly have no idea how you got that impression.

      • Zack_Dolan

        Well, we’re both on the same page about DKSA wonder woman, yes, by then frank had COMPLETELY lost his mind and NOTHING in that story works. the original however, holds up fine. so you prob. shouldn’t assume that it’s going to suck based on it being drawn from source material that’s a full 20 yrs apart from the one you hate. i mean, i think EVERYBODY hates dark knight strikes again, but it doesn’t make the original no longer one of the greatest batman stories ever told. i think a lot of people judge frank for what he is now, and forget there was a time when he was actually good at his job. he didn’t always write jabbering incoherent nonsense like all star batman and robin. like it or not, and as much as people desperately want to believe the original kane/finger bat stories were super mature and intelligent and dark (they weren’t) the modern batman, the batman that most people think of when they think of the word, was created entirely by frank miller (and perfected by bruce timm and paul dini) based off the seeds denny o’neil and neil adams were trying to sew (i know full well they were tryting to take batman seriously, but no one else was bcs the public perception of the adam west show was still way too up front in people’s minds, it was DKR that actually changed that) so i don’t automatically consider it a bad thing that the dark knight returns is finding it’s way into the films. certainly a bit early for that, but at the same time, both superman and batman have been on screen 7 times already, so waiting to pad it more is really not an option.

        like i said (a couple times i think) i feel bad that it sounded so much like i was arguing with you, i really did agree with pretty much everything you actually said, i was just really confused as to what any of it had to do with that picture. it really felt like your article was this deep analysis of her history as it pertains to feminism that just happened to be sitting between two completely unrelated statements about hating that picture and i was like “wait…what?” haha you should have just said “i don’t like this bcs i didn’t like man of steel and i don’t think this will be any better” somewhere in there, bcs without it, it really does kinda sound like you’re saying you aren’t interested in anything that happpened to wonder woman after the golden age.

        and i don’t think you’re wrong to think that. if you didn’t like man of steel, odds are you won'[t like this either, but like i said, that has nothing to do with wonder woman, that’s just that you dislike how snyder and nolan see your heroes and i doubt that will change no matter what they do. i happen to be fine with man of steel and disagree with most of the complaints (“he whines too much” when? when does he whine even once? “he doesn’t save anyone” accept that oil rig full of guys and that bus full of kids and that town full of bystanders oh and the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE haha and “he never kills” he totally does. sorry. even that same character in fact. in both the comics and films) so i don’t have a problem with much of what i[‘ve heard so far. the film certainly wasn’t perfect by any means, but i think it’s a lot better than the people who completely write it off say it is. it’s not like the reeve films are perfect either, and i love those too. i’m just happy my favorite superheroes still even GET movies at this point.

        sorry to make you feel like i was railing at you, it really wasn’t my intention. i just want people to stop judging movies before they even see trailers at this point. we live in a world where one photo can make someone boycott a movie (not saying that’s what you did, but people do all over the place) and i just think it’s out of control. plus the stills NEVER look good. if i based my entire opinion on the stills, i’d never see ANY superhero movie, bcs i feel like everyone looks like an idiot in the first leaked photo.

  • Jasper Jones

    I really enjoyed this article, especially as someone who identifies very proudly as a feminist.

    I hear so many anti-feminist things from women, even, and I just hate it. Feminism shouldn’t be a dirty word.

    • MichaelANovelli

      Well, ironically, the idea that women should inherently support feminism is itself sexist.

      Pedantic! ^_^

      • Jasper Jones

        I was actually trying to talk about internalized misogyny, but okay.

        • MichaelANovelli

          Well, certain sections of the black community actively supported George Wallace for President in 1972, so trying to predict how people will react in regards to things that you would think they would be for/against is untenable at best. It will be interesting to see how sociologists recall this period in about ten years or so, though. :)

          My guess is people just wanted a President who came out and admitted he was racist…

          • Jasper Jones

            I don’t know anything about that – I’m Canadian and I’m using that as my excuse. :)

            But what I was trying to say, and not terribly well, was that feminism is still so very important and I liked the article for making such a good argument about why.

            And I think it’s not neccesarily that all women need to be feminists. Just that we need feminism ’cause there are still a lot of women who don’t think or say the nicest things about themselves (or other women). We haven’t even gotten far enough with feminism where even things like women slut shaming and victim blaming other women is no longer a problem, let alone men. So obviously we still need feminism.

          • Mmmph

            The reason for increased anti-feminist sentiment is because the vocal minority of the group is getting too loud and spouting too much insane bullshit, which leads people, both male and female alike jumping ship and declaring somethemselves “Pro equal-rights but anti-feminist.”

          • Mmmph

            Also, damn my message ended up poorly spelled.

          • Alex Reynard

            By “vocal minority” do you mean the feminist academics and bestselling authors and politicians whose work influenced feminism’s sixty-year rise to mainstream acceptance?

          • Greenhornet

            Oh, you mean the COMMUNISTS. If you would look at the history of feminism and compared it to today’s stuff you will see that today it’s pretty much supporting SOCIALISM, not equality under the law and opportunity as in the past. Betty Freidan, Betty Solinis and Gloria Steinem were all admitted communists.

  • Shane

    I think Perez Era actually has the best origin; it gives the Amazons a great reason to exist,& why they distrust men. The JL/JLU & the 2009 adaptations on the other made them straw feminists; one of the worst “Justice League” episode is “Fury.”

    • Yeah, Fury was kinda awful. But JL Wonder Woman did have her moments. I’m fond of Maid of Honor, Kid’s Stuff, This Little Piggy, and especially Hawk & Dove. Plus Susan Eisenberg is still by far the best voice actress ever to play WW.

      • CaptainCalvinCat

        By the way, what’s your opinion on the Wonder Woman movie of 2009? Or did you already do a review concerning it?

        • I don’t love as much as I used to, but I like it overall. I like that it makes an honest effort to appeal to women, instead of marketing exclusively to teenage boys, and I like that it actually is about gender politics and is mature about it. That said, it’s not my ideal WW movie. Too much focus of Greek Fantasy, WW and the Amazons are as usual a bit to prone to violence and warlike for my taste, and I hate that it puts WW on the defensive in the gender argument.

      • Shane

        Don’t read the “Justice Lords” stoyline in “Batmen Beyond” comics b/c it’ll piss you off.

  • razorstar90

    The problem here is that you can’t please everyone. If they produced a picture with WW looking like Linda Carter from the 70s people would complain that they aren’t taking hte character seriously. If GAdo was the wonder Woman this particular person wrote about, someone else would write a blog saying how that wonder woman wasn’t “MY WONDER WOMAN” and so on and so forth. The fact is you don’t own Wonder Woman, she’s a character that has been around for 70+ years and has had many interpretations. Suck it up, I like the new warrior Wonder Woman, because let’s face it she is an AMAZON and AMAZONS were WARRIORS. And Warriors have armor and weapons. And WW needs armor why do you think she deflects bullets with those bands? GTFO with this nonsense.

    • CaptainCalvinCat

      Well, personally, I have no problem with WW being like the Linda Carter version – in fact: I honestly prefer that version – it was cute, it had neat, sweet moments, it was basically a damn great show.

      • razorstar90

        And that’s fine if you like the Linda Carter Version. But I can assure you if that was the one Gadot was playing, someone else would write an article with the SAME TITLE, saying why Linda Carter’s WW isn’t MY WW and how I prefer the Warrior Princess of the Amazons version, with the sword and everything. The problem is WW is such an iconic character with many different incarnations. There’s no one True Wonder Woman, just like there’s no True Superman or Batman. Everything is based off interpretations by the creators. And because of that some people are going to be angry with which ever version they choose. And for the record, WW’s armor and weapons makes her stronger because they are FORGED BY THE GODS, so it’s a plus.

    • The Amazons of Myth had little to nothing to do with Marston’s Amazons. They created from clay by Aphrodite, instead of being the offspring of Ares. They were made for the sole purpose of spreading piece and love. And Wonder Woman does not not need armor because she’s invulnerable. She doesn’t need armor because it just that much more badass when she needs only those two bracelets for protection because she’s just that fast.

      • razorstar90

        That was back in the 40s. THE freaking FORTIES. Things change. My god dude this is insane. Wonder Woman has gone through MAJOR changes. And the armor is useful because she is a WARRIOR and WW isn’t completely invulnerable ala Superman. She can still be pierced. Besides why not wear armor to protect yourself or make you stronger? And why is armor a bad thing. THor has Armor and a Hammer. Does he really need the hammer when he has super strength… not really. But he has it. Batman has Armor, heck Superman’s suit now in the comics is a form of Kryptonian armor and he’s FREAKING SUPERMAN. The armor plays into the Amazon origins. And again there are different interpretations of the Amazons in Greek Mythology. In the Iiliad they were described as warriors. And WW is all about taking the Amazons back to their original roots, before they secluded themselves from men. It’s all based on Interpretation.

        • You clearly did not even read the article. I went through the entire history of WW in detail, I know how long ago Marston’s WW was and what has changed since then and when. Stop your condescending. And also, yes, the Kryptonian armor thing is also fucking stupid. Thor has armor because he IS a warrior first, unlike Diana as originally conceived. Hell, the whole point of her wearing and American flag-themed costume in the first place was essentially as a white flag to let the Allies know she was here to help. She’s literally draped in a cry for peace and friendship.

          • razorstar90

            So if we are going by how comicbook heroes were originally conceived do you have a problem with Superman being able to fly? He couldn’t fly in the original version . He could only leap tall buildings. The heat vison wasn’t in the orignal coy either. Do you hate Supergirl and all the different robins. Things EVOLVE and CHANGE. Hardly any Superhero out there is the same as the original conception.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            There is “evolging” and “changing” and then there is complete OOC’ness.

  • razorstar90

    And here’s the kicker. If your version of Wonder Woman was the one WB/DC went with, someone would write an opinion piece with the same title “This Wonder Woman isn’t My Wonder Woman” and talk about how he/she wants to see the Warrior Amazon Princess version. Suck it up, stop complaining. Fanboy/girls are impossible to please.

    • I’m sorry, did you not read the whole part about how I can’t really argue that the whole thing isn’t incredibly subjective, that WW’s had some many opposing translations and all I was doing was putting forth how I perceive her, what she means to me, and why? That’s why I called the article “This is not MY Wonder Woman” and not just “This is not Wonder Woman”. I know this is only my own personal opinion, that’s what it’s called an OPINION piece.

      • razorstar90

        But don’t you see how dumb this is. It’s not your Wonder Woman, fine go enjoy the Wonder Woman that’s yours. Whether that be the comics, the animated series or whatever. No matter which Wonder Woman Gadot plays she can’t please everyone, so your point is just moot, lame, and whinny. “Oh they aren’t doing MY WW so let me write and whine how MY version is better” Me Me me Me Me. Grow up, stop complaining, and moaning. It’s ridiculous. Everyone wants things their way, but guess what you don’t always get what you want and that’s not a bad thing. This opinion piece of yours is the MAIN reason why filmmakers shouldn’t listen to fanboy/girls, because you can’t please them. They should do what they want because it’s Their interpretation artist should do their own thing and not try to please people.

        • Dude, YOUR point is moot, lame and whiney. All you’re actually saying is “That’s just YOU’RE opinion!” Yeah, and? What the fuck is your problem? Do you disagree with my opinion or are you simply angry at the very idea that I’m expressing one? If you disagree, then fine. Make an actual point. Argue why Wonder Woman as she is today is better. Don’t just point out the obvious and irrelevant.

          • razorstar90

            I’m not here to say which Wonder Woman is better or not, it’s all subjective. If you don’t like the current version of Wonder Woman fine. It’s not your opinion that’s wrong or that bugs me. It’s the fact that you’re moaning and groaning about how this new Wonder Woman. You don’t own Wonder Woman, I don’t own Wonder Woman, Zack Synder doesn’t own Wonder Woman. She’s a character open for interpretation. And Like I said, Gadot was dressed up as the Wonder Woman you wanted to see, someone else would write a opinion piece whining and moaning about how that Wonder Woman isn’t MY Wonder Woman.

          • Yeah, AND? You really are just upset that I’m expressing an opinion? Jesus fucking Christ, you are unbelievable. If you don’t like opinions why are you reading a REVIEW SITE?

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            I think, Joshua really knows, that he doesn’t own Wonder Woman.

            And yes, the whole thing is an exercise in pointlessness – because studios will make those movies no matter what.

            But that does not mean, that we cannot and should not speak up if something is wrong.
            I mean – that’s the whole point of a review site. And even if I disagree with some reviewers – and sometimes even the majority of them – I would never say “Shut the frak up.”.

            They can state their opinion here – that’s what the site is there for.

            This site, the whole idea of reviewing is very much based of subjectivity – we all know that.

          • razorstar90

            It’s a character, that’s open to interpretation. It’s not wrong. No interpretation is wrong or right. And I’m not saying shut up. I’m saying stop complaining that the Wonder Woman isn’t your Wonder Woman and you got all this from a picture. the movie isn’t even out yet dude, and you’re already complaining.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            Interpretation – it’s a funny thing.
            I’m sure that Goethe, Schiller, William Blake, Walt Whitman and Edgar Allan Poe would be very surprised, how their works were interpreted in classes, with stuff, they probably never envisioned.

            I’m no Mr. Marston here – so I have no idea, what the definitve answer would be – but if you stick to that, what people say about him, it is very clear, that he would not have liked how Wonder Woman is portrayed now – as a warrior.

            And concerning the “not saying shut up” – no, you’re calling Joshua an impossible to please fanboy, when – all he did was saying “Have a look at this picture – THIS is not MY Wonder Woman and here’s the reason why.”

            the problem is not that Joshua would be an impossible to please fanboy, the problem is, that this character of Wonder Woman herself is this massive focus of attention.
            You’re right – if they would’ve said “We’re sticking to the Lynda Carter Version” – my reaction would’ve been: “Hey, that’s great.”
            Others would’ve said “Hey, what is this bullshit – the seventies called, they want their Wonder Woman back.”
            Or: “hey, what is that nonsensical costume. that is in no way, shape or form pratical.”

            And they’d be right. But as Joshua tweeted, it is about the symbol of her, being not a warrior, but a peace-maker.

            I wouldn’t call it “fanboy whine” – I’d call it “a reasonable arguement.”
            You’re reaction to it – that could be called a bit of “fanboy whiney”, because Joshua dared to call this costume bad or so.
            But that’s just my opinion. ^^

          • razorstar90

            How do you know she’s not a peacemaker? How do you know that? She can be a fighter and a champion for peace at the same time. It’s a picture.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            Yeah, she CAN be a peacemaker – even with a sword. Xena proved that – however: picture the following situation – you’re a bad guy and this girl comes towards you, with a sword on her back and her body is showing, that she is ready to kick your ass – and suddenly she talks about peace – wouldn’t you think “Yeah, sure – you can easy talk about peace, when you are armed to the teeth”.

          • razorstar90

            Fanboys/girls have this idea that they own characters just because they like them a lot. And when it doesn’t turn out THEIR way the complain, cry and write stupid articles bitching about how wrong the filmmaker/comic writers etc etc got it. It’s insane and sophomoric. “Wonder Woman has armor on Why does she have armor why does she have a sword” BOO HOOO. Stop acting like that’s some HUGE deviation and slight against the essence that is Wonder Woman. And what’s even more ridiculous is this idea that you can make all these assumptions based on a stupid photoshopped picture. Watch the movie first.

          • Fuck this. I’m done with you. You’re wasting my time. I’m not going to sit here and argue with someone who apparently gets a sense of superiority from putting people down for having opinions. GTFO, you condescending jackass.

          • razorstar90

            You still don’t get it. I’m not saying your opinion is wrong. I’m saying it’s lame to be upset because the interpretation of the character is not the one you want. That’s ridiculous. That’s fanboy whining. “Oh THIS WW isn’t MY WW” come on dude. That’s not opinion that’s just complaining. I’m not saying your opinion is bad, I’m saying it’s whinny. Fanboy WHINE.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            And… with that saying that his opinion has no value, no right to be. Yeah – not very productive, razor.

          • razorstar90

            More whining

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            More not helping. ^^

          • razorstar90

            It’s true.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            That you’re not helping? Yeap, very true. ^^

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            While I agree, that we should watch the movie first, before we can damn it to hell – there are some facts, that allow at least me to draw some conclusions.
            A) The three pictures (Wondy/Bats/Supes) don’t look that awe inspiring.
            B) the movie is done by the same people, who did Man of Steel.
            Those two points alone let me say: “Yeah, this movie – probably it will not be that good.”

          • razorstar90

            You see Captain, You make sense. You are saying “Hey I didn’t like Man of Steel” I’m not into the creative team, So I’m hesitant”. The awe-inspiring thing is subjective but I respect that. Your not saying “Oh well the Superman in MOS wasn’t MY Superman” That’s lame and fanboy bitching, that shouldn’t be taken seriously. It’s that way of thinking that hinders creativity. Nolan’s Batman trilogy wouldn’t have been created with Josh’s way of thinking, because that Batman is certainly not the Batman from the comics or from Bob Kane and Bill Fingers orignal concept. That way of thinking is childish and lame.

    • CaptainCalvinCat

      Yeah, fanboys/fangirls can be impossible to please – but this “suck it up”-notion of yours is not really helping.

  • David F White

    I thought Wonder Woman was a Amazon not Greek?? Men use Weapons!!! Why not women???

    • Actually, that is a good point. Amazons culture in the comics tends to always be portrayed as Greek even though the mythical Amazons didn’t come from Greece. It’d be interesting if some writer did something with that at some point.

      As for the second comment, I’m not even going to dignify that.

      • Muthsarah

        Yeah, but they’re still supposed to be Greek-ish, much as we often portray our extra-terrestrials as only slight variations of ourselves. Or, in the case of intergalactic villains, as slight variations of the British. :p

        I think the (semi?-)mythical Amazons were based on a matriarchal culture somewhere not far from Greece, either up in the Black Sea or possibly over in what is today Libya. Both of which had lots of Greek colonies way back in the day. So still well within the Greek world. Greek to us, if arguably not to the Greeks.

  • Alex Reynard

    >They want equality and understanding between the sexes, and simply don’t understand that that is exactly what feminism is about.

    No, it isn’t. And no matter how many times people like you shove the dictionary definition of feminism in my face, that will NEVER make it true. What people like you don’t understand is, sometimes movements define themselves in glowing terms, then their actions paint a different story. Never heard of that happening?

    Here’s an example: “Our mission is to bring awareness to any issue which challenges the security, sovereignty or domestic tranquility of our beloved nation, The United States of America.” Well, jeepers! That sounds like something no one could have a problem with. If you were to oppose this group, you must hate America, right? Actually, I just got that off the Tea Party’s website. I’m sure I could find definitions for any failed or harmful movement in human history that obfuscated their inherent problems, instead providing a rose-colored rainbow of happy bullshit. The idea that feminism is about “equality”, full stop, is exactly that.

    Feminism, in practice, is advocating for women first and foremost under a strict, dogmatic viewpoint crafted by feminist academics. And the proof of it is that feminism has never lifted a finger for male victims of rape, domestic violence, murder, suicide, homelessness or genital mutilation, and instead has done everything possible to steer the public’s attention towards female victims instead. I wouldn’t even begrudge this if they’d at least let a supplementary movement smash men’s gender roles alongside their smashing of women’s. But no; they want to lay claim to “equality” while practicing exactly the opposite. And what galls me the most is that these crimes would almost certainly decrease further if we’d address all victims of them in a non-sexist way and stop letting them flourish through bigoted, traditionalist myths that women are never criminals and male suffering equals weakness.

    I have absolutely no doubt that MOST feminists genuinely believe in equality and want to work towards it. But if you buy into stuff like Patriarchy Theory and rape culture and objectification (all of them ideas which persist in our culture without ever being objectively demonstrated through fair comparison between both genders), then your efforts towards equality are not only going to fail, they are going to lead to further INequality. To give another example, if your goal is to put out fires, but you’ve been taught all your life that the best way to do this is with gasoline, you are going to fail your goal no matter how pure and good your intentions are.

    Get it now? It’s not feminISTS I believe are man-hating, it’s feminISM’s core ideas. A given feminist may hold no hate or bigotry in their heart towards men, but if they believe in an idea like “teach men not to rape”, and act accordingly, they will be propagating male-hatred.

    (Please tell me I don’t have to explain to you why “teach men not to rape” is sheer bigotry. If I do, then just ask yourself if you’d be okay with “teach blacks not to carjack” or “teach women not to commit infanticide”.)

    >(A few of them, of course, are just plain slut-shaming or belittling the suffering of others, but I’m just going to ignore them. Let’s talk about the actual problem here.)

    Well that was astonishingly petty of you. Try to taint these women by association with evil, without providing any evidence, but act like you’re being the better person by not going into details. Eat fertilizer, you gossipy misogynist.

    • Hannah Desyn

      Firstly, every single anti-rape campaign I know of has made provisions for male victims as well, so I’ve got no clue what you’re on about there. Second, I think there are some concepts you’re not completely grasping, such as rape culture (which is, simply put, a general cultural idea that men are somehow entitled to sex with women, something that leads plenty of rapists to their crimes). As for that “teach men not to rape” thing, it’s specifically there to counter messages that it is okay for men to rape (by, for instance, pushing past what they see as light resistance because they believe it’ll be for their target’s own good or whatever). Finally, all of my experience with feminism is very much down with smashing men’s stereotypical gender roles as well as women’s.
      I can overall understand your opinion, but I don’t think it’s entirely accurate, and I think that it’s a better idea to not oppose feminism so much as engage in dialogue with it and request additions if need be.

      • Alex Reynard

        >Firstly, every single anti-rape campaign I know of has made provisions for male victims as well,

        Good! I hope that’s true. Can you point to some of them?

        >so I’ve got no clue what you’re on about there.

        I’ve researched gender issues a lot, and have looked at a lot of anti-rape campaigns. The ones I’ve seen near-universally feature female victims first and foremost. If male victims are mentioned, it’s in the context of them being raped by other men. To my knowledge, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a poster or ad telling women not to rape men.

        >Second, I think there are some concepts you’re not completely grasping, such as rape culture (which is, simply put, a general cultural idea that men are somehow entitled to sex with women, something that leads plenty of rapists to their crimes).

        I’ve heard of that definition of rape culture, and I disagree with it because I think it’s not true. I think its conclusions are not borne out by a fair look at all the evidence. What I see instead is a culture that hates rapists violently and views rape as a worse crime than murder. Have you forgotten our legacy of stringing black men from trees because they behaved “inappropriately” with a white woman? We as a culture hate rape so much that it’s used to incite mob violence. If we seem to let some men get away with rape, it’s because they’re athletes or celebrities, and we’d collectively rather be in denial than give up our hero worship. Also, I see a culture where it’s considered comedy for women to not respect men’s sexual boundaries; where women are never prosecuted for raping men; where men who dare to admit being raped by a woman are mocked, shamed and silenced for it. I have seen news articles about grown women having sex with little boys, and there will be comments talking about how “lucky” that kid is. If anything, there is far more evidence to claim that our culture thinks men are in a constant state of consent and women are incapable of sexually abusing them because men “always want it”.

        Also, from the research I’ve read, culture does not cause rapists to want to rape; their sociopathic desire to take what they want from another person does. They don’t rape because they feel like they’re entitled to it, they rape because causing suffering makes them feel powerful. Aside from some areas where genuine miscommunication can happen, most rapists are among a tiny handful of human monsters who commit rape deliberately and repeatedly. Think about it; doesn’t it seem likely that, “Baby, I just didn’t understand consent,” is what a rapist would say to their victim to get themselves off the hook? Sociopaths do tend to lie.

        >As for that “teach men not to rape” thing, it’s specifically there to counter messages that it is okay for men to rape (by, for instance, pushing past what they see as light resistance because they believe it’ll be for their target’s own good or whatever).

        This assumes that there are messages from society that teach men rape is acceptable. The opposite is true. The kind of person who’d ignore consent is the kind of person who’s not going to be reached by a PSA because They Want To Ignore Consent. And this concept is offensive because it implies that the desire to rape is normal male behavior. Again, it’s rightly called racism to assume that so many blacks sell crack that we should scold ALL of them not to. Just as it would be outrageous sexism to make an ad campaign scolding all mothers not to kill their children. Men are not going to stand for being presumed a rapist just because of our gender anymore, period.

        >Finally, all of my experience with feminism is very much down with smashing men’s stereotypical gender roles as well as women’s.

        Give examples then. Because I still see a system where male weakness is shamed, where the government treats custody cases as if a father’s money is the only thing his child needs in their life, where the criminal courts assume far more agency on the part of men than women, where normal male sexuality is looked down upon with disgust and suspicion, where the media and the public view male deaths as more normal and ignorable than female deaths. I have literally seen a video of riot cops in Egypt beating the hell out of a man and woman, side by side, and the headlines and commenters reported only the woman being beaten. We are blind to male suffering. Men’s gender role is to compete with other men, to provide income for families, to sacrifice for the greater good, and to keep our fucking mouths shut because no one wants to hear us complaining when we’re in pain. What, exactly, is being done to substantially change any of that?

        >I can overall understand your opinion, but I don’t think it’s entirely accurate, and I think that it’s a better idea to not oppose feminism so much as engage in dialogue with it and request additions if need be.

        NO. I’m not going to beg for help from a movement that’s had sixty years to throw my gender some table scraps of attention and hasn’t done so. There comes a point where you have to stop believing the promises of a movement that says, “We’ll get to your issues right after we finish dismantling Patriarchy”. I’m too impatient for that. Feminism, to me, is a roadblock to raising the quality of life for men and boys. I would be happy to have feminISTS as allies, but again, I believe feminISM itself is anti-male at its core. Like any conspiracy theory, the feminist definition of Patriarchy is built upon a few genuine truths, a lot of half-truths, a boatload of sheer conjecture, and conclusions which are supported by faith, not evidence. We as a people are not going to progress until we accept the facts that gender roles are constructed partly by culture and partly by natural selection, and that female oppression, male privilege, female privilege, AND male oppression all exist simultaneously. We have to be honest about the roots of gender issues before we have any hope of effectively combating them. And everything I’ve researched shows clearly that feminism is fighting male privilege and female oppression while denying that the opposite end of the seesaw even exists. They are fighting a house fire by only spraying water on one side. They either need to start spraying water on all sides, or stop hogging the hose and let another movement have a turn at trying to fix things.

        • Hannah Desyn

          4channer reply style, I note.

          Regarding rape culture: were it so simple. But when many rapists (and keep in mind that the vast majority is acquaintance rape) don’t even acknowledge that what they did was a crime, when the vast majority of cases go unreported for various reasons, and when organizations like colleges prefer to make the problem go away than aid in the prosecution (there’s been a gigantic kerfuffle lately over college rape, if you saw that), the results seem to tell a different story. And a lot of rapists don’t actually know the boundaries of consent very well; you may mock PSAs and the like, but in surveys on the subject, far more men admitted to having sex with someone despite them not entirely wanting to than they did rape; not all of them are sociopaths beyond prevention, many are just idiots with no boundaries.

          As for the rest (and since you made the original positive claim, I’d request examples from you first), it frustrates me because, for the most part, you and feminism have the same enemy. Men have plenty of gender-based baggage, true; by far the vast majority comes from the same patriarchy (for lack of a better word). The indifference to male suffering, the belief that women are the ones for raising children, the frequently intense bigotry towards men who leave stereotypical gender roles–all that comes from the original set of rigid gender roles. The reason they haven’t been attacked quite so much is that, proportionally speaking, there have been far fewer men raising the issue than women have done with women’s issues, probably because the men were still overall in power despite their restrictions. Now that that’s changing, male silence over men’s issues might also change… but it’s being severely hindered by the fact that way too many MRAs and the like have turned around and attacked feminism, despite the fact that it has nothing to do with most male-specific problems. I’m going to bet that many if not most of the people talking about the luckiness of the boys in the statutory cases you mentioned prior were men, quite a few of the criminal cases where men are assumed to have more agency would come about from just seeing women as less agency in general, and there’s more suspicion towards fathers angling for child custody because mothers are seen as more inherently suitable for the role, due to being women.

          So be frustrated with feminism if you want, but focusing on attacking that instead of the general culture will get you nowhere at all. Maybe you don’t want to call it patriarchy; a name I’d like is “the masculine imperative.” But please, oppose that more than you oppose feminism; the latter just creates mutual hostility and distracts from the true threat.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            Well, to be honest – I consider feminsim being about being equal to us men. And considering we used to live in a society, in which men were the big bosses and women had no opportunity to do business, were just regarded as there, to take care for the child, while the man is out in the world and doing business – I really have no problem with the women now getting a bit more. After all – if you want to create equality, you need to boost that faction, that got the short end of the stick until now.

            And – what are sixty years compared to the time, when women were not allowed to do anything without asking their fathers or husbands?

            Furthermore concerning the “being blind to men suffering”, respectively the “man being called weak argument”

            Yeah, that’s true. Society will see the man, who is beaten up, raped etc. as “weak” (“Weichei” as Germans say, english would be “wimp”, “wuss”, “weenie”) – which oddly enough has something to do with the fact, that people still think, that the man needs to be aggressive, needs to be able to defend himself – and if you don’t do that, you’re the wuss, you’re the weenie, the pussy, the Weichei (pronounced why-chhh-eye, literal translation: weak egg or weak testicle).
            And it is awful. And if you are the vitcim – people will still call you Weichei.

            And if you are raped by a woman – BOOOYYYY, will people release their inner asshole.

            Either call you weakling again or say “hey, admit it, you partially enjoyed it, eh, wink wink, nudge nudge”.

            And if a woman is raped – the people will still release their inner asshole.
            for example, use the old “Well, look how she was dressed, she WANTED it” argument.

            Yeah – society needs to do more to stop both versions of “shaming”. Which only works, if men and women are treated equally – i.e. if feminsim (the core idea) works.

            Because I disagree with your initial statement, @alexreynard:disqus – the IDEA is good, some PEOPLE are the ones, who are not.
            the basic idea of feminsim – which is dictionary definition of feminism – is to treat women equal to men.
            People take that and use this concept to create their own set of rules – and some are assholes and say “Okay, I’m a feminist, and I treat men like shit.”
            Which does not mean, that the basic idea is bad.

            Because let’s be honest here: there are assholes belonging to each and every culture and whatnot.
            There are feminists, who are idiots, there are MRAs, who are “Deppen” (idiots), there are Germans, who are assholes, there are americans, who are Vollhonks (Idiots), and so on and so forth.

          • Alex Reynard

            Right up front, thank you. I genuinely enjoy a good argument with someone who actually makes arguments and explains their reasoning. I come across too many people online who argue by insisting, emotional appeals, or insults. It’s a welcome relief to have someone I can disagree with but still respect.

            >4channer reply style, I note.

            What can I say? It’s efficient.

            >Regarding rape culture: were it so simple. But when many rapists (and keep in mind that the vast majority is acquaintance rape) don’t even acknowledge that what they did was a crime, when the vast majority of cases go unreported for various reasons, and when organizations like colleges prefer to make the problem go away than aid in the prosecution (there’s been a gigantic kerfuffle lately over college rape, if you saw that), the results seem to tell a
            different story.

            I acknowledge those aspects, but I still do not think they add up to the conclusion that our culture is okay with rape. Same as I can acknowledge individual points made by conspiracy theorists, but still tell them their evidence does not support their conclusions. Like I said, rapists don’t acknowledge their behavior either because they’re lying, or because they narcissistically feel they’re entitled to what they want (like that dead scumbag Elliot Rogers). Yes, many rapes go unreported, but you even admitted there’s many factors for this. Some of which include personal choice not to, religion-instilled shame, fear of cops, etc. I see many of these as aspects of other, wider problems, not a centralized ‘rape is okay’ problem. (BTW, why feminism is not heavily anti-religious, I don’t understand. So much of this gender role enforcement and slut-shaming comes directly from religion.)

            And yes, I’ve heard about the college kerfluffle. I’ve heard politicians and pundits put out scary statistics, which their own numbers prove are impossible. (If 1 in 5 women really are assaulted, why would any woman ever go to college?) I’ve seen the actual numbers of reported rapes, which are a miniscule fraction of the common claims, and suggest that a college is one of the safest places in the world for women. (Google “One-in-One-Thousand-Eight-Hundred-Seventy-Seven”) I have seen some colleges try to sweep rape reports under the rugs, yes, but I’ve also seen them go to the opposite extreme and accuse young men without any due process. The whole thing is a quagmire. Personally, I think the problem is colleges trying to handle rape reports at all. Regardless of how we feel about the police, crime reports are their responsibility. Colleges have no rules for accountability and No Ability To Prosecute Rapists. I should think that last thing would be the number one argument against them handling rape cases.

            >And a lot of rapists don’t actually know the boundaries of consent very well; you may mock PSAs and the like, but in surveys on the subject, far more men admitted to having sex with someone despite them not entirely wanting to than they did rape; not all of them are sociopaths beyond prevention, many are just idiots with no boundaries.

            Then they’re not rapists. I think it’s very important that we not trivialize rape by confusing it with other types of sexual assault/harassment/misconduct. IMHO, the word “rape” should have immediate connotations of force and intent. To me, two people fumbling around in the dark not understanding each other’s communication may be a crime, but it’s not “rape”. Putting a roofie in someone’s drink; that’s rape. Holding a gun to their head; that’s rape. Using threats or blackmail; that’s rape. Physically holding them down; that’s rape. Where there exists a grey area of whether or not the “rapist” was aware there was an issue of consent, that is not the same crime. We have distinctions in the law between different levels of sexual violence for a reason. I don’t think it’s helping anything to dilute the definition of rape to the point where a person hears the word and has to ask what kind of rape is meant. When the word ‘murder’ is said, people know immediately there’s a dead body that someone made dead on purpose. Nobody hears ‘murder’ and has to stop and ask if it was actually an assault.

            >As for the rest (and since you made the original positive claim, I’d request examples from you first)

            I thought I gave some. What would you like more of?

            >it frustrates me because, for the most part, you and feminism have the same enemy.

            Sure. Vastly different methods though. That makes a big difference. (I am also a strong supporter of animal rights, but those psychos at PETA can fuck right off.)

            >Men have plenty of gender-based baggage, true; by far the vast majority comes from the same patriarchy (for lack of a better word).

            I’m fine with that word. I just distinguish between a patriarchal social structure, like those observed in nature, and the academic theory of Patriarchy. Hence, I distinguish them with capitalization. I fully accept that we live in a culture where men get the overt roles of power, take more risks, die more often, and women are overprotected like children. (IMHO, I think it has a lot to do with their being an evolutionary bottleneck 77,000 years ago that reduced humanity down to the population of a large city. Our instincts put us into Emergency Breed-Like-Mice-Mode and we’ve never come out of it.)

            >The indifference to male suffering, the belief that women are the ones for raising children, the frequently intense bigotry towards men who leave stereotypical gender roles–all that comes from the original set of rigid gender roles. The reason they haven’t been attacked quite so much is that, proportionally speaking, there have been far fewer men raising the issue than women have done with women’s issues, probably because the men were still overall in power despite their restrictions.

            Full agreement …until that last part. “Men” have never been in power; a tiny handful of the wealthiest, most powerful men have been in power, while the other billions of men toil and sweat and scrape at each other. A patriarchy is like a pyramid, with a lucky few at the top, and their shit running downhill onto the masses below. You are absolutely correct that men haven’t spoken up, and it is largely due to traditionalism. There are still plenty of men who tell MRAs to shut up and stop whining; the very concept of men complaining is upsetting to them on a gut level. As if any man admitting weakness makes them weak too.

            >Now that that’s changing, male silence over men’s issues might also change… but it’s being severely hindered by the fact that way too many MRAs and the like have turned around and attacked feminism, despite the fact that it has nothing to do with most male-specific problems.

            Sure it does. Feminists have disrupted MRA events with veiled threats, shouting through bullhorns, pulling fire alarms, etc. They’ve torn down MRA posters. They call the cause itself misogynistic and dangerous. And feminist researchers like Mary Koss have structured decades of rape research around their sexist bigotry. We continue to believe that rape and DV are gendered crimes, because research showing near-equal numbers of male and female victims and perpetrators gets buried. Researchers who try to bring the truth to light are pressured out of their jobs. And let’s not forget how often feminists will champion the cause of ending female genital mutilation, while refusing to admit that male genital mutilation is the same crime. If all feminism had ever done was raise up women, I would be fine with it. And I was, for many years. It was only when I started listening to people like Erin Pizzey and GirlWritesWhat that I realized feminism doesn’t just champion female victims; it *hoards* victimhood. It fully buys into stereotypes of ‘men are not abused, men commit abuse’, and strongly perpetuates them.

            >I’m going to bet that many if not most of the people talking about the luckiness of the boys in the statutory cases you mentioned prior were men,

            Absolutely. Much of gender role enforcement comes from within one’s own gender.

            >quite a few of the criminal cases where men are assumed to have more agency would come about from just seeing women as less agency in general,

            Yes, those are mutually linked.

            >and there’s more suspicion towards fathers angling for child custody because mothers are seen as more inherently suitable for the role, due to being women.

            Partly so. There was a feminist push for mothers to be given more custody, starting with the Tender Years Doctrine. But from an economic perspective, this is largely caused by the “traditional” model of society that so many conservatives with their heads stuck in the 1950s love so much. If the man is the breadwinner, and the woman isn’t allowed to work, naturally she will spend more time with the kids. And the courts will give custody to the primary caregiver. We also see this in Islamic societies where women aren’t allowed to leave the home, so men are forced to go out and work to support them both, plus kids. These roles shackle both genders. As I said, I acknowledge traditionalism as a huge enemy to everyone.

            >So be frustrated with feminism if you want, but focusing on attacking that
            instead of the general culture will get you nowhere at all.

            I can attack both. I’m not in the binary mindset of, ‘if one party is guilty, the other is innocent’. Our genes are guilty of sending us reproductive instincts that care nothing for our individual quality of life and have no place in the 21st century. Traditionalism and religion are guilty of pushing these repressive roles on us for so many centuries. Feminism is guilty of fighting only the gender roles that disadvantage women while staying conspicuously silent about the ones that benefit women.

            To make it simple, my beef with feminism can be summed up like this; I view feminism as a cop who witnesses a man and a woman both get shot during a mugging, but makes the choice to only report the female victim. This cop did not cause the man to die, but she is still guilty of keeping his victimization invisible.

            >Maybe you don’t want to call it patriarchy; a name I’d like is “the masculine imperative.” But please, oppose that more than you oppose feminism; the latter just creates mutual hostility and distracts from the true threat.

            If feminism is standing in my way of attacking traditionalism, then I will attack it first.

            Though I would be happy to live in a wold where there are two mirrored gender movements, sometimes in competition with each other, but with a mutual respect for the other’s right to exist, and neither side having the power to silence the other.

          • Hannah Desyn

            We’re going dangerously off the topic of Wonder Woman, so I’ll try to keep this brief. The MRA movement has to stop FOCUSING on feminism as an enemy; argue with it incidentally if you want, but to be frank, there’s virtually no legitimate MRA movement right now because they’re mostly men who pull together to attack feminism and women, when it’s some men and male-dominant cultural imperatives that are responsible for the vast majority of male-specific gender problems. And expecting feminists to do that work for you when MRAs are constantly attacking them strikes me as wholly futile; there’s never been any point in feminism’s history when it hasn’t been under siege or possessed of the resulting siege mentality. You may believe that you morally shouldn’t have to reach across the aisle to feminists for the MRA movement to be accepted as legitimate; whatever you believe there, I’m telling you this because I believe it’d lead to better RESULTS. And I would say the same thing to other feminists about male issues were there any in this particular conversation.

            Tl;dr: the MRA movement focusing on attacking feminism just creates more intergender strife. Try to work in whatever harmony you can because you have the same goals and enemies.

          • Alex Reynard

            >We’re going dangerously off the topic of Wonder Woman, so I’ll try to keep this brief. The MRA movement has to stop FOCUSING on feminism as an enemy;

            Why? I already explained in detail why feminism is an enemy of the men’s movement, and has kept innumerable male victims from receiving the help they deserve. I’d never forgive that. I’ll tolerate it if need be, but I will never be the ally of an inherently sexist movement.

            >argue with it incidentally if you want, but to be frank, there’s virtually no legitimate MRA movement right now because they’re mostly men who pull together to attack feminism and women, when it’s some men and male-dominant cultural imperatives that are responsible for the vast majority of male-specific gender problems.

            You just illustrated exactly WHY men attack feminism. Because we’re tired of being constantly told that we’re responsible for all out own problems. No. Men are responsible sometimes, and sometimes women are, and sometimes feminism is. We are going to call out every person/group who should be held accountable for hurting men and boys. And you can call us illegitimate if you want to, but we don’t need your approval.

            >And expecting feminists to do that work for you when MRAs are constantly attacking them strikes me as wholly futile

            We *don’t* expect them to. Feminism has said it would, has not done so, and now we’d like them to share the stage and let us do the work.

            >there’s never been any point in feminism’s history when it hasn’t been under siege or possessed of the resulting siege mentality.

            Certainly true. But most of that opposition has come from traditionalists, who hate feminism because they don’t want to see women break free from their gender roles. Whereas the MRM is opposing feminism for the ways in which it causes actual harm. One criticism is bullshit, the other is not.

            >You may believe that you morally shouldn’t have to reach across the aisle to feminists for the MRA movement to be accepted as legitimate; whatever you believe there, I’m telling you this because I believe it’d lead to better RESULTS.

            I believe the opposite. I believe that feminism’s dogmatic ideas about the nature of gender roles are toxic to men, and will continue to hinder the efforts of feminists to bring about their stated goals. I would be happy to work alongside women who advocate for women, but not someone who believes in a fundamentally different reality than the one I live in.

            >Tl;dr: the MRA movement focusing on attacking feminism just creates more intergender strife. Try to work in whatever harmony you can because you have the same goals and enemies.

            Just as I don’t believe Christian morality will ever lead to peace and prosperity, I don’t believe feminist ideology will ever lead to anything but the very intergender strife you wish to avoid. And to continue the metaphor, it is not atheists who deserve blame for criticizing religion. They are not causing the problems; they are the ones calling it out. Of course that’s going to upset the ideology in power, and of course they’re going to want their critics to just shut up and toe the line.

            Yes, we’d all go back to the peaceful status quo if MRAs would just agree with feminists. But I, personally, am morally bound to call out untruths wherever I see one. If you are wrong, I am going to call you wrong, period. Because one of my most fundamental beliefs is the idea that no lasting good can come from a lie. All my research has shown me conclusively that feminist ideology is rooted in lies. Anyone who believes in them, it distorts their vision and clouds their aim. It Does Not Matter that we share the same goals and common enemies. If we are fighting alongside each other, and you shoot at me again and again, I don’t want you as my ally anymore. And nothing you say can change that. You’re trying to tell me that your intentions are good, and that we’d be so much better working together, and you really want there to be peace between us. But I still remember the bullets whizzing past my head, and that’s what’s making my decision. Not the words feminism says, but the actions it commits. All the words in the world cannot make those actions go away.

            I do believe you’re being entirely sincere in what you say. It’s just that your words are drowned out by my knowledge of all the thousands of male rape victims, male domestic violence victims, and male genital cutting victims whose suffering was ignored because of the actions of your movement. I would never dishonor them by accepting your alliance. Your movement has much to make amends for before you deserve the trust of people like me.

          • Hannah Desyn

            Well, sad to say, there’s not a damn thing I can do to alleviate the perceived sins of the feminist movement in your eyes beyond talking about it. As you’ve stated that you see my words as worthless, I believe that’s my cue to be done with this.

          • Alex Reynard

            Try to see it from my position. If I belonged to a men’s group that shared your goal of gender equality, yet its leadership deliberately defended rapists, would *anything* I say convince you to ally with them?

            Again, I am not just rejecting feminism for personal or trifling reasons. I’m basing my opinion of the movement on the actions of its most powerful and influential members. Like Mary Koss, American Regents’ Professor at the University of Arizona, advisor to the CDC, and one of the most prominent rape researchers in the country. She released a paper which read in part, “Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.” Or Eve Ensler, award-winning feminist author and activist. The original version of her play, The Vagina Monologues, contains a scene where an adult woman gives a 13 year old girl alcohol and has sex with her, and this is portrayed as a positive interaction. The girl even says, “If it was rape, it was a good rape”. Or how about the Jezebel.com article “Have You Ever Beat Up A Boyfriend? Cause, Uh, We Have” that literally laughs off domestic violence. “we decided to conduct an informal survey of the Jezebels to see who’s
            gotten violent with their men. After reviewing the answers, let’s just
            say that it’d be wise to never ever fuck with us.” “And that’s when she socked him. He was, uh, totally asking for it.” If a tidal wave of moderate feminists demanded the ouster of the people responsible for these indefensible statements, that is the kind of thing I would need to see to believe feminists are consistent in their fight against sexism. But I don’t see that.

          • Hannah Desyn

            First example: Some people are lumpers and some people are splitters when it comes to defining rape specifically vs. other kinds of sexual assault. Like this one splitter who said “I think it’s very important that we not trivialize rape by confusing it
            with other types of sexual assault/harassment/misconduct.” The word’s had heavy connotations of penetration for most of its existence, and it’s entirely possible that Koss’ concern had to do with the higher possibility of physical damage there as well as mental (note that Koss said “penetrated by offenders,” not “men,” leaving it perfectly open for forcible penetration from a woman of a man via fingers/other implement to still be rape). I disagree, but to draw conclusions of deliberate sexism from this is false.

            Second example: I read that in full. The character in question is clearly not exactly a paragon of mental stability, this issue has nothing to do with men and especially not victimized men, and it still ignited quite a lot of controversy.

            Third example: The comments section actually consists mostly of controversy and people being angry at the subject, so.

            And yes, I have looked at this from your perspective. Some strains of feminism have been homophobic and/or transphobic, which has fallen on me directly. It doesn’t make me believe in the cause any less.

          • Alex Reynard

            >it’s entirely possible that Koss’ concern had to do with the higher possibility of physical damage there as well as mental (note that Koss said “penetrated by offenders,” not “men,” leaving it perfectly open for forcible penetration from a woman of a man via fingers/other implement to still be rape). I disagree, but to draw conclusions of deliberate sexism from this is false.

            No, it is not. This is not just a single quote from her, but the clearest reflection of the beliefs which apply to her work. She genuinely believes that a man cannot be raped. So when she conducts rape surveys, she asks women questions about victimization only, and men questions about perpetration only (if men are included at all). She is an adviser to the CDC, and their recent National Intimate Partner Sexual Violence Survey reported on the number of male rape victims as 1 in 71. This is a lie. Their data tables show that, in the previous 12 months, the number of women reporting being raped is 1.1%, and the number of men “forced to penetrate” was 1.1%. For reasons that sound eerily similar to Koss’ insistence that it’s “inappropriate” to call a man a rape victim, the CDC chose to classify a man being forced to have sex by a woman as “other sexual violence”. This is a government research team rendering thousands of male rape victims invisible. ThIs Is Indefensible.

            >Second example: I read that in full. The character in question is clearly not
            exactly a paragon of mental stability, this issue has nothing to do with
            men and especially not victimized men, and it still ignited quite a lot
            of controversy.

            But alas, controversy that has not hurt her reputation. I know that Americans are sometimes loathe to hold their idols accountable (Chris fucking Brown, for instance), but that doesn’t make it right. The fact that Eve removed and changed certain parts of her play showed that even she was ashamed of it (or just didn’t want to deal with the fallout).

            >Third example: The comments section actually consists mostly of controversy and people being angry at the subject, so.

            All I can say is, when I first saw the article, there was a substantial amount of giggling agreement in the comments. Abusers describing how they’d beat on their boyfriends, then spin the story to sound like it wasn’t really wrong. But I think the more important point is that the writer of the article, Tracie Egan Morrissey, is still on their staff. Controversey in comments that doesn’t result in action doesn’t matter.

            This is exactly what I mean. Even if there is some outcry within the movement, feminists almost never seem to oust toxic members. They’ll double down on defending them instead. This is not how a healthy movement operates. This is the same thinking described by a friend of mine who’s an ex-conservative ex-christian; members are taught that ‘good’ and ‘bad’ equate to ‘does it agree with the movement or disagree’. Turning it around on myself, I will defend the MRM because I’ve seen them throw out the garbage in their ranks. People who contribute nothing but regressive misogyny get told to leave. The MRM continually denounces TheRedPill and Manhood Academy. That’s what I’d like to see from feminism. It’s not enough for some people to say, ‘They’re not REAL feminists’ and then do nothing about their behavior. When harmful people say, “I’m a feminist”, the response from other feminists should be an immediate and direct, “No you aren’t. Get out.”

            >And yes, I have looked at this from your perspective. Some strains of feminism have been homophobic and/or transphobic, which has fallen on me directly. It doesn’t make me believe in the cause any less.

            Then What Would? This is a serious question I want you to ask yourself. You don’t even have to answer me, I just want you to search your own heart. What would it take to make you renounce the label of feminist? I can say absolutely that if prominent members of the MRM started conspiring to harm female rape victims in some way, and they were not met with opposition by the bulk of other members, I’d turn my back on them without regret. Or if they started clamoring for men to raid women’s DV shelters. Or some other endorsement of harassment and violence towards other people. My loyalty to any cause is dependent on seeing for myself that they do more good than harm. And as I said before, if an alleged ally were shooting at me, I wouldn’t want to stand alongside them. ESPECIALLY if the other members of their group did not take action against them.

          • Hannah Desyn

            To be frank, you’ve lost me entirely on your advocacy for male rape victims by claiming that many forms of acquaintance rape didn’t count before, under “I think it’s very important that we not trivialize rape by confusing it
            with other types of sexual assault/harassment/misconduct.”

            As for the rest, I’ll concede that you’ve done more research than I have, and I’m not currently interested in spending all the time that preparing a proper rebuttal would take. You can call it winning if you want. I will, however, point out that “Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal
            statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where
            male victims were penetrated by offenders” blatantly contradicts “She genuinely believes that a man cannot be raped.” I’ll also request to see the full CDC data tables you mentioned with all context, just so that we can all be on the same page.

            Finally, I will not stop calling myself a feminist based on anything within the realistic future. I’m not really a Communist, but if I was one, I wouldn’t stop calling myself one just because of the actions of the Soviet Union and other such nations. I believe in the cause and the fundamental principles of the idea, and I seriously doubt that anything could change that.

          • Alex Reynard

            >To be frank, you’ve lost me entirely on your advocacy for male rape
            victims by claiming that many forms of acquaintance rape didn’t count
            before, under “I think it’s very important that we not trivialize rape
            by confusing it with other types of sexual assault/harassment/misconduct.”

            I apologize. I’m not sure what’s confusing about that. There are multiple different crimes that fall under the category of ‘sexual violence’, and not all of them are ‘rape’. What I’m currently seeing a lot of in the feminist movement is people defining rape to mean an ever-widening array of situations (I’ve literally heard it said that there can be no consent given between a famous person and a fan of theirs, for instance). But this escalation of definitions only applies to male-against-female rape, while not applying the same standards to a woman forcing sex on a man.

            >As for the rest, I’ll concede that you’ve done more research than I have, and I’m not currently interested in spending all the time that preparing a proper rebuttal would take. You can call it winning if you want.

            I guess so. I’d rather win in any circumstance by coming to a mutual conclusion, but I never expect to ‘win’ in any online argument. My end goal is just that I learn from the conversation.

            >I will, however, point out that “Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders” blatantly contradicts “She genuinely believes that a man cannot be raped.”

            I’d already went on to explain that part. Koss believes that rape is something which a woman cannot do to a man. Even if she includes homosexual rape in her definition, she is still choosing to exclude roughly half the victims of heterosexual rape.

            >I’ll also request to see the full CDC data tables you mentioned with all context, just so that we can all be on the same page.

            Here’s an infographic that points out which tables are important to this point (I’m not sure the math is right about their 40% conclusion, but the rest is solid): http://i.imgur.com/wd4XiOd.jpg

            And here’s the actual PDF of the study: http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf
            You can see for yourself, on pages 18 & 19, how the number of men “forced to penetrate” over the last twelve months is 1,267,000, and the number of women raped is 1,270,000. And yet they report 1 in 5 women are victims of rape, and only 1 in 71 men are.

            >Finally, I will not stop calling myself a feminist based on anything within the realistic future. I’m not really a Communist, but if I was one, I wouldn’t stop calling myself one just because of the actions of the Soviet Union and other such nations. I believe in the cause and the fundamental principles of the idea, and I seriously doubt that anything could change that.

            I realized after I asked this that I should have clarified that part. My apologies for asking a badly-structured question.

            There is also nothing that would stop me from believing in the values of equality of opportunity for everyone, and advocating for the rights of men and boys. But if the Men’s Rights Movement went all fascist on me, I would no longer call myself an MRA. I wasn’t asking you what it would take to give up the principles, but to give up the *word*. The group is not the goal. As I’ve said, I share feminism’s goals but dislike and distrust their methods. So despite working towards the same end, I will not call myself the name “feminist”. There are plenty of other ideologies/belief systems that I agree with to an extent, but for various reasons I won’t apply their label to myself. That’s what I was asking. Even if it’s based on an unrealistic future, what would it take to make you give up that word? And if there’s nothing that would, then why? You don’t have to give me your answer.

          • Hannah Desyn

            That infographic is a marvel of terrible statistics work. You’re literally using the data points of ONE YEAR to make a declaration about how 40% of rapists are female, and then just ignoring the lifetime rating altogether because of underreporting issues; I’m sure those exist, but trying to draw a conclusion that sweeping from only a year is appalling (especially with the flat statement “the reason behind this is due to differences in reporting between genders,” with a citation from a study that referred solely to child abuse to boot). Not to mention the fact that crowing about the “1 in 5” vs. “1 in 71” issue is using data points that the infographic maker is dismissing out of hand; if the study did include “forced to penetrate” in their rape statistics, the number of men raped using the lifetime statistics would be 6.2% (with women being higher by some unknown amount). Additionally, sexual coercion, which is what a lot of acquaintance rape comes down to and also apparently flew under the CDC’s radar in this particular study, is much higher for women than for men–as are all other forms of surveyed sexual violence.
            And THEN, there’s the fact that the infographic makers, to even reach that 40% figure, use the lifetime statistics, after previously just using the 12-month ones, and then ONLY INCLUDE UNWANTED PENETRATION with their “79.2% of male rape victims report a female rapist.” They just handwaved every instance of rape as described by the study, only including “forced to penetrate.”

            So basically, this whole thing is astonishingly sloppy and you’ll forgive me for skepticism toward its conclusions. Also, I did the math, and the number of rapes of men that were definitely by men was 21%; the number of those that were definitely by women was 61%. Which means that approximately 3.8% of men have been definitely raped by women, vs. a consistent 18% of women raped by men (and 1.3% of men definitely raped by men–outside of prison, which is a fairly huge thing to leave out; I would love to see the numbers for prison rape among men vs. prison rape among women).

            And I’m not going to give up the word from guilt by association. I know what it means and will continue to use it.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            Hey, no one says, that feminists can’t be as assholish as misogynists can be.

            But that does not mean, that the cause in and on itself is bad.

            Because – and I feel the need to stress this – AS A MAN I think, that we (as a society) still need to change.

            As long as women still earn less money than their male counterparts in the same jobs, as long as there are still jobs, that are just highly unlikely for a woman to get (or for a man to take out of their free will) and those people who get (or take) those jobs are viewed as either stuck-up-bitches or very strange fellows, as long as we still have discussions about the outward appearance of a female politician (e.g. Angela Merkel, Hillary Clinton) and as long as we fat-, thin-, or slut-shame female celebrities (e.g. Miley Cyrus, Britney Spears, Amanda Tapping), etc.

            as long all those situations are still happening – feminism hasn’t won.
            And don’t say, that this would be good, because… how many male politicians are percieved JUST by the way they look, how many male celebrities are shamed, because they are thin, fat or just simply old?

            So yeah – women who beat up their boyfriends are as much assholes as men, who beat up their girlfriends.

          • Sofie Liv

            All of this is honestly very complicated because what it boils down to is.

            How we should treat human other human beings, not just based on gender but in genneral.

            So perhaps feminism is a pretty stupid word as the word itself, implies siding with women, because there is “Feminim.” in the word.. I don’t know.. we don’t use the word in Denmark as freely or casually as you do in the US or other english talking places.

            But I think what is truly important is in fact, how we as human beings, wish to treat each other as human beings.
            Regardless of gender, race or age. What is it we should strive for in our modern society.

            Perhaps some-thing where people get judged and awarded for their hard work and abilities not their genders.
            It’s a society we have not reach, and probably never will reach, not even outside of gender stereo types.. but it’s the society we should strive for regardless.

            Of course, hurting another human being regardless of gender is bad. whether it’s a man hurting a woman, a woman hurting a man, or a woman hurting another woman. None of this is worse than others, it’s all equally bad.
            It really boils down to decent human behaviour, beating someone up or raping someone, is just not decent human behaviour, it has very little to do with feminisn.. it’s just.. bad bad human behaviour.

            The sad reality unfortunately is that it’s more common that some men feel they are entitled to women, that it’s their basic right to have the women around them behave like THEY want it, and if the women don’t agree, they should be punished.

            Ones again, that’s just bad human behaviour period… I don’t know if using the word feminism is the right approach.

            How-ever I do know that women unfortunately, still needs to be stood up for, there is a definit imbalance in a lot of places.

            Women does get judged on looks far more than men, we get judged on our age being deemed not good enough way sooner than men, some look upon women as proberty and it’s all bad. It would be just as bad if a man is treated to same behaviour.

            Lets just agree we should just treat each other respectfully and as decent human beings all-right?

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            Well, that’s why very early on I thought, if the term “feminism” has tacked on many negative connotations, because of people basically being assholes and proclaiming that they are feminists, we should use another word – maybe “Equalism”.

            On the other hand: No.
            See, if we’d call it “Equalism”, in sixty plus years, people who are now feminists idiots would be equalist idiots. Nothing is going to change that.
            the problem is not with the idea, the problem are the people.

            See, I consider myself a feminist.

            And when hearing about “days of the red purse”, “Equal women pay day” and stuff like that, which still means, that women must work extra hard to get the same amount of money, that a man would get, if he would be doing the job, you kinda sorta can get the idea: “Hey, that is not right. You should get the exact same amount of money, no matter if you are a woman or a man.”

          • Alex Reynard

            >Hey, no one says, that feminists can’t be as assholish as misogynists can be. But that does not mean, that the cause in and on itself is bad.

            That’s not my argument. I’m not saying that feminists acting like assholes proves their movement is bad, because that argument could be made against any group of people on the planet. I’m saying that the core beliefs of feminism, specifically Patriarchy Theory, are inaccurate and dogmatic, and that the actions of mainstream feminist activists/groups demonstrate that the movement does not work towards true equality, as they claim.

            >Because – and I feel the need to stress this – AS A MAN I think, that we (as a society) still need to change.

            Of course we do. But HOW we change matters. If the whole US went the route of the Tea Party, that would be a change. Would it be a good one though? I don’t think so. Neither do I think that feminism is the best path.

            >As long as women still earn less money than their male counterparts in the
            same jobs,

            They don’t. That’s been debunked endless times, just Google it. Women earn as much per work hour as men do in nearly all instances, but men are more likely to prioritize career over their health, personal time and family, and so will work longer hours, take more risks, and be more likely to take high-paying jobs with a high risk of death/serious injury.

            >as long as there are still jobs, that are just highly unlikely for a woman to get (or for a man to take out of their free will) and those people who get (or take) those jobs are viewed as either stuck-up-bitches or very strange fellows,

            Why is this inherently a problem? I’m not talking about people being harassed out of jobs they want; that definitely IS a problem. But isn’t it possible that there are some jobs that are more attractive to one gender or the other, and that’s just how it’s always going to be? If there are 90% female nurses and 90% male engineers, and everyone there is there by their own personal choice, what is the problem? I absolutely agree we need to make sure there’s equality of opportunity for everyone, but I think equality of outcome is an idealistic pipe dream that would result in just as many people being pressured into jobs they don’t want to take.

            >as long as we still have discussions about the outward appearance of a female politician (e.g. Angela Merkel, Hillary Clinton) and as long as we fat-, thin-, or
            slut-shame female celebrities (e.g. Miley Cyrus, Britney Spears, Amanda
            Tapping), etc.

            I’ll agree this is true, but what are you comparing this against? I could just as easily talk about how male politicians have little chance at being elected unless they’re married and can demonstrate ‘family values’. I could talk about how much more often men in media are portrayed as stupid and clumsy compared to women. I could talk about how in action movies and video games, endless waves of men are killed off to demonstrate the power of the hero, because the audience will show less emotional reaction to male deaths. Or I could talk about issues like how men are more often the victims of homelessness, murder or suicide. How male victims of rape have a zero percent chance of seeing their rapist prosecuted if she’s a woman.

            Seriously, if what you’ve just given me is your evidence for female oppression, it doesn’t hold water. I simply have not seen evidence that modern Western women are so much worse off than modern Western men that it justifies the level to which we ignore men’s issues.

            >as long all those situations are still happening – feminism hasn’t won.

            Allright, and by that same logic, since there are still many male issues which feminism has done nothing to alleviate, that proves the necessity for a male-centric movement to pick up the slack. And until society stops shaming male rape and domestic violence victims into silence, until something is done about the astronomical numbers of prison rape, until men are not discriminated against because of their gender in custody decisions, divorce courts and criminal sentencing, then the men’s movement will not have won.

            >And don’t say, that this would be good, because… how many male politicians are percieved JUST by the way they look, how many male celebrities are shamed, because they are thin, fat or just simply old?

            I won’t say that, because usually the sexism directed towards each gender isn’t directly comparable. Because men and women have different gender roles. This means that the sucky things for each gender are different. Men aren’t slut-shamed usually, and women aren’t virgin-shamed usually, for example.

            >So yeah – women who beat up their boyfriends are as much assholes as men, who beat up their girlfriends.

            Sure they are. That’s not the problem. The problem is how domestic violence PSAs have near-universally portrayed only women as victims and only men as abusers, exploiting the public’s prejudice that this is how things really are. The problem is when researchers discover equal numbers of male and female victims, and male and female abusers, and their work is either squashed out of sight, or distorted to conform to the ‘correct’ conclusions.

          • Hannah Desyn

            Your supposed debunking was itself debunked; the income gap still exists.

            I actually have read about engineering, and the environment for women in that field is pretty terrible.

            The marriage issue hits both genders, men being portrayed as stupid and clumsy is extremely sporadic and men are still the protagonists of the clear majority of films and TV shows, the vast majority of video games, and either the majority or roughly equal in books. Men tend to die more because men enter combatant fields more. The majority of the homeless population is actually children. The murder rate is somewhat skewed because deaths of combatants in things like gang wars still count as murder. And with suicide, more women than men attempt suicide, but men are more likely to be successful because of the differences in common methods.

            Are women’s issues in the Western world as bad as they once were? No. But trying to gut feminism for the sake of men’s issues is hardly the answer either.

            And to be frank, I’m going to have a difficult time trusting your sources from here on out after that travesty of an infographic.

          • Alex Reynard

            >Your supposed debunking was itself debunked; the income gap still exists.

            Not according to the dozens of news sites that pop up when I Google “wage gap debunked”.

            Also, if businesses could get away with paying women 30% less than men, then why wouldn’t they hire nothing but women?

            >I actually have read about engineering, and the environment for women in that field is pretty terrible.

            Then let’s change that, like I already said I’m in favor of.

            >The marriage issue hits both genders, men being portrayed as stupid and clumsy is extremely sporadic and men are still the protagonists of the clear majority of films and TV shows, the vast majority of video games, and either the majority or roughly equal in books.

            So? If women were the protagonists in a majority of books, but always portrayed as Suzy Homemaker, would that be good for women? Once I started looking into gender issues, I started realizing how many male protagonists fall squarely into the archaic gender role of protector/provider. The measure of his masculinity is defined by his utility, invulnerability, rage, and willingness to die for any female, even if he’s just met her.

            >Men tend to die more because men enter combatant fields more.

            I didn’t say anything about that. I said men get MURDERED more often. Yes, their killers are most often men too, but it’s not like males are a hivemind.

            >The majority of the homeless population is actually children.

            http://www.nhchc.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/June2001HealingHands.pdf
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States#Who_are_the_Homeless
            http://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/the-catastrophe-of-homelessness/facts-about-homelessness/

            >The murder rate is somewhat skewed because deaths of combatants in things like gang wars still count as murder.

            Why wouldn’t they?

            >And with suicide, more women than men attempt suicide, but men are more likely to be successful because of the differences in common methods.

            That to me suggests (and this is purely a hypothesis), that maybe men want to die more. That maybe women’s attempts are more often cries for help, and men’s attempts are a determined effort to end their life. Considering there is not only more psychological and social help for women, and less shaming for women to admit needing help, this seems plausible to me. Regardless, I think it needs to be examined WHY there’s such differences in men’s and women’s attempts.

            >Are women’s issues in the Western world as bad as they once were? No. But trying to gut feminism for the sake of men’s issues is hardly the answer either.

            Fine. Those aren’t my reasons for opposing it though. I want to gut feminism because it is standing in the way of men trying to advocate for their own issues, and also because its core beliefs are broken and prejudiced.

            >And to be frank, I’m going to have a difficult time trusting your sources from here on out after that travesty of an infographic.

            I told you I was only posting that because it highlighted the specific data tables I was trying to show you. I even acknowledged I don’t think the math works. If you’re going to doubt my sources because of that, you’re being dishonest. I also gave you the PDF of the actual NIPSVS so you could see for yourself in context.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            Sorry, were we or weren’t we as men living the good life in power, screwing up the planet until women decided that they – rightfully so – wanted to have a piece of that action?

            Was it not a male-dominated society? And aren’t most of the products (movies etc.) still be made with the male demographic in mind?

            And even if you say, the theory is debunked: the so called “gender pay gap” still exists. As you can see here: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Gender_pay_gap_statistics

            Plus, it is very easy to call the theory “debunked”, if you’re looking on pages like “exposingfeminism.wordpress.com” or http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
            (which I understand is like the German “Bild-Zeitung”, not great quality.

            By the way, you know, that you’re just writing about a stereotype? The man willing to burn the midnight oil, being the one bringing home the bacon and so on – newsflash: not all men are like that.

            The problem lies with the fact, how those people are viewed.

            If a man wants to be a nurse or a woman wants to be a KFZ-Mechatroniker (automotive mechatronics engineer), most other people will call the nurse guy
            gay and will say, that the KFZ-Mechatroniker is probably a virago.

            I compare how female politicians and celebrities are viewed with their male counterparts. And no one said about Barack Obama, Gerhard Schröder or John F. Kennedy things, that they had been saying about Angela Merkel – simply reducing her into “being a woman” and even her campaign-aides presented her as new, fresh, because she was a woman. Not because she might’ve the better concept, mind you, no – just because she’s a woman.

            > That to me suggests (and this is purely a hypothesis), that maybe men want to die more. That maybe women’s attempts are more often cries for help, and men’s attempts are a determined effort to end their life. Considering there is not only more psychological and social help for women, and less shaming for women to admit needing help, this seems plausible to me. Regardless, I think it needs to be examined WHY there’s such differences in men’s and women’s attempts.

            Well, when there are less shaming for women admitting that they need help, then we as a society should attempt to stop shaming men, when they admit, that they need help.

            > Fine. Those aren’t my reasons for opposing it though. I want to gut feminism because it is standing in the way of men trying to advocate for their own issues, and also because its core beliefs are broken and prejudiced.

            And this MRA-society does not in the way of women trying to advocate for their own issues?

            > I told you I was only posting that because it highlighted the specific data tables I was trying to show you. I even acknowledged I don’t think the math works. If you’re going to doubt my sources because of that, you’re being dishonest. I also gave you the PDF of the actual NIPSVS so you could see for yourself in context.

            Why is she being dishonest? DisTRUSTFUL – yeah, I would be that, too.

          • Alex Reynard

            >Sorry, were we or weren’t we as men living the good life in power, screwing up the planet until women decided that they – rightfully so – wanted to have a piece of that action?

            No, WE weren’t. There’s never been a time in history when men, UNIFORMLY, were in power. Men are not a hivemind. The reality is that a handful of RICH people were living the good life in power while ordering around all the POOR people. Do you really think the wives of kings and presidents have lived by the same standards of poor women? Do you really think the working class man had the same standard of living as the owner of the company?

            >Was it not a male-dominated society?

            No. It was a WEALTH-dominated society. The men in overt positions of power are the carrot on a stick to keep all the other men in competition.

            Your logic is the same as saying that, if a few poor people win the lottery, none of them are poor anymore.

            >And aren’t most of the products (movies etc.) still be made with the male demographic in mind?


            If they are, so what? Women dominate the bookshelves. Or haven’t you noticed? The most prolific genre of books is romance novels. Millions and millions of them are published every year. The vast majority of these authors, and readers, are women. Should these women be more thoughtful and inclusive of what men want? I say no; they should write and read whatever they want to. Same as men.

            
>And even if you say, the theory is debunked: the so called “gender pay gap” still exists. As you can see here: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa….

            It looks like they’re saying there’s a lot of reasons for the gap; sometimes personal choices, sometimes sexism. I definitely think we should fix any sexism that IS there, but we should not automatically ASSUME sexism if other factors lead to a more plausible conclusion. Occam’s razor.

            Also, what do you have to say about the idea that a majority of businesses are more concerned about sexism than profit? Because if they can save tons of money by paying women less than men, why don’t they hire all women?

            

>Plus, it is very easy to call the theory “debunked”, if you’re looking on pages like “exposingfeminism.wordpress.com” or http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
(which I understand is like the German “Bild-Zeitung”, not great quality.

            Actually, it’s sites like The Wall Street Journal, CBS News, Daily Beast, The Atlantic, Forbes magazine, Slate, Washington Post, Bloomberg View, The Weekly Standard, Politifact… (I’m just scrolling down Google, naming off sites here.)



            >By the way, you know, that you’re just writing about a stereotype? The man willing to burn the midnight oil, being the one bringing home the bacon and so on – newsflash: not all men are like that.

            I never said they were. I said that MORE men are willing to prioritize their health and family for the sake of their career than women. Of course there will be exceptions. BTW, to me it seems like a fair trade-off; work yourself to an early grave and make more money, or make less money while having less stress and more time with loved ones.

            

>If a man wants to be a nurse or a woman wants to be a KFZ-Mechatroniker (automotive mechatronics engineer), most other people will call the nurse guy gay and will say, that the KFZ-Mechatroniker is probably a virago.

            Then that should be addressed. I want that changed too. What I’m saying is, if we get to the point where outliers in mostly-gendered workplaces *are* accepted, then we don’t need to go further and force men and women into jobs they don’t want so we’ll achieve gender neutral workforces in every job.

            

>I compare how female politicians and celebrities are viewed with their 
male counterparts. And no one said about Barack Obama, Gerhard Schröder 
or John F. Kennedy things, that they had been saying about Angela Merkel
- simply reducing her into “being a woman”

            I don’t know about Gerhard Shroder, but I do know that Kennedy was insulted for being a Catholic and Obama was insulted for being black. Gosh, it’s almost as if prejudiced people will pick apart anything different about a candidate. It’s almost as if gender is just ONE OF MANY THINGS that get nitpicked.

            

>Well, when there are less shaming for women admitting that they need help, then we as a society should attempt to stop shaming men, when they admit, that they need help.

            I’m glad we agree on this. And no; I don’t blame feminism for this, if you were going to ask that. A large portion of male-shaming comes from other men. Traditionalist-thinking men chained to their outdated gender role of never admitting any kind of weakness or homosexuality. Morons.



            >And this MRA-society does not in the way of women trying to advocate for their own issues?

            Not that I’ve seen, no. Especially considering that feminism has orders of magnitude more political power and members.



            >Why is she being dishonest? DisTRUSTFUL – yeah, I would be that, too.

            Imagine that you asked for evidence of a specific claim, and I gave you that evidence, plus a drawing of a horse. Then you say I’m untrustworthy because it’s a drawing and not a photo of a real horse. See how that’s completely irrelevant? See how it doesn’t acknowledge the validity of the actual evidence I gave you?

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            >>Sorry, were we or weren’t we as men living the good life in power, screwing up the planet until women decided that they – rightfully so – wanted to have a piece of that action?

            >No, WE weren’t. There’s never been a time in history when men, UNIFORMLY, were in power. Men are not a hivemind. The reality is that a handful of RICH people were living the good life in power while ordering around all the POOR people. Do you really think the wives of kings and presidents have lived by the same standards of poor women? Do you really think the working class man had the same standard of living as the owner of the company?

            Yes WE were. WE as MEN. Not you, not me, but the majority of the people in power back in the day were men. Sure, there was a queen here and there, but I’m not talking about being BORN into power (that’s a discussion for another day), I’m talking about the ability to work hard and get a frak ton of money. Which is a possibility, that WE as MEN had much longer than women have it. Do I need to remind you, that couple of decades ago husbands of women willing to work still needed to be asked, if it would be okay?

            Of course the working class man had not the same standard of living as the company-owner, but unlike the working class man’s wife, he at least had the opportunity of getting a job, without asking his wife before he would apply to it.

            And no – men are not a hivemind. Feminists (those, who view the idea of feminism as good) aren’t either, so if one or even 9 “feminists” just take the feminism- aspect as an excuse to be a douchebag towards men… the IDEA in and on itself – as I pointed out – is still a good and a necessary one.

            >>Was it not a male-dominated society?

            > No. It was a WEALTH-dominated society. The men in overt positions of power are the carrot on a stick to keep all the other men in competition.

            Yeaah, and WHO had the most wealth? Hm? Women? Not really, eh? It were men.

            >>And aren’t most of the products (movies etc.) still be made with the male demographic in mind?


            >If they are, so what? Women dominate the bookshelves. Or haven’t you noticed? The most prolific genre of books is romance novels. Millions and millions of them are published every year. The vast majority of these authors, and readers, are women. Should these women be more thoughtful and inclusive of what men want? I say no; they should write and read whatever they want to. Same as men.

            Oh, I went to a bookstore a day ago – from all the books, you could find, they had one shelve just full with romance novels. The rest was crime, cooking, sci-fi, fantasy, manga, comics, horror, comedy. Yeah, surely, most of the books are romance novels.

            And you still miss the point.

            Men are getting more money – by the way: Information from Forbes article, written on 07.04.2014 – equal pay gap still exists, is alive and kicking – can be found here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswomanfiles/2014/04/07/the-awful-truth-of-the-gender-pay-gap-it-gets-worse-as-women-age/

            Yes, you might argue: “That’s a woman, who wrote this article”.

            And I ask: Who wrote the article, that you’re referring to, when you said, that
            there would be a forbes-article, debunking the equal-pay-gap-theory?

            > Also, what do you have to say about the idea that a majority of businesses are more concerned about sexism than profit? Because if they can save tons of money by paying women less than men, why don’t they hire all women?

            Towards this idea I say: “A company, who would be that stupid, would be killed off from the market.”

            Why? Oh – I don’t know, might’ve something to do with the fact, that there’d be people (on both sides) being very offended. The MRA’s would say “Don’t buy from this entrepreneur – he caused us to be unemployed!”

            The feminsts would say: “Don’t buy from this entrepreneur – a) he caused tons of people to be unemployed and B) he is paying the work-force less, then they should earn.”

            >>Plus, it is very easy to call the theory “debunked”, if you’re looking on pages like “exposingfeminism.wordpress.com” or http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
(which I understand is like the German
            “Bild-Zeitung”, not great quality.

            > Actually, it’s sites like The Wall Street Journal, CBS News, Daily Beast, The Atlantic, Forbes magazine, Slate, Washington Post, Bloomberg View, The Weekly Standard, Politifact… (I’m just scrolling down Google, naming off sites here.

            CBS news, yeah? Well, from what I heard, they are not very reliable, too, aren’t they?

            >>By the way, you know, that you’re just writing about a stereotype? The man willing to burn the midnight oil, being the one bringing home the bacon and so on – newsflash: not all men are like that.

            > I never said they were. I said that MORE men are willing to prioritize their health and family for the sake of their career than women. Of course there will be exceptions. BTW, to me it seems like a fair trade-off; work yourself to an early grave and make more money, or make less money while having less stress and more time with loved ones.

            I don’t see that. Because you worked yourself to an early grave – what good does the money to you, when you’re dead?

            >>If a man wants to be a nurse or a woman wants to be a KFZ-Mechatroniker (automotive mechatronics engineer), most other people will call the nurse guy gay and will say, that the KFZ-Mechatroniker is probably a virago.

            > Then that should be addressed. I want that changed too. What I’m saying is, if we get to the point where outliers in mostly-gendered workplaces *are* accepted, then we don’t need to go further and force men and women into jobs they don’t want so we’ll achieve gender neutral workforces in every job.

            Who said anything of “forcing them”?

            >>Well, when there are less shaming for women admitting that they need
            help, then we as a society should attempt to stop shaming men, when they admit, that they need help.

            >I’m glad we agree on this. And no; I don’t blame feminism for this, if you were going to ask that. A large portion of male-shaming comes from other men. Traditionalist-thinking men chained to their outdated gender role of never admitting any kind of weakness or homosexuality. Morons.



            You’re right, they are morons.

            >>Why is she being dishonest? DisTRUSTFUL – yeah, I would be that, too.

            >Imagine that you asked for evidence of a specific claim, and I gave you that evidence, plus a drawing of a horse. Then you say I’m untrustworthy because it’s a drawing and not a photo of a real horse. See how that’s completely irrelevant? See how it doesn’t acknowledge the validity of the actual evidence I gave you?

            There was no actual evidence. You gave a PDF and a NIPSVS of something, you yourself admitted, to have no idea, if the used math worked out.

            That is no evidence, that is just “posting something”.

            By the way – why would you giving me evicence PLUS a drawing of a horse?

          • Alex Reynard

            I want to reply to this, because you at least tried to respond to each of my points, which I respect, but… Geez, man, you misunderstood some of my points so badly, I don’t have any faith that anything I say will make a difference here. I’m recognizing this as a conversation I don’t think I can get anywhere with, so I’m just leaving.

            I can’t resist saying one thing though: I did not give her “an NIPSVS”. That is not a file. It is a large-scale government sexual violence survey, of which I gave her the data tables. That IS evidence. And you’re mixing up which file I said what about. Those last three paragraphs are inaccurate in so many ways, I cannot hope to argue against them.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            But you did read, what Hannah wrote, yes?

            Quote: “I distrust it because the creators of it were clearly either lying or
            morons, and it didn’t help at all to prove your point; rape statistics
            are greatly skewed against women even including “forced to penetrate.”
            They’re approximately three times higher, with the “one in five” rate
            remaining accurate. And that’s leaving out “sexual coercion,” itself
            something I see as a form of rape, which has an even higher skewing
            along with all other forms of sexual violence.” Unqoute

            So – it is NOT evidence.

            And I don’t know, what there is to misunderstand.

            You say that WEALTH, not MEN were in power – which is neat, because Men were wealthier then women even if we don’t take the super-rich-people in consideration, simple because Men were allowed to work, women were not.

            You don’t have a problem with the fact, that most of the products have still the male-target-group in mind and you say “What’s wrong about this?” and bring “Women dominate the bookshelves” into play.
            Even if that’d be right – that does not make it okay, if the rest of the products is targeted towards men.

            Plus – even if the most prolific genre would be the romance novels, you still have a huge amount of sci-fi-novels, mangas, comics, crime stories, horror stories, comedy, etc. that are published, too. And I know that, because I’m a book-reader.
            When I go to my bookstore in town, I see this gigantic bookshelf, full with mangas (and not just romance, but crime, horror, mystery etc.).

            You say the equal-pay-gap is a myth and has been debunked and said (Just google it) – which I did and stumbled upon websites, that really would’ve a reason to call the theory “debunked”. And even those websites, that can be seen as “neutral” have articles saying that the theory is still alive and kicking.

          • Alex Reynard

            >But you did read, what Hannah wrote, yes?

            >So – it is NOT evidence.

            Actually, yes it is. I have no idea where she’s getting her numbers from, but in that PDF I gave, the CDC’s own data shows equal numbers of reported rapes from both genders. What she’s basically arguing is that all the common statistics, which ALSO don’t consider a woman victimizing a man as the same crime as a man victimizing a woman, are more correct than the ones that actually compare the data fairly.

            >You say that WEALTH, not MEN were in power – which is neat, because Men were wealthier then women even if we don’t take the super-rich-people in consideration, simple because Men were allowed to work, women were not.

            You completely ignored this pivotal sentence: “Do you really think the wives of kings and presidents have lived by the same standards of poor women?”

            You’re forgetting that throughout history, women have always been able to marry into money. This was acceptable, and expected, whereas a man who did the same thing would be shamed as a leech. You’re thinking of work as if it’s a privilege, whereas there’s probably a lot of people who’d be perfectly happy to get hitched to someone wealthy and get all the perks of their money without ever having to get your fingers dirty for it. Of course, these gender roles were still bad for individuals, because people couldn’t choose how they wanted to live. I’m not defending traditionalism, I’m only pointing out that these gender roles were _balanced_. You’re looking at literally half of reality and telling me that’s all there is to it.

            >You don’t have a problem with the fact, that most of the products have still the male-target-group in mind and you say “What’s wrong about this?” and bring “Women dominate the bookshelves” into play. Even if that’d be right – that does not make it okay, if the rest of the products is targeted towards men.

            Why shouldn’t that be okay!? Give me any reason to think this is bad, other than you declaring it to be. Most rap music is targeted towards a black audience. I don’t see anything wrong with that! Most anime is targeted towards an Asian audience. I don’t see anything wrong with that either! What, exactly, is wrong with creators making things that people like themselves would want to see?

            And similarly, if any group is mad that they’re not the target audience for a type of media, I would tell them to go make their own. It’s what I do. I’m a writer and I write the kind of stories I’d like to see more of.

            >Plus- even if the most prolific genre would be the romance novels, you still have a huge amount of sci-fi-novels, mangas, comics, crime stories, horror stories, comedy, etc. that are published, too. And I know that, because I’m a book-reader. When I go to my bookstore in town, I see this gigantic bookshelf, full with mangas (and not just romance, but crime, horror, mystery etc.).

            So!? Can you show me anything that proves that the greater numbers of male authors somehow keep female authors out? Or, let me ask a question: If the bookshlves were filled with exactly as many female authors as there are male authors now, would you see that as a problem, and argue against it just as passionately?

            >You say the equal-pay-gap is a myth and has been debunked and said (Just google it) -which I did and stumbled upon websites, that really would’ve a reason to call the theory “debunked”. And even those websites, that can be seen as “neutral” have articles saying that the theory is still alive and kicking.

            Right; just like how every aspect of religion has been debunked every way possible, yet people still believe in it. Why? Because It’s What They’d Prefer To Believe.

            Also, in your previous reply you said that, if corporations hired only women so they could pay them 30% less, the backlash would be so great it’d force them to stop. And that argument does make sense in theory, but unfortunately not in practice. Look at all the horrible ways WalMart mistreats their workers. Look at how BP killed 11 people and dumped oil all over the gulf. Look at how Chik-Fil-A came out against gay marriage. Did any of this hurt their business? Nope. And why? Because most consumers care more about convenience than conscience. The big corporations are so damn big that they can essentially do whatever they want and not fear boycotts. I have no doubt they could fire all the men, hire tons of women, pay them less, and find some way to spin it to make it sound progressive and compassionate.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            >>>But you did read, what Hannah wrote, yes?

            >>So – it is NOT evidence.

            >Actually, yes it is. I have no idea where she’s getting her numbers from, but in that PDF I gave, the CDC’s own data shows equal numbers of reported rapes from both genders. What she’s basically arguing is that all the common statistics, which ALSO don’t consider a woman victimizing a man as the same crime as a man victimizing a woman, are more correct than the ones that actually compare the data fairly.

            So, in plain English: You’ve no idea, where SHE got HER numbers from, but this little piece of “evidence” you want to use, is the only right one, while all the other
            statistics Hannah took into consideration are wrong and botched. Mhm.

            “I make this announcement and for that I use THIS piece of evidence, that is helping MY cause. Your evidences don’t count, because your evidences are not mine – they don’t take into consideration, what my evidences take into consideration.”

            >>You say that WEALTH, not MEN were in power – which is neat, because Men were wealthier then women even if we don’t take the super-rich-people in consideration, simple because Men were allowed to work, women were not.

            >You completely ignored this pivotal sentence: “Do you really think the wives of kings and presidents have lived by the same standards of poor women?”

            [quote] Of course the working class man had not the same standard of living as the company-owner, [/quote] this half-sentence alone should answer the question above, but, if you need it to spelled out: No – of course the wives of kings and presidents, lived by other standards of poor women. By the way – Queens did so,
            too. That does not change the situation of the women, who were not that lucky.
            And – again – contrary to men, who still were able to choose work.

            > You’re forgetting that throughout history, women have always been able to marry into money. This was acceptable, and expected, whereas a man who did the same thing would be shamed as a leech. You’re thinking of work as if it’s a privilege, whereas there’s probably a lot of people who’d be perfectly happy to get hitched to someone wealthy and get all the perks of their money without ever having to get your fingers dirty for it. Of course, these gender roles were still bad for individuals, because people couldn’t choose how they wanted to live. I’m not defending traditionalism, I’m only pointing out that these gender roles were _balanced_. You’re looking at literally half of reality and telling me that’s all there is to it.

            They were NOT balanced.

            A woman was expected to look for a guy, who was wealthy and could provide her – and that was about it. Basically, she had to prostitute herself, in order to have more money. And while this is the oldest business on this planet – and while there are persons who would prefer this way of live – not every woman wants to live that way. But back in the times of kings, that was the only way, you’re average jane could survive. Find a wealthy guy.

            Oh, she could choose the nice guy next door, but he would be not wealthy, so if
            she is so stupid to let her heart decide and not her head, then its clearly her
            fault, that she can’t get anywhere.

            In contrast: Back in the day, a man could get anywhere, just through his own hands work. I’m not saying, that just, because he had work, he would suddenly live like a king, BUT I’m saying that he still had a better perspective than the woman.

            And actually, no, I don’t see work as a privilege, I actually prefer a concept called “bedingungsloses Grundeinkommen” (BGE) / unconditional basic income (UBI).

            >>You don’t have a problem with the fact, that most of the products have still the
            male-target-group in mind and you say “What’s wrong about this?” and
            bring “Women dominate the bookshelves” into play. Even if that’d be
            right – that does not make it okay, if the rest of the products is targeted
            towards men.

            > Why shouldn’t that be okay!? Give me any reason to think this is bad, other than you declaring it to be. Most rap music is targeted towards a black audience. I don’t see anything wrong with that! Most anime is targeted towards an Asian audience. I don’t see anything wrong with that either! What, exactly, is wrong with creators making things that people like themselves would want to see?

            You’re right, why would that be wrong. Why would it be wrong, that the most of the products are targeted towards us – after all, we as men are a big part of the population, roughly about fifty percent. Whom are we screwing over… oh, right – the other fifty percent, this womenfolk. Naaah, what do they know. They get their romance novels, tons and tons of romance novels, let them be happy, that they dominate one small part of the gross domestic output. Eh? What do you say? It’s just a small percentage? Ah, who cares. (irony off)

            So – most of the products – ANY products, not counting stuff like kitchen utensils, are produced, with our target demographic (men) in mind. That means that the other half of this worlds population is not counted on, is not what the marketing-guys have in mind.

            Take toys for example.

            For boys you can buy a farm, cars, work-benches, action figures, nerf-guns,
            star wars light sabres etc. What do girls get? Barbie. Baby born, Lego friends.
            You see, where this is going, yeah?

            Men be farmers, car drivers, handymen, soldiers for good – women can take care of the baby.

            I dunno – make the experiment. Go into your local toy shop and say, that tomorrow is your nieces birthday and you would like the new destructo 5000 nerf gun as a gift.

            Or say, that your nephew is celebrating his birthday tomorrow, and you’d like to buy the new Barbie playhouse.

            Wat meinste, wie die/der Verkäufer/in gucken wird. (What do you think, how the salesperson will look at you).

            >>Plus- even if the most prolific genre would be the romance novels, you still have a huge amount of sci-fi-novels, mangas, comics, crime stories, horror stories, comedy, etc. that are published, too. And I know that, because I’m a book-reader. When I go to my bookstore in town, I see this gigantic bookshelf, full with mangas (and not just romance, but crime, horror, mystery etc.).

            > So!? Can you show me anything that proves that the greater numbers of male authors somehow keep female authors out? Or, let me ask a question: If the bookshlves were filled with exactly as many female authors as there are male authors now, would you see that as a problem, and argue against it just as passionately?

            Whooo exactly was talking about male authors would be keeping female authors out? I was just pointing out, that just because there is one genre (romance) that is dominating the bookshelves, that does not mean, that you cannot buy other genres in your local bookstore.

            >>You say the equal-pay-gap is a myth and has been debunked and said (Just google it) -which I did and stumbled upon websites, that really would’ve a reason to call the theory “debunked”. And even those websites, that can be seen as
            “neutral” have articles saying that the theory is still alive and
            kicking.

            >Right; just like how every aspect of religion has been debunked every way possible, yet people still believe in it. Why? Because It’s What They’d Prefer To Believe.

            “Because it’s what they’d prefer to believe” – for example that men are screwed over, when throughout history that was not the case?

            > Also, in your previous reply you said that, if corporations hired only women so they could pay them 30% less, the backlash would be so great it’d force them to stop. And that argument does make sense in theory, but unfortunately not in practice. Look at all the horrible ways WalMart mistreats their workers. Look at how BP killed 11 people and dumped oil all over the gulf. Look at how Chik-Fil-A came out against gay marriage. Did any of this hurt their business? Nope. And why? Because most consumers care more about convenience than conscience. The big corporations are so damn big that they can essentially do whatever they want and not fear boycotts. I have no doubt they could fire all the men, hire tons
            of women, pay them less, and find some way to spin it to make it sound
            progressive and compassionate.

            Yeah, because no company would OPENLY declare, that they’d just fire all the men in.
            NO company would be that stupid. See, 11 people – that’s a “bedauerlicher Unfall” (regrettable accident). Oil in the gulf – that’s a catastrophe, but, see that was a technical glitch.

            Yeah – consumers care about convenience – but if that company would openly declare, that they’d just fire all men and hire women and pay them less – do you REALLY think, that the consumers would say “Ah, well – then. Hey, great shop.”

            I honestly doubt that.

          • Alex Reynard

            >So, in plain English: You’ve no idea, where SHE got HER numbers from, but this little piece of “evidence” you want to use, is the only right one, while all the other statistics Hannah took into consideration are wrong and botched. Mhm.

            Stop for a moment and consider this: I provided evidence, in the form of a .pdf which came directly from the United States government’s Centers For Disease Control. SHE DID NOT PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL. Do you get that? If she had provided links or reports or something, and I’d dismissed those, THEN you’d have a point. But since she provided no sources for her answers, you DON’T.

            >[quote] Of course the working class man had not the same standard of living as the company-owner, [/quote] this half-sentence alone should answer the question above,

            No, it doesn’t.

            >but, if you need it to spelled out: No – of course the wives of kings and presidents, lived by other standards of poor women. By the way – Queens did so, too. That does not change the situation of the women, who were not that lucky. And – again – contrary to men, who still were able to choose work.

            You’re still saying ‘Women had it bad!’ And I’m saying, ‘Some of them did. A comparable number of men had it just as bad in different ways.’ And your rebuttal is, ‘But women had it bad!’ If I can use your exact reasoning to also prove my conclusion, then you haven’t proven your point.

            >A woman was expected to look for a guy, who was wealthy and could provide her – and that was about it. Basically, she had to prostitute herself, in order to have more money.

            Oh, you mean like how a man had to prostitute himself to a business owner in order to have more money? Men’s utility has value, so they sell it; Women’s sexuality and beauty have value, so they sell that.

            >And while this is the oldest business on this planet – and while there are persons who would prefer this way of live – not every woman wants to live that way. But back in the times of kings, that was the only way, you’re average jane could survive. Find a wealthy guy.

            Right; just like the only way for an average joe to survive was to WORK. And not every man would prefer to live that way. Neither gender had a choice in their role! That’s why gender roles are bad! I have literally already said this to you.

            >Oh, she could choose the nice guy next door, but he would be not wealthy, so if she is so stupid to let her heart decide and not her head, then its clearly her fault, that she can’t get anywhere.

            I’m not even sure what your point here is.

            >In contrast: Back in the day, a man could get anywhere, just through his own hands work. I’m not saying, that just, because he had work, he would suddenly live like a king, BUT I’m saying that he still had a better perspective than the woman.

            Oh really? It’s just that easy? So if I transported you back into medieval times, you’d be able to make a living with your hands? You wouldn’t need marketable skills? Maybe an apprenticeship? Where would you get the money to buy your equipment? And you wouldn’t have any problems if you were clumsy, blind or crippled? Tell me, do you have a job right now?

            >And actually, no, I don’t see work as a privilege, I actually prefer a concept called “bedingungsloses Grundeinkommen
            ” (BGE) / unconditional basic income (UBI).

            That’s a nice ideal, but until we have robots that can perform manual labor jobs for us, I don’t think it can happen.

            >You’re right, why would that be wrong. Why would it be wrong, that the most of the products are targeted towards us – after all, we as men are a big part of the population, roughly about fifty percent. Whom are we screwing over… oh, right – the other fifty percent, this womenfolk.

            Please answer the question: If media was female-dominated, would you be calling them out for screwing over men? Or are you viewing women as so inherently weak that they can’t compete? If they’re half of the population, don’t they have an equal chance to sell as many books and movies as men do?

            >Naaah, what do they know. They get their romance novels, tons and tons of romance novels, let them be happy, that they dominate one small part of the gross domestic output. Eh? What do you say? It’s just a small percentage? Ah, who cares. (irony off)

            Do you also think black people should make rap music more accessible to whites? Do you think the Japanese should make anime more accessible to Americans? If you write a story for yourself to enjoy, are you being selfish if you don’t write it to please me too?

            >So – most of the products – ANY products, not counting stuff like kitchen utensils, are produced, with our target demographic (men) in mind. That means that the other half of this worlds population is not counted on, is not what the marketing-guys have in mind.

            Actually, most advertising is targeted towards women, because women do more total spending than men. Try again.
            http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2013/u-s–women-control-the-purse-strings.html

            >Take toys for example. For boys you can buy a farm, cars, work-benches, action figures, nerf-guns, star wars light sabres etc. What do girls get? Barbie. Baby born, Lego friends. You see, where this is going, yeah? Men be farmers, car drivers, handymen, soldiers for good – women can take care of the baby.

            Have you ever considered that toy companies are in business to make money? And that they would not do things which make them lose money? And if this trend of gender-segregated toys has persisted for decades, maybe that’s because it’s making money? I agree I’d like to see less pink-and-frilly for girls, and less war-and-guns for boys. But companies are going to ignore consumer demands that contradict the facts of how those consumers actually spend their money. What is your solution to this problem that would make more money for toy companies?

            >I dunno – make the experiment. Go into your local toy shop and say, that tomorrow is your nieces birthday and you would like the new destructo 5000 nerf gun as a gift. Or say, that your nephew is celebrating his birthday tomorrow, and you’d like to buy the new Barbie playhouse. Wat meinste, wie die/der Verkäufer/in gucken wird. (What do you think, how the salesperson will look at you).

            Why would I care!? I’d just buy the toy and NOT TELL THE CLERK WHO IT’S FOR.

            >Who exactly was talking about male authors would be keeping female authors out?

            You’re the one talking about these mean, evil men dominating the media. By that logic, you must be inferring that they are somehow stopping the women from producing equal amounts of content. Otherwise the obvious solution would not be to tell the men to cater to women more; it would be to tell the women to create more content they want to see.

            >I was just pointing out, that just because there is one genre (romance) that is dominating the bookshelves, that does not mean, that you cannot buy other genres in your local bookstore.

            Yes, I agree. But that’s an irrelevant point. My reason for bringing up women and romance novels was to show that, in an area that is female dominated and does not cater to men, Men Don’t Care. Men don’t demand the women change their culture to suit men’s tastes.

            >“Because it’s what they’d prefer to believe” – for example that men are screwed over, when throughout history that was not the case?

            Gosh, I didn’t know that I’ve just been *imagining* those photos of male corpses, dead from war or industrial negligence! I had no idea that I was hallucinating about men forced into the role of breadwinner, or society not acknowledging the existence of male rape victims, or society holding husbands legally and financially responsible for the actions of their wives, or society normalizing the ritual cutting of baby boys’ genitals, or only men being drafted for wars, or the prison population being over 90% male, or men being a majority of the homeless.

            >Yeah – consumers care about convenience – but if that company would openly declare, that they’d just fire all men and hire women and pay them less – do you REALLY think, that the consumers would say “Ah, well – then. Hey, great shop.”

            Not if they said it explicitly, no. Which is why I said, and you ignored, that they would spin it to sound progressive and compassionate.

            See, this is why I told you I didn’t want to get into an argument with you. You argue against things that I’ve already addressed as if I’d said nothing. You restate your arguments and ignore the ways I’ve challenged them. You ignore direct questions I ask you. If this were a basketball game, you would be cheating. You are ignoring the rules of debate. I hate playing with someone who makes up their own rules as they go along, and then declares themselves the winner.

          • Hannah Desyn

            I distrust it because the creators of it were clearly either lying or morons, and it didn’t help at all to prove your point; rape statistics are greatly skewed against women even including “forced to penetrate.” They’re approximately three times higher, with the “one in five” rate remaining accurate. And that’s leaving out “sexual coercion,” itself something I see as a form of rape, which has an even higher skewing along with all other forms of sexual violence.

            As for the rest, the pay gap is no longer 30% (not that I’ve ever known anyone to claim it so) nor is it universally related to sexism, but sexism continues to exist. A lot of is based around subtle things like women asking for raises being viewed more negatively than men.

            How many men are asking for fairer portrayals in romance novels? Fewer, I daresay, than the number of women who want fairer portrayals in video games and the like (not that that gender gap is all that big anymore).

            And the MRA society is, thankfully, too weak to make real policy decisions. May it ever remain so until they give up the need to attack feminism.

          • Alex Reynard

            >I distrust it because the creators of it were clearly either lying or morons

            Which “it” are you talking about? I gave you two files, one of which was an infographic made by TyphonBlue, who’s probably smarter than either of us. Look up her YouTube channel sometime.

            >and it didn’t help at all to prove your point; rape statistics are greatly skewed against women even including “forced to penetrate.” They’re approximately three times higher, with the “one in five” rate remaining accurate.

            Proof!? Where are you getting this data? It’s not from the NIPSVS .pdf I sent you, which showed in plain black-and-white that there were near-equal numbers of reported rapes from both men and women.

            >And that’s leaving out “sexual coercion,” itself something I see as a form of rape, which has an even higher skewing along with all other forms of sexual violence.

            …And did whatever source you’re getting from accurately survey sexual coercion among male victims too?

            Yes, of course, a lot of surveys say there’s way more women getting raped and way more men raping. That’s because society as a whole has only just barely opened its eyes to the concept that men can be raped by women. So any research that doesn’t take that into account is going to be biased and worthless. It’s like if every human had ever existed were blind, do you think our scientific research would ever mention color? Would it matter that color objectively existed, if we had never perceived it?

            >As for the rest, the pay gap is no longer 30% (not that I’ve ever known anyone to claim it so)

            I don’t believe you. I flat-out cannot believe that you’ve NEVER heard anyone say how women make 77 cents on the dollar, or some similar variation. It’s one of the most often-repeated claims of the feminist movement.

            >nor is it universally related to sexism, but sexism continues to exist.

            Yes. But you cannot use the mere existence of sexism to claim what percentage of a given issue is sexist.

            >A lot of is based around subtle things like women asking for raises being viewed more negatively than men.

            If you can show me research that concludes that, I’ll concede it. But I’ve also heard that women ask for raises less often. And just from common sense I know that people have a tendency, when they lose out on a job or promotion, to assume they were unfairly treated, rather than consider that maybe someone else was just better than them.

            >How many men are asking for fairer portrayals in romance novels? Fewer, I daresay, than the number of women who want fairer portrayals in video games and the like

            Why should the number of complaints matter? Plenty of feminists claim that unfair representation of media hurts women even if they’re not aware of it, and I could certainly make a similar claim about the unrealistically perfect men in women’s writing. If, tomorrow, millions of men started complaining that they didn’t like how they were portrayed in romance novels, would you take their side? Would you believe female authors should start considering their male readers more?

            I sure as hell don’t. Even if I was the only man who wasn’t complaining, I’d still think my fellow men were being lazy whiners who should stop trying to control what writers write. Of course, the fact that I’m a writer may influence that belief… And yes, this is what I hold myself to. I create the kind of stories I want to see more of, and I give my money to authors/directors/games that are positive representations of what I want to see. IMHO, if women want better portrayals in media, the most effective thing they can do is vote with their wallets. Or start typing.

            >And the MRA society is, thankfully, too weak to make real policy decisions. May it ever remain so until they give up the need to attack feminism.

            If we were talking about political parties, would you want a world where your party has a far louder voice, far more political power, and far more followers? Would you want a monopoly on ideas? Because that’s what it would be. Right now, there is only one allowable viewpoint about gender issues. That Is Not Healthy. Ideological purity inevitably leads to strangulation of dissent and abuses of censorship. I really don’t care that you don’t want the MRM to attack feminism. Feminism _needs_ to be opposed. For the exact same reason that corporate monopolies are bad for consumers: we are better served when businesses, and ideas, are in competition.

    • WOW, a real live MRA troll! I never thought I would get big enough on the internet for one of you guys to come after me! Thank you for this validation!

      • Alex Reynard

        No, see, you’re misusing that word. The word “troll” means someone who posts an exaggerated opinion they don’t really believe in for the purpose of laughing at the responses. It does not mean ‘someone who disagrees with my position’, as a lot of people nowadays use it to mean. As you can see by the long and thoughtful conversation I had with Hannah, I do believe in what I’m saying and I have reasons for what I believe. It’s surprising that a writer like you would make such a sloppy, elementary mistake about a word’s definition like that.

        Also, you forgot to respond to any of my criticisms. Did you hit ‘reply’ too soon?

        • “Also, you forgot to respond to any of my criticisms. Did you hit ‘reply’ too soon?”

          OMG, you’re almost adorable in a sad, pathetic kinda way.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            Well concerning he didn’t respond to any of my points, I … erm…. pointed out… I could bitch, too as he is doing – but I won’t. ^^

          • Don’t try to engage this guy it a battle of reasoning. He’s unarmed.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            Worse, he thinks, that he is using grade a attillary – but they are nothing but blanks. ^^

          • Alex Reynard

            Actually, I wasn’t aware you were replying to me. When I get replies, I’m notified by email. I didn’t get one from you, so I assumed your response was to Hannah.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            And when you READ those comments “directed to Hannah” you did not notice, that I was covering your talking points?

          • Alex Reynard

            Insults are meaningless. They’re not arguments. They don’t prove me wrong, they don’t prove you right. If you can show me why I’m wrong about *anything* I’ve said, I’ll listen. If you’re not going to, then seriously, why are you responding to me at all? What did you expect would happen?

          • I can’t say I much gave a shit how you responded. I just enjoy mocking silly people from time to time.

  • Orion

    Largely I agree with you. you said most of what I’ve been saying to people for a while and better than I could. Where we differ is that I think what George Perez was trying to do in the 80s was largely a step in the right direction, but not without a few stumbles (some of which I believe were decisions made by higher-ups rather than Perez himself). Where I think things went wrong was the 90s when they took Perez off the book so they could change directions again.

    The more stable mythological background was just fine, much of what he did made a lot of sense. I’m sorry about the invisible Jet, but if your society never leaves the island, why would you build such a thing? Lack of scientific progress, I feel for you, but their immortality made much of what causes science to move forward become non-issues for them. It didn’t make them less wise or intelligent, just content to have what they had. They still trained because they had been charged by the gods to stand guard over a great evil, but mostly their lives were still idyllic. Also Perez’s run gave her 4 Patron Goddesses and one God. And nothing of their War Aspects were involved in their patronage, Wisdom, Love ,Beauty and compassion, Strength and affinity with fire, and speed. It was much later that A more war-like Athena became more central to Wonder Woman’s story.

    The core tenets of Wonder Woman were still extremely strong during Perez’s Run. There was a steady cast of characters that developed along with her. And there were times where she fought aliens and such, during events like Millennium and Invasion, and I believe such things would have become more frequent but The inevitable change in staff happened and the new team decided to jettison most of what had been establish to make her more like what you’ve been talking about more “Man hating” and violent. Rarely did we ever see the Diana we loved again after that.

    Like I said, I mostly agree with your article. I just felt a need to stick up for George Perez. A lot of things Damaged Wonder Woman’s character, but his run I don’t believe was one of them.

    • I feel you, man. And I didn’t mean to imply I didn’t like the Perez run either, because the man is one of my favorite comic writers. Divorced from my personal nitpicky preferences, it was a great run, and did make additions to the mythology I like (the new “sculpted from clay” origin, for example). I mostly referenced his work as the starting point for some trends that got out of control later on. Perez’s WW was at heart still the compassionate heroine I love, which is what’s important.

  • So you don’t like the new Wonder Woman look and wrote a gazillion words based on nothing but your own speculation bitching about something you haven’t even seen in motion.
    You know what? I think this looks very good for what it’s supposed to do and with the look of the previous film. About your opinion, well… opinions are like anuses, we all have one and all of them stink.

    • CaptainCalvinCat

      And I say “Thank you for your opinion”. Yeah, strange, since I’m the first one to defend a movie or show, that others tear to pieces, if I don’t see it as that bad, but in this case, I have to admit, from all the bits and pieces, that we already KNOW, that this will probably not the Wonder Woman, that I (or Josh) will like.

      • Well, yeah, so?

        • CaptainCalvinCat

          Soooo it is perfectly reasonable for Josh to have this opinion, me to understand said opinion. On the other hand: What is NOT reasonable, is you being bitchy about Josh actually having an opinion and him daring to speak his mind based on those few facts we have.

          • I take it you did not understand this part of my OP?
            “About your opinion, well… opinions are like anuses, we all have one and all of them stink.”

          • Muthsarah

            If you’re going to wear that quote as you do…then what’s the purpose of giving YOUR opinion? Why are you even here, on a review/criticism site, which is all about people giving opinions on stuff? Hell, why even read? I mean, that’s, just, like, the author’s opinion, man….

            Yeah, it’s fine to be able to put opinions in context. But “all of them stink”? So, opinions, in general, are bad. Even if we take that to mean opinions are subjectively bad, what’s the point of having one then? Is it wrong to respect the opinions of another, if they’re supposed to be bad?

            I get the quote. Yeah, humorous (not really). “Dumb uncle humor”. But why make that your central point, again, on a review site?

          • Sofie Liv

            I am afraid to say.. This is indeed a site, that is based around people discussing opinions.
            The entire function and foundation of this site, is for us the reviewers, to have an opinon and then some-how, challenge that opinion with thoughts, research and examples.

            Our opinions might not always be correct, some-times it is so much a matter of opinion that it can’t ever be entire correct or incorrect but just an opinion.

            How-ever, to explore and argue these opinions with sound argumentation, knowledges and examples, can actually help us explore these ideas and concepts and help us learn, widen the horizont and make us, both smarter and wiser people.

            If we are at least willing to listen.

            To me, a good argue, and what I do here on this site, is both very entertaining to me, I love finding details and talk about them.
            But it’s also very interesting and I feel like talking about all these things gives me a deeper appreciation for the things I allready loved so..

            No need for such crude languet on our site which yup, indeed is about opinon sir Esteban.

          • You’re adorable. (and I mean it in a good, non-sarcastic way)

            The point is that my opinion will stink to some people the same way the opinion of others may stink to me.
            Some people, however, are willing to take things too far to be the ones with the last word in.

          • Dude, the only one who seems desperate to have the last word here is you.

          • ;)

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            Very mature.

          • Wizkamridr

            The problem is some of us are not willing to listen.
            “——– movie ruined my childhood! You have no right to defend it!”
            Both sides are stubborn.

      • Wizkamridr

        Bale was never my favorite Batsy. His chain smoking voice was annoying. I never felt he was a badass, especially in the last film. He came off as an idiot. (Just my opinion.) Looking forward to Batfleck.

  • Can we at least wait until we see the movie before judging this stuff?

    • I tried that with Man of Steel. Didn’t go well.

      • CaptainCalvinCat

        Same here, by the way. My first glance to how MoS would be looking like was during an episode of the Webshow, that I’m part of. We looked at a picture and my reaction was “Come on, let’s see how that develops. I mean, it looks like shit, but let’s see how it develops. Maybe it’s good”.

        Then I watched the trailer of this movie on the “The Dark Knight Rises” dvd and my immedieate reaction was: “THis is gonna be painful, isn’t it?”
        And yes – from the review of the critic/Angry Joe Crossover and Josh’s review here, I’m not that overwhelmed. Then I saw, who was partially responsible for it and I allowed myself a “If you can see on TNMT, that Michael Bay is the producer, then you can see, that Christopher Nolan is the producer of this piece of crap and it frakking shows” moment.

        So – yeah…. of course I will wait, after I see this movie to say something about it, but my hopes are not very high up. More like “Oh boy…. this will be painful, will it not?”

      • Wizkamridr

        I guess I was the only one who read the critic reviews before going to the theater. They said it sucked, but I didn’t care.
        What were you expecting from Snyder? I put him on the same level as Bay. All action, paper thin plot. I couldn’t care less about 300 or Watchmen. They were meh for me. It is also a known fact that Goyer doesn’t like Superman. Reeve will always be my favorite version, but I still like all the versions of Superman, good and evil.

      • CaptainCalvinCat

        Well, now – I watched MoS, I watched BvS, I watched Suicide Squad, I watched Wonder Woman and I watched Justice league – from those 5 flicks, I’m in no hurry to see three of them again, which would be MoS, BvS and Suicide Squad. Wonder Woman and Justice League did great with what they had and I really, really liked them.

  • Wizkamridr
    • CaptainCalvinCat

      Yes, you are.

    • You are a horrible human being.

      • CaptainCalvinCat

        You’re right, he is.

  • Wizkamridr
  • Jonathan Campbell

    Okay, I’m bored and I’m a know-it-all, so…..

    Aphrodite was not that kind of love goddess.

    Aphrodite was not opposed to war or senseless slaughter. She wasn’t the enemy of Ares, either; in fact, she and Ares were LOVERS, precisely BECAUSE she was attracted to his bloodthirsty warrior ways.

    So, making Athena her patron goddess rather than Aphrodite…yeah, that actually makes a bit more sense.

    Marston basically reinterpreted Aphrodite as a goddess of PEACEFUL love in order to make her work for the character he was creating (or maybe he just got her wrong), so changing it to Athena and doing the same to her (since both Athena AND Aphrodite were kindof bitches, as was every other Greek god; Athena might have been a BIT nicer though) makes as much sense.

  • Ian Kacprzak

    Maybe Wonder Woman should be based on the Strength Tarot card, http://www.biddytarot.com/tarot-card-meanings/major-arcana/strength/ immense strength tempered by immense self control.

  • Neto Carvalho

    I love the way this article approaches feminism and talks about how Wonder Woman comics reflect how people see the movement over the decades. But the author’s Wonder Woman is not my Wonder Woman. I like her being a warrior, carrying a sword, and ultimately being a godess of war, whether her patron is Hera, Atena or Ares, but definitely not the original Aphrodite. If that new conception makes her devoid of originality, and just another warrior princess, well that’s a debate. I would hate to see her that way, but I can’t help but love the warlike one presented to me by Brian Azzarello* instead of her peacemaking original form.
    [*even though I don’t like all the concepts that writer uses in his mythological micro-cosmos]

    “No longer playing fast and loose with Greek mythology, the comics suddenly began valuing historical accuracy. Paradise Island became Themyscira, devoid of anything remotely fun or interesting. Gone were the giant space kangaroos, replaced with more conventional mythical creatures like pegasi. Gone were the strange space-age gadgets, leaving the Amazons still technologically primitive after thousands of years of immortality. Wonder Woman’s adventures lost their pulp sci-fi edge, confining themselves to the familiar world of Greek myth. Wonder Woman became almost completely earthbound, and those unique elements that remained, like her invisible jet, began to be downplayed.”
    Thank the gods for this part ^
    Giant space kangaroos? Space-age gadgets? Pulp sci-fi? I would hate to read that, particularly something that blends something as awesome as mythology with all this scif-fi crap.

    • WelshPirate

      I mostly agree with you. It’s not “creative” to take a culture that actually existed in real life and then mutilate every single fact we know about them to be the exact polar opposite, boiling them down to a half-arsed explanation for why the main character has superpowers. That’s the exact opposite of being creative and unique. If Marston wanted to be creative and unique, he would’ve made Paradise Island his own separate, fictional creation. If he wanted to call them Amazons, then he should’ve had them act somewhat remotely like Amazons. Nobody is going to buy it if you show them a picture of Ghandi and claim he’s a Spartan. And quite honestly, I have always been uncomfortable about how Wonder Woman is supposedly from a Turkish culture heavily seeped in Greek mythology, yet she’s drawn as a Caucasian clad like a walking American flag. To look at her you’d think she was a Captain America sidekick.

      Having said that, I can get behind the idea of Diana being largely about love and peace and compassion. But if you’re going to call her an Amazon at the same time, she needs to be kind of the “liberal progressive” of her homeland. This might actually make an opportunity to give her a personality worth remembering by having her constantly have an inner conflict between her belief in peaceful coexistence, and her warlike upbringing that has shaped her so that she actually kind of enjoys the challenge of a good fight. A good writer might even be able to bring up some good “nature vs nurture” examinations with that.

  • stephenmonteith

    This is the most rambling, directionless article I’ve ever read. You made a handful of relevant points along the way, but it wasn’t until you reached the Gail Simone quote that I had any idea what you meant by “-my- Wonder Woman”. Hundreds of words dedicated to a point it took you almost your entire article to even describe, let alone define.

    Yes, I agree Wonder Woman should be an ambassador, a foe of the God of War instead of a de facto servant. But the presence of the armor does not confirm the “I’m here to chew bubble gum and kick ass” mentality. Amazons may worship Aphrodite, but they’re still warriors, and as such, they still wear armor and carry weapons. One picture cannot be used to outline an entire character. Princess Diana won’t be “defined” in the Snyderverse for another year and a half. Do you have any reason, besides the fact that she’s carrying a sword, to suppose that this is not -your- Wonder Woman? At least wait until the movie comes out to make such a “bold” statement. You can defend your version of her all you want; but at this point, for all you know, you and Zack Snyder have exactly the same concept of her.

    • Wizkamridr

      I couldn’t give two f—- about WW, but I will still give this movie a chance.

  • Aya Taylor

    Feminism is not simple “equality between the sexes”. To be a feminist you have to believe in Feminist theory: notably Patriarchy theory.

    “fact that all men are jerks”

    Yeah that’s so much worse than the actual feminist lines of “all men are potential rapists” and Masculinity is toxic” and “needs redefining”.

    • CaptainCalvinCat

      I don’t think so – I am a feminist and I don’t think that all men are jerks, potential rapists or that masculinity would be toxic… because – you know, I am a man. That would be completely contradictory.

      But I think, that there needs to be equality.

      • Aya Taylor

        I’d rather be called a jerk than a potential rapist who needs to be taught not to rape in consent classes.

        But one’s a “straw feminist”, The other is a real feminist ascribing to Schrodingers Rapist, a popular feminist article and Yes means Yes policy.

        “Equality” is a meaningless term. It can mean anything depending on how it’s interpreted. Feminists have their set of interpretations under the umbrella of feminist theory. It’s thus intellectually dishonest to say feminism = gender equality. It’s more accurately ithought of as a proposed system or interpretation of gender equality.

        • CaptainCalvinCat

          I’d rather be called nothing of the above. Neither a jerk nor a rapist, but that’s just me. ^^

          Actually, “equality” is rather simple.
          Treat a woman as a person – or even better, treat her as you would like to be treated yourself.

          • Aya Taylor

            That’s thought policing, not equality.

            Equality in current feminist thought is actually quite complex. The idea that even the western world is a patriarchy, and requires the elimination of “male privilege” and “toxic masculinity” in order for women to no longer be the victims of hegemonic male dominance and “rape culture”..

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            To treat a person as you would like to be trated yourself is “thought policing” to you?

          • Aya Taylor

            Its telling grown adults how to behave. That has nothing to do with equal rights.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            Aya? There are rules and regulations, so called “etiquette”, telling grown adults how to behave. Yeah – and unless people stop treating other people like shit, I think, it is not that bad that there are rules and regulations.

          • Aya Taylor

            Ettiquette is not a matter of equality.

            We say all adults ought to be nice to young children because we know children are infants and fragile. So we rightly call an adult being a jerk to a child, “abusive”.
            Besides the law and professional practice, men have no obligation to be cordial to women or vice versa. Its a part of that little thing called freedom.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            And we call a person, who treats another person like shit, an asshole.

            Actually, you’re right, there is no obligation to be nice to other persons, but to be completely frank: I think, that’s where the problems are coming from.

            Think about it – if persons wouldn’t be treating other persons badly, there wouldn’t be a need to have those ettiquettes. If men would treat women as they would treat themselves, there would be no need for feminism.

          • Aya Taylor

            This sounds like part of the big push to criminalize behavior and free speech. Did you know that in Sweden, the most feminist country in the world, it’s now illegal to speak out against the immigration laws? http://conservative-headlines.com/2014/04/sweden-makes-it-illegal-to-criticize-immigrants-on-the-internet/They now they have one of the highest rape stats in the world. Or how about this:

            http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/world/husbands-who-yell-at-their-wives-face-up-to-14-years-in-prison-under-new-law

            “Men who exercise “coercive control” over their partners by restricting
            their personal or financial freedom, or through overt criticism could
            face up to 14 years in jail.”

            14 years for criticism? There are people in the UK who got less for murder.

            Oh ok, society should treat women like they treat men. So tv shows TThe talk) should laugh when a woman gets her genitals minced in a blender by her husband for wanting a divorce? Should do absolutely nothing if women were outnumbered 2 to 1 in universities? Should do nothing if women had a 4x higher suicide and 2x as many vagrancies and 20x as many work fatalities as men? Should do nothing about it being legal for the clitorial hood of babies to cut away without anesthetic? Should society not care if the woman is arrested in a mandatory action in all domestic violence cases that use the duluth model?

            You reckon there’d be no need for feminism then? Really?

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            Oh, Germany, the country I’M from, has it’s fair share of problems concerning speaking out against immigration, too – and if you ask me: sometimes that’s not without reason.
            SOMETIMES.

            14 years for “excercising coercive control” by restringting partners? That’s not nearly enough. And if you say “There are people in the UK who got less for murder.” – then I say: “Well, they must get more years for murder, apparently”.

            Yes, society should treat women as they treat men.
            No laughing at genital-mincing by their partners but putting the partner behind lock and bar.
            And concerning those other things: Well, the society SHOULD DO something against it. When it is reasonable.
            Are there more women then men in universities?
            If the women is domestically violent – arrest her. Same goes for the man. If he is domestically violent – arrest him.

          • Aya Taylor

            Sweden is known as the rape capital of the western world because they have little to no ability to arrest Islamic riots. The Swedish men aren’t the ones raping. They are however de-masculinized and afraid to do anything about it.

            “That’s not nearly enough.”

            Oh so men should get longer than 14 years according to you for criticizing someone who chooses to stay with them. Women of course can criticize men all day because no one will take it seriously when a man tries to use this law against a woman. And in fact when she issues a counter claim she is the one who will be taken seriously.
            Why would any man want to risk getting married again?

            “No laughing at genital-mincing by their partners but putting the partner behind lock and bar.”

            Oh but in this culture women get to laugh about it on TV and not get fired.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muuFygvXPAM

            “If the women is domestically violent – arrest her. Same goes for the man. If he is domestically violent – arrest him.”

            That’s not how the duluth model works.

            Read their website. Here’s an exerpt:

            “Believes that battering is a pattern of actions used to intentionally
            control or dominate an intimate partner and actively works to change
            societal conditions that support men’s use of tactics of power and
            control over women.”

            “Prioritizes the voices and experiences of women who experience battering in the creation of those policies and procedures.”

            “Does your community have a shelter for battered women and support
            groups? Does your community have intervention programs for men who
            batter?”

            And of course their mandatory arrest policy of the man. From this, you’d think men were always or almost always the abuser. Yet:

            http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

            “Data from Home Office statistical bulletins and the British Crime Survey
            show that men made up about 40% of domestic violence victims each year
            between 2004-05 and 2008-09, the last year for which figures are
            available. In 2006-07 men made up 43.4%”

            Feminist policies and data are completely disconnected from reality. Case n’ point: http://thefederalist.com/2014/12/11/new-doj-data-on-sexual-assaults-college-students-are-actually-less-likely-to-be-victimized/

            http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/01/no-women-don-t-make-less-money-than-men.html

            When feminists are shouting down MRA meetings, burning books: http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2014/06/18/when-a-feminist-near-a-fireplace-grabbed-hold-of-a-copy-of-the-war-against-boys-this-happened/ encouraging people to vote NO to a male space on campus, that’s not a straw feminist.

            “Are there more women then men in universities? ”

            Yes. By about 2 to 1.

          • CaptainCalvinCat

            “Sweden is known as the rape capital of the western world because they have little to no ability to arrest Islamic riots. The Swedish men aren’t the ones raping. They are however de-masculinized and afraid to do anything about it.” – Ja, nee, is klar. Swedish men are afraid of doing anything about it – I’m sure, they are.
            ^^

            “Oh so men should get longer than 14 years according to you for criticizing someone who chooses to stay with them. Women of course can criticize men all day because no one will take it seriously when a man tries to use this law against a woman. And in fact when she issues a counter claim she is the one who will be taken seriously. Why would any man want to risk getting married again?”

            “Men who exercise “coercive control” over their partners by restricting
            their personal or financial freedom, or through overt criticism could
            face up to 14 years in jail.”

            let’s forget about the “overt criticism” for a moment and say – yes: If you’re restricting your partner in personal or financial freedom, then, YES, 14 years are not nearly enough.

            If we talk about “overt criticism” – let’s say “Dont be silly, you CAN’T do this,
            after all you’re a WOMAN” – well… that is hurting the feelings and should
            be punishable, of course.

            “Why would a man want to risk getting married again?” What – is the only perk of getting married, that you can bully around your wife?

            “”No laughing at genital-mincing by their partners but putting the partner behind lock and bar.”

            Oh but in this culture women get to laugh about it on TV and not get fired.”

            Yeah, and it is disgusting.
            On the other hand – people laugh about other people eating maggots for our
            enjoyment, so – yeap, society is awful.

            concerning your exerpts of the Duluth-Model:

            “Believes that battering is a pattern of actions used to intentionally
            control or dominate an intimate partner and actively works to change
            societal conditions that support men’s use of tactics of power and
            control over women.”

            Yeap, I can see that.

            “Prioritizes the voices and experiences of women who experience battering in the creation of those policies and procedures.”

            I can see that, too.

            “Does your community have a shelter for battered women and support
            groups? Does your community have intervention programs for men who
            batter?”

            I can see that as helpful, too, yes.

            “And of course their mandatory arrest policy of the man. From this, you’d think men were always or almost always the abuser.” Not always – sure not always. But for those, who are the abusers, this might prove helpful.

            And concerning equality: I agree with you there.

            We need a shelter for battered men, as well as support groups and we need intervention programs for women, who batter. Of course, we need that.

          • Aya Taylor

            “I’m sure, they are.”

            The most feminist country in the world, Sweden, has the highest rape rate in all of Europe and 2nd highest in the world. So maybe it is Swedish men raping too. Clearly the increasing feminism is not helping as the rate has quadrupled since 1990. Feminism is also destroying Japan’s population, and has resulted in 70% of men aged 20-34 to be unmarried in the US. The rate of single people living alone has also doubled since second wave feminism.
            The CDC found that women were overall 2.5 times more likely to take antidepressants than men. and women report increased misery: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1218372/Why-women-miserable.html

            “let’s forget about the “overt criticism” for a moment”

            Why?

            Restricting someone’s fianancial freedom when you have a shared account is abuse worthy of 14 years in jail? And you wonder why we think feminists are crazy? Did you know that Danny Mclean got a minimum sentence of 15 years for stabbing someone in the liver and twisting the knife? This means he can theoretically be out after only serving 15 years. If he makes parole.

            “let’s say “Dont be silly, you CAN’T do this,
            after all you’re a WOMAN” – well… that is hurting the feelings and should
            be punishable, of course.”

            Which is infantilizing women, is horribly open for abuse and false accusation, and runs counter to the feminist notion that women are in any way strong. They are equivalent to the sensitivity of small children if we need police to come take the man away for hurting her wittle feelings.

            “What – is the only perk of getting married, that you can bully around your wife?”

            There are no perks to getting married. It’s entering a situation where you, as a man, have no power.

            A man stays in a marriage, he risks being falsely accused of marital rape, overt criticism (something that doesnt leave evidence), will be assumed to be the aggressor in domestic abuse, and should he leave, he risks losing 80% of his assets: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11497237/Construction-tycoon-left-homeless-after-ex-wife-wins-80-of-his-property-in-divorce.html

            And any of this being brought up as ammunition in a custody battle, likely resulting in him having to pay for kids he’ll no longer get to see. With lifelong alimony, a 60% likelyhood of divorce and a 70% chance she will initiate it. And should he get rich later in life post divorce, there’s a chance she’ll lay claim to more money: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueuyji2lDp4

            As far as rational decisionmaking goes, yes, you would have to be a thoughtless fool to get married now.

            “On the other hand – people laugh about other people eating maggots for our
            enjoyment, so – yeap, society is awful.”

            Way to trivialize it. This is why people hate feminists.

            “I can see that as helpful, too, yes”.

            It’s helpful that their language always refers to the abuser as male and the victim as female when domestic violence has since been proven to be a mostly back and forth, escalating violence from both sides? With 40% of the victims male? That’s only helpful to women. Which again shows feminist gynocentrism.

            “We need a shelter for battered men, as well as support groups and we
            need intervention programs for women, who batter. Of course, we need
            that.”

            What we need is feminists to stop with the male = abusing villain, and female = quiet victim hero. This narrative’s perpetuation will never result in the investment of resources for battered men.

  • RockyDmoney

    I agree. they basically turned WW into a Klingon. I’m not gonna question the quality of Azzerelo’s writing as I’m sure it was excellent my only gripe is maybe they should have applied it to a completely new character…hey creating new characters remember when Marvel/DC used to do that?

  • Jeff Motis

    What many people do is confuse the Suffragette movement with feminism. The Suffragette movement started in the 1800’s and was responsible for women’s right to vote, own property, have access to government, and many other rights. Feminism started in the early 1900’s and quickly started taking credit for the accomplishment of the Suffragettes. Suffragettes didn’t care who got the credit as long as the work got done. Feminists wrote books and went on lecture tours telling everybody how important they were.