What does it mean to be an Amazon?

  • 69 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by lilben42 (2487 posts) - - Show Bio

Also, what is the opposite of an Amazon?

#2 Edited by dshipp17 (544 posts) - - Show Bio

The opposite of an Amazon would be to be a woman that tries to find ways to get along with men; to move away from a bad relationship with one man and recognize the errors in judgement which likely lead you to choose that man as relationship material; from there, see the good in men, be forgiving and have a short attention span and renew another relationship with another man who you previously dismissed as a dweeb or loser; to not be judgmental of men based their looks; to not dismiss men as relationship material because of his looks, etc. To not approach situations with a brazen and belligerent attitude.

#3 Edited by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17: your concep of an amazon is false when it comes to wonder woman because wonder woman is an amazon and she treats people with respect,she tries to find the good in everybody and get along with women and men,she has no prejudice,she tries to trach women about sisterhood and she helps even her enemies.

#4 Edited by dshipp17 (544 posts) - - Show Bio

@gokuwarrior said:

@dshipp17: your concep of an amazon is false when it comes to wonder woman because wonder woman is an amazon and she treats people with respect,she tries to find the good in everybody and get along with women and men,she has no prejudice,she tries to trach women about sisterhood and she helps even her enemies.

It's not false based on your points, as it's comparing apples to oranges; the topic is the Amazons, not Wonder Woman; and Wonder Woman's distinctiveness from the rest of the Amazons is not a developed topic because we don't know how she got so different from the other Amazons. Your perception of Wonder Woman does not jive with anything, if but for the fact that her stories have not allowed her to be defined in such a way in all of the different possible circumstances. As one example, her interactions with Dr. Psycho, post crisis, does not bare that description out, but it's been the writers and the lack of time spent between the two, to really determine one way or another; the New 52 version, as displayed in JL, certainly does not bare those opinions out in any respect and her solely barely does, based on the limited panel space devoted to displaying this concept and addressing those topics.

#5 Edited by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17: that's because johns made her the typical sterotype warrior,in perez,ruka and simone runs,her character is well defined,she is comppasionate and kind like a devoted mother but also powerful and fearless like a true warrior,she has shown comppasionate and understanding to everyone even her villans,of course that happended in perez,ruka and simone runs,her creator wanted her to be a wonan with all the power of superman,independent and fearless,but also comppasionate and kind,and in perez,ruka and simone runs we have that concept of her character very well defined.

#6 Edited by dshipp17 (544 posts) - - Show Bio

@gokuwarrior said:

@dshipp17: that's because johns made her the typical sterotype warrior,in perez,ruka and simone runs,her character is well defined,she is comppasionate and kind like a devoted mother but also powerful and fearless like a true warrior,she has shown comppasionate and understanding to everyone even her villans,of course that happended in perez,ruka and simone runs,her creator wanted her to be a wonan with all the power of superman,independent and fearless,but also comppasionate and kind,and in perez,ruka and simone runs we have that concept of her character very well defined.

That means nothing, because I'm of the position that Rucka and Simone didn't follow precedent established by Messner-Loebs, so it cancels it out; just proves that this DC sees their runs as no better than Messner-Loebs run; again, you're only telling me how you'd like to be, while I'm talking about how things are in relation to Wonder Woman. And those traits are not demonstrated in Perez, Rucka, and Simone's runs, particularly where Dr. Psycho was present (e.g. Wonder Woman simply interacted with Dr. Psycho by tossing him into a wall, Wonder Woman was eager to get Dr. Psycho back into confinement in Rucka's run, and Wonder Woman was eager to get Dr. Psycho back into confinement in Simone's run; there was no display of compassion and understanding, as you would have it, in those instances).

#7 Edited by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17: why would ruka and simone follow what messner-loebs did?,those runs are hated by 90% of the fans,asnd wonder woman has shown compasion and understanding to people and her villans in many occasion during perez,ruka and simone runs,the fact that you think messner-loebs did anything good with her character is just how you would like it to be,but most people don't care about those runs,they are trash.

#8 Edited by dshipp17 (544 posts) - - Show Bio

@gokuwarrior said:

@dshipp17: why would ruka and simone follow what messner-loebs did?,those runs are hated by 90% of the fans,asnd wonder woman has shown compasion and understanding to people and her villans in many occasion during perez,ruka and simone runs,the fact that you think messner-loebs did anything good with her character is just how you would like it to be,but most people don't care about those runs,they are trash.

Where are you getting your statics? Those aren't facts, just opinions; you're only referring back to opinions you've seen on message boards. Messner-Loebs established precedent because he came first and you follow precedent; that Rucka and Simone might have disagreed with the established precedent is irrelevant; just have to swallow your pride or choose to write another character. You can show compassion many ways but that doesn't prove that you're compassionate (e.g. the instances that I provided); that's where I suspect you're mixing apples and oranges again.

#9 Posted by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17: then i can say why loebs didn't follow what perez established,FAIL.

if you show comppasion it doesn't prove you are comppasuionate?,what are you smoking?.

wonder woman has shown comppasion during perez,ruka and simone runs,she saved cheetah during perez run even after all the things cheetah did to her,in ruka run she was willing to give her life to save the life of a kid that was turned into stone by meduza,in simone run she was fighting a green lantern but then she realized that fighting wasn't the answer and she let herself get hit over and over untill she could calm green lantern's rage and prove to him that she wanted to help,those are only a few examples of her good nature that was shown during those runs.

#10 Edited by dshipp17 (544 posts) - - Show Bio

@gokuwarrior said:

@dshipp17: then i can say why loebs didn't follow what perez established,FAIL.

if you show comppasion it doesn't prove you are comppasuionate?,what are you smoking?.

wonder woman has shown comppasion during perez,ruka and simone runs,she saved cheetah during perez run even after all the things cheetah did to her,in ruka run she was willing to give her life to save the life of a kid that was turned into stone by meduza,in simone run she was fighting a green lantern but then she realized that fighting wasn't the answer and she let herself get hit over and over untill she could calm green lantern's rage and prove to him that she wanted to help,those are only a few examples of her good nature that was shown during those runs.

So, doesn't mean a thing; they get canceled out by 'Wonder Woman simply interacted with Dr. Psycho by tossing him into a wall, Wonder Woman was eager to get Dr. Psycho back into confinement in Rucka's run, and Wonder Woman was eager to get Dr. Psycho back into confinement in Simone's run; there was no display of compassion and understanding, as you would have it, in those instances'; someone whose compassionate shows that across the board; that's very different from showing compassion when it suits you. Messner-Loebs didn't break any precedent established by Perez.

#11 Posted by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17: massner-loebs messed up with her,the fact that you think that those are the runs that writters should follow is just your oppinion and the oppinion of other 10 people in the world,thank god.

under what circumstance was wonder woman eager to dr psycho in ruka and simone runs?

#12 Edited by dshipp17 (544 posts) - - Show Bio

@gokuwarrior said:

@dshipp17: massner-loebs messed up with her,the fact that you think that those are the runs that writters should follow is just your oppinion and the oppinion of other 10 people in the world,thank god.

under what circumstance was wonder woman eager to dr psycho in ruka and simone runs?

Now that's just an opinion; Messner-Loebs didn't mess Wonder Woman up; and the fact still remains that he didn't go outside of precedent established by Perez. Given the amount of Wonder Woman material that Messner-Loebs was able to publish, there are clearly a lot of reads who enjoyed Messner-Loebs material; you might be sampling the readers who currently follow Wonder Woman from the readers who've probably long dropped Wonder Woman and lost interest; thus, because the sampling is flawed, you don't have the respect for Messner-Loebs that you should have; the respect that he earned; it proves that, sometimes, DC is not good at recouping lost readers and refraining from alienating readers they've lost; if DC did certain things to recoup fans who might have been fond of Messner-Loebs material, than Wonder Woman would explode in sales; there was no reason to depart from the material produce in the Messner-Loebs run in the manner which DC departed from it, immediately with the start of John Byrne's run. Since than, DC has clearly not looked back; however, logic tells us that the fans who were lost were than forever alienated by DC, with this approach; DC could have made more of an effort to recoup those readers but was clearly uninterested. I think you believe that Wonder Woman started at or around the Final Crisis event in 2006; it shows that you might be a little young; that's the material you seem to be hung up on, while I'm looking at Wonder Woman overall, following the COIE event.

Similar to the circumstances where Wonder Woman should have been eager to place Cheetah into confinement, much like the situation you described with Cheetah during the Perez run; if going by the way she was with Cheetah, instead of looking for ways to place Dr. Psycho into confinement she should have been looking for ways to empathize with Dr. Psycho; in the case of Dr. Psycho, she comes across more as seeking revenge while repackaging the quest as justice. Cheetah did a lot of things to Wonder Woman that should have her eager to get Cheetah placed in confinement. I think I'm a bit more on the issues of compassion and empathy as opposed to compassion along.

#13 Edited by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17: i've been a wonder woman fan since i was 3,i have been following her for 21 years,i'm still a fan,but i like the runs that have quality in the storiers and highligth moments in terms of battles and feats,messner-loebs runs have no fans,only a few people around the world,in all the forums on the internet you'll see that most people hate those runs,the sales dropped compared to perez,but thank god ruka came out and saved the title,ruka run had better sales,then simone run had even better sales,90% of the fans love perez,ruka and simone run,even azzarello run has more quality in the story and art than messner-loebs,nobody follows those runs because they were panned by critrics and fans and the sales were low,nobody wants to follow something that flopped and was rejected by most people.

#14 Posted by Danieles (124 posts) - - Show Bio

An amazon means what it means: a butch female , who only loves war/battle/ and to defeat their enemies, mostly men, for to proof herself that she is more powerful, without any particular further reason. Just power and Misandry. Wonder woman should/could be better than this.

#15 Posted by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@danieles: wonder woman has never been the way that you describe her,only johns is portraying her that way.

#16 Edited by Danieles (124 posts) - - Show Bio

@danieles: wonder woman has never been the way that you describe her,only johns is portraying her that way.

Goku, i agrees that my aknowledgement about wonder woman is not what i wishes to be, still learning, but, by her today's fans, i realizes a lot of things: 1. Her Job as feminist icon are very well done, since mostly of her fans even finds akwars/odd the fact that she is not very feminine 2. The fact that she has not love interest its a consecuence of her role as feminist icon: its more easier to find fans that supports her independence and "i can do everything by myself" than any other DC hero: even superman needs help, but anybody seems worried about. 3. the amazon background: thats the most awful one: because amazons in the greek werent precisely a good role model for women, and they never showed what WW shows: extreme physical strenght, super speed, and enhanced resistance/toughness. 4. I am the only here that realizes that she was designed as a BDSM Dominatrx/Mistress. Maybe thats what Marlston finally achieved, even after his dead: his wish to be punished by a strong woman, and ya guys , are supporting this idea widely.

#17 Posted by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@danieles: she wasn't designed as dominatrx,she is not trying to do everything by herself,she has been portayed as comppasionate and kind like a devoted mother and powerful and fearless like a warrior,that's how she's been portayed most of the time,wonder woman has shown to be comppasionate and kind many times,in the perez run we can see her fighting decay and she tried to take the fight to a place where nobody could get hurt,in other issue she fought a giant and she took him away to protect the people around,in other issue she is trying to talk to other amazon race trying to solve the problem without having to fight,in other issue she was fighting a super amazon like her and when the other amazon attacked people in a plane wonder woman left the fight to save the people,she also tried to talk with circe and solve the problem without having to fight,and i can also name instances like these in the ruka and simone runs,even in the azzarello run she has shown kindness like in issue 14 when she talked to that ghost girl with understanding and calm her rage,or the way she made orion feel better with himself,sometimes she can be tough when the situation warrants,but she has shown comppasion and kindness many many times in the last 20 years.

#18 Edited by dshipp17 (544 posts) - - Show Bio

@gokuwarrior said:

@dshipp17: i've been a wonder woman fan since i was 3,i have been following her for 21 years,i'm still a fan,but i like the runs that have quality in the storiers and highligth moments in terms of battles and feats,messner-loebs runs have no fans,only a few people around the world,in all the forums on the internet you'll see that most people hate those runs,the sales dropped compared to perez,but thank god ruka came out and saved the title,ruka run had better sales,then simone run had even better sales,90% of the fans love perez,ruka and simone run,even azzarello run has more quality in the story and art than messner-loebs,nobody follows those runs because they were panned by critrics and fans and the sales were low,nobody wants to follow something that flopped and was rejected by most people.

By logic, what you say about Messner-Loebs just cannot be true; a run that is a flop will never go past one year and about 16 to 20 issues; instead, Messner-Loebs has published more material than any other writer in modern history, including Perez. DC is a business and a business is not going to hang on to a title that's only producing the cancellation numbers that you suggest for very long. Again, you're sampling from the fans that filled the vacuum left over from the fans DC alienated who would have liked the Messner-Loebs material, so, of course, very few of those fans have a preference for the Messner-Loebs approach; you're sampling the new fans, where 90% of those have that opinion about the Perez material; actually, just watching forum posts, in this lot, I know more people from this fill in lot that I'd call ok with Messner-Loebs material; they're just not fond of it. Wonder Woman sold quite well during Messner-Loebs' run. The fans of his material have just long since been alienated and no longer subscribe to Wonder Woman; it's about 17 years later since Messner-Loebs departed, where, all that time, DC has carefully avoided going back to the Messner-Loebs style; it's really pretty similar to what happened to Marston himself.

#19 Posted by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17:for wonder woman's sales the messner-loebs runs were a flop,she sold more with perez,the messner-loebs sales were decent but a flop for her usual standard and no,most critics and fans have panned those runs,even other writters rejected those runs and said they are bad,that and the sales dropp compared to perez is why DC avoid them,and it was a good choise as we can see with the ruka and simone runs,they were more successful and critically acclaimed.

#20 Edited by dshipp17 (544 posts) - - Show Bio

@gokuwarrior said:

@dshipp17:for wonder woman's sales the messner-loebs runs were a flop,she sold more with perez,the messner-loebs sales were decent but a flop for her usual standard and no,most critics and fans have panned those runs,even other writters rejected those runs and said they are bad,that and the sales dropp compared to perez is why DC avoid them,and it was a good choise as we can see with the ruka and simone runs,they were more successful and critically acclaimed.

And with all do respect for Rucka or Simone, neither writer had even half of Messner-Loebs' longevity. You're now fabricating facts; Perez, as with any writer, left because his numbers were fading; sure, Messner-Loebs might not have reached the numbers of Perez at the peak of his run, but the numbers were certainly better than when Perez left; ironically, this gets back to my point that I really like Perez' run on issue #1 until around issue 24,at which point he did a combination of things which included making Wonder Woman a Mary Sue; that's why Messner-Loebs lasted so long; also, to make an analogy, why would a Bill Russell care about what a Bill Cartwright has to say about him as a center? It comes do to what those writers accomplished on Wonder Woman versus what Messner-Loebs accomplished on Wonder Woman. DC has been avoiding material like Messner-Loebs and Marston to Wonder Woman's peril, also, ever since.

I liked what Rucka might have done, because he had plans for Dr. Psycho and Ferdinand, and I liked what Simone might have done, but for editorial interference. By the way, aren't you supposed to be studying for your finals right now? Take from me, it'll lead to life long regrets down the road.

#21 Posted by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17: perez left because DC didn't want to invest more effort in wonder woman's 50 aniversary,he has had issues with DC many times before and after wonder woman,but the sales were good,and even better worldwide which is more important than just the US market,i'm traveling from spain to latin america very often and perez's run is still selling in those markets and in the rest of the world,messner-loebs sales never marched perez sales outside the US,not even the sales from the end of perez run,ruke and simone were also more successful and destroy messner-loebs outside the US too,even azzarello beats messner-loebs in the US and worldwide.

perez never made wonder woman a mary sue,wonder woman can look perfect but she still had issues,and the important about the character was the way she treats people,no prejudice,what she stands for,perez wonder woman gave many morality lessons and was a warrior with moral and codes,she was very interesting from start to end,ruka and simone were great too.

#22 Edited by dshipp17 (544 posts) - - Show Bio

@gokuwarrior said:

@dshipp17: perez left because DC didn't want to invest more effort in wonder woman's 50 aniversary,he has had issues with DC many times before and after wonder woman,but the sales were good,and even better worldwide which is more important than just the US market,i'm traveling from spain to latin america very often and perez's run is still selling in those markets and in the rest of the world,messner-loebs sales never marched perez sales outside the US,not even the sales from the end of perez run,ruke and simone were also more successful and destroy messner-loebs outside the US too,even azzarello beats messner-loebs in the US and worldwide.

perez never made wonder woman a mary sue,wonder woman can look perfect but she still had issues,and the important about the character was the way she treats people,no prejudice,what she stands for,perez wonder woman gave many morality lessons and was a warrior with moral and codes,she was very interesting from start to end,ruka and simone were great too.

Why of course, that's reflective of DC's efforts for 17 years away from Messner-Loebs' material and fans; that's part of my point; furher sales require further pushing of material. Has nothing what so ever to do with quality of past Wonder Woman material; people at that level would only know the material that the people placed in their face by DC is likely to talk about and recommend; someone that's been alienated is unlikely to be available for comment.

Perez made her into a Mary Sue and the other material you mention is why Wonder Woman material is struggling and stagnant; unlike pre-crisis Wonder Woman those qualities that you mention are no different from any other superhero to the extent I agree with it, which is not much, as I've previously stated earlier in this thread; they're (DC) not getting it that they should consider ending the alienation of the surviving Marston and Messner-Loebs fans and start drawing them back in; plus, that material has a duel positive of drawing in other fans with particular preferences that might not have considered Wonder Woman otherwise. Trying to draw off Messner-Loebs like material is only likely to help, especially where you have little other options as evidence by the stagnation of Wonder Woman material for 17 years.

#23 Edited by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17: messner-loebs have always been rejected,they were rejected back then and they are still rejected now.

wonder woman didn't struggle in sales in the perez,ruka and simone run,and she wasn't a mary sue,funny how you think that people need to find a lot of flaws in a character to like it,but i know that wonder woman is not perfect,i never found her to be perfect and i have seen her dealing with different type of issues,i love the way wonder woman is in the perez,ruka and simone runs and so does most of her fan base proved by the fact that those are her most successful runs,the qualities that i mentioned are part of wonder woman's character and they have been part of her character in most runs,excep a few like her version in the current JL comic.

#24 Posted by dmessmer (356 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:

The opposite of an Amazon would be to be a woman that tries to find ways to get along with men; to move away from a bad relationship with one man and recognize the errors in judgement which likely lead you to choose that man as relationship material; from there, see the good in men, be forgiving and have a short attention span and renew another relationship with another man who you previously dismissed as a dweeb or loser; to not be judgmental of men based their looks; to not dismiss men as relationship material because of his looks, etc. To not approach situations with a brazen and belligerent attitude.

Until the recent Azzarello retcon, the Amazons had no contact with men. Thus, there is nothing to base this statement on whatsoever. They had no relationships with men, good looking, ugly or anywhere in between.

@gokuwarrior: I wouldn't bother arguing with him on these points. I've tried before, and I found his obsession with Dr. Psycho odd and not subject to reasonable argument.

@danieles: It's true that the Amazons in Greek mythology weren't good role models, but I think that's the point of what Marston was trying to do by having Wonder Woman be an Amazon in the first place. At the time, the Amazons were one of the few known examples of truly independent and strong women, yet they were perceived as evil and man-hating. Marston wanted to reimagine what an all-female society would look like, replacing the fear and violence with a society of love and compassion (but without losing the strength). He was consciously rewriting the myth to make the Amazons into something positive.

#25 Edited by Outside_85 (7072 posts) - - Show Bio

@lilben42: In what way do you mean? Physically? To themselves? To non-Amazons?

#26 Posted by lilben42 (2487 posts) - - Show Bio
#27 Posted by Outside_85 (7072 posts) - - Show Bio

Hmm to Non-Amazons:

  • Member of an all female tribe
  • Immortal and superhumanly strong
  • Stuck in the Bronze Age
  • Worships the Olympian Gods
  • Lives on Paradise Island
  • Unconfirmed rumors about what happens to people who come to their island uninvited

To Amazons: (I am going to go with the pre-New 52 version since we still know very little about the new version)

  • A member of their sisterhood, either full or part-time (Honor Sisters)
  • Members must display courage, will and skill in battle
  • Be able to handle themselves
  • Be able to overcome great trauma
  • Be loyal to Queen Hippolyta first and foremost
#28 Posted by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@dmessmer: i'm starting to realize that is pointless to argue with him,but oh well.

#29 Posted by Danieles (124 posts) - - Show Bio

"At the time, the Amazons were one of the few known examples of truly independent and strong women, yet they were perceived as evil and man-hating. Marston wanted to reimagine what an all-female society would look like, replacing the fear and violence with a society of love and compassion (but without losing the strength). He was consciously rewriting the myth to make the Amazons into something positive" Positive? for who? Feminists? Our species gained success because there it was a sexual labor division in the early mankind. I knows that the current western civilization wants to erase this, and we are looking about the consecuences for this "positive" ideas: Family has been destroyed, marriages has been detroyed. The destruction of the family leads to worst problems, specially for the childhood: alcohol/drugs disorders, gangs, school problems, teenage pregnancy. You american guys thinks that to destroy families its a great idea, maybe the greeks had realized the danger of a independant strong women, and put the amazon myth into the high example for to warns us about the danger involved. Now i realizes that the greek people was right.

#30 Edited by dshipp17 (544 posts) - - Show Bio

@dmessmer said:

@dshipp17 said:

The opposite of an Amazon would be to be a woman that tries to find ways to get along with men; to move away from a bad relationship with one man and recognize the errors in judgement which likely lead you to choose that man as relationship material; from there, see the good in men, be forgiving and have a short attention span and renew another relationship with another man who you previously dismissed as a dweeb or loser; to not be judgmental of men based their looks; to not dismiss men as relationship material because of his looks, etc. To not approach situations with a brazen and belligerent attitude.

Until the recent Azzarello retcon, the Amazons had no contact with men. Thus, there is nothing to base this statement on whatsoever. They had no relationships with men, good looking, ugly or anywhere in between.

@gokuwarrior: I wouldn't bother arguing with him on these points. I've tried before, and I found his obsession with Dr. Psycho odd and not subject to reasonable argument.

@danieles: It's true that the Amazons in Greek mythology weren't good role models, but I think that's the point of what Marston was trying to do by having Wonder Woman be an Amazon in the first place. At the time, the Amazons were one of the few known examples of truly independent and strong women, yet they were perceived as evil and man-hating. Marston wanted to reimagine what an all-female society would look like, replacing the fear and violence with a society of love and compassion (but without losing the strength). He was consciously rewriting the myth to make the Amazons into something positive.

Now that's just not a smart post, especially in combination with some of your prior posts; the Amazons had no contact with men whatsoever? When you just said the Amazons left because they were persecuted by men instead of hating men? By the way, women have never been persecuted in the true meaning of the word in any society that I'm familiar with. They were treated bad in the Taliban but I would not call that persecution, at least if you're familiar with the word; persecution would mean that the men in said society were targeting the women with grievous violence in mind (e.g. murder, execution, genocide), even with the veil, simply because they are women (e.g. think back to around the year 64 AD, where the Romans were targeting people alleged to have been Christian); such a society would be drawn to extinction by its own hands.

Perez's reboot was about the souls of victimized women being reborn as the Amazons; the Marston Amazons separated themselves from men and started wearing bracelets as a reminder of their encounter with Hercules and his men. Wow, you really know how to engage in double speak with the best of them. Azzarello didn't create that backdrop, he just came along and made it more logical; women victimized by their men that they chose for themselves probably won't have a very favorable opinion of men; the problem comes along when those women can't think back to any decisions that they could have made in their choice in men that may have contributed to their own misfortunes; this is important to remember in those cases where the women go on crusades against men as a whole not necessarily the women that keep a low profile or become introverted or withdrawn because of the experience.

Thus, Perez's version in particular would have been the ones that I would have been referring to. You gave up with the Dr. Psycho debate simply because you lost it; I'm about as much into making Dr. Psycho a main subject in the Wonder Woman book as I am about Wonder Woman, because he's both a good foil for Wonder Woman and a connection to a big problem in society that's an authorized form of disadvantaging a certain group of people since the beginning of a civilization, the discrimination of people based on their looks; Goku at least keeps up a challenge and never gives up; even though it looks like we always disagree, I like him. Although I've been debating him, I must say he beat me in the debate about Ms. Marvel, but only because I'm struggling to find the issues that I remember visually but not by issue number and examples.

#31 Edited by dshipp17 (544 posts) - - Show Bio

@gokuwarrior said:

@dshipp17: messner-loebs have always been rejected,they were rejected back then and they are still rejected now.

wonder woman didn't struggle in sales in the perez,ruka and simone run,and she wasn't a mary sue,funny how you think that people need to find a lot of flaws in a character to like it,but i know that wonder woman is not perfect,i never found her to be perfect and i have seen her dealing with different type of issues,i love the way wonder woman is in the perez,ruka and simone runs and so does most of her fan base proved by the fact that those are her most successful runs,the qualities that i mentioned are part of wonder woman's character and they have been part of her character in most runs,excep a few like her version in the current JL comic.

That couldn't be true because Messner-Loebs created so much Wonder Woman material; couldn't be possible using material that the fan base was continually rejecting, meaning that the sales would have been at cancellation levels for the Wonder Woman title for a very extended period of time. With all of the material Messner-Loebs produced, if what you are saying were true, than it would mean that a business like DC had a religious devotion to Messner-Loebs.

#32 Posted by dmessmer (356 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:

@dmessmer said:

@dshipp17 said:

You gave up with the Dr. Psycho debate simply because you lost it;

I'm not sure why you feel that you can presume to know why I choose to leave a debate. It is clear to me that your fundamental views of women are different from mine in a way that prevents reasonable debate. I'm not saying that in a hostile way - I simply realized that you and I will never agree because the "givens" from which begin the trains of our logic are so different. We could go in circles endlessly, and at some point I don't think that's productive.

With that in mind, I'm not going to engage you here, either. If you want to chalk that up as a victory, go ahead. I will take comfort in the fact that your views have very little purchase in our society anymore, and are thus pretty inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

#33 Posted by dmessmer (356 posts) - - Show Bio

@danieles said:

"At the time, the Amazons were one of the few known examples of truly independent and strong women, yet they were perceived as evil and man-hating. Marston wanted to reimagine what an all-female society would look like, replacing the fear and violence with a society of love and compassion (but without losing the strength). He was consciously rewriting the myth to make the Amazons into something positive" Positive? for who? Feminists? Our species gained success because there it was a sexual labor division in the early mankind. I knows that the current western civilization wants to erase this, and we are looking about the consecuences for this "positive" ideas: Family has been destroyed, marriages has been detroyed. The destruction of the family leads to worst problems, specially for the childhood: alcohol/drugs disorders, gangs, school problems, teenage pregnancy. You american guys thinks that to destroy families its a great idea, maybe the greeks had realized the danger of a independant strong women, and put the amazon myth into the high example for to warns us about the danger involved. Now i realizes that the greek people was right.

Yes, for feminists. Marston wouldn't have used that term as it didn't really exist yet, but I think it's safe to say that, had he lived in a slightly later time he would have been a feminist.

And, yes, I would consider that a positive thing. Feminists are not man hating (there are some out there, but feminists, like women, and men, are not all the same and most feminists have great respect for men as well). And independence does not have to lead to the dissolution of family. A woman can be a wife and be independent as long as they aren't married to neanderthal's who expect them to take on all of the domestic aspects of a family. Both feminism and independence in a relationship are about equality, not hate. Seriously, have you ever read anything by a feminist written after 1985?

#34 Edited by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17: messner-loebs had a considerable amount of material yes,they had decent sales that's why it wasn't canceled but perez,ruka and simone were more successful,and most fans rejected messner-loebs,that's also a fact.

and i beat you in the ms marvel debate for a simple reason,you were trying to put ms marvel,a character that in 45 years never had any feat in the 100 ton range and has never been able to stand her ground against 100 tonners on par with wonder woman,a character that is consistently lifting things way above the 100 tons with ease and fighting and defeating characters way above the 100 tons,you can search all you want,you'll never find scans of ms marvel lifting more than 75 tons without absorbing energy,i know because i have read all her solo issues and many of her other appearances,and just in case,even if ms marvel was a 100 tonner(which she isn't),that wouldn't be enough,because wonder woman lifts things above the 500 tons regularly.

#35 Edited by dshipp17 (544 posts) - - Show Bio

@dmessmer said:

@dshipp17 said:

@dmessmer said:

@dshipp17 said:

You gave up with the Dr. Psycho debate simply because you lost it;

I'm not sure why you feel that you can presume to know why I choose to leave a debate. It is clear to me that your fundamental views of women are different from mine in a way that prevents reasonable debate. I'm not saying that in a hostile way - I simply realized that you and I will never agree because the "givens" from which begin the trains of our logic are so different. We could go in circles endlessly, and at some point I don't think that's productive.

With that in mind, I'm not going to engage you here, either. If you want to chalk that up as a victory, go ahead. I will take comfort in the fact that your views have very little purchase in our society anymore, and are thus pretty inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

What you're saying is something that's pretty transparent; you're saying that because we disagree with each other than we can't debate but if we agree with each other than we can debate; by definition, that's not a debate; it's two like minded people having an agreeable discussion about a topic. While I can say you lost the Dr. Psycho debate, I actually cannot see how you presume to know by views of women because I've never expressed them or discussed women as a whole; I only discussed a specific type of woman (the Amazons and shallow people in general, be it male or female) and Wonder Woman, and what conclusions can or cannot be drawn about her character based upon her pre and post crisis portrayal by the writers. That's fine though, only a special character knows how to lose debates and keep chalking along, but most people cannot lose and move in stride. You couldn't go along with the Dr. Psycho debate simply because you lost it based upon the stance you took in the argument; you just got check mated; you simply couldn't come back with anything that made logical sense, because your stance had very little logic; that's all, pure and simple. Says nothing of my fundamental views of women whatsoever; actually, to be honest, you haven't stated your views of women so much as you've stated your negative views of men and a male dominated society and have confused yourself into thinking that you can somehow know and speak for women as a whole; that's pretty blotted in my opinion; I don't like anyone receiving a broad brush, whether positive or negative.

#36 Edited by dshipp17 (544 posts) - - Show Bio

@gokuwarrior said:

@dshipp17: messner-loebs had a considerable amount of material yes,they had decent sales that's why it wasn't canceled but perez,ruka and simone were more successful,and most fans rejected messner-loebs,that's also a fact.

and i beat you in the ms marvel debate for a simple reason,you were trying to put ms marvel,a character that in 45 years never had any feat in the 100 ton range and has never been able to stand her ground against 100 tonners on par with wonder woman,a character that is consistently lifting things way above the 100 tons with ease and fighting and defeating characters way above the 100 tons,you can search all you want,you'll never find scans of ms marvel lifting more than 75 tons without absorbing energy,i know because i have read all her solo issues and many of her other appearances,and just in case,even if ms marvel was a 100 tonner(which she isn't),that wouldn't be enough,because wonder woman lifts things above the 500 tons regularly.

You can't be more successful than someone when you wasn't at the helm of the chore in even half the time of the other person; Messner-Loebs has much more published material than Rucka and Simone, probably combined, so fundamentally speaking, they cannot be more successful Wonder Woman writers. You may like their material better, but others like Messner-Loebs material better; I get that you like their material better; that's all I'm getting from your points.

I've seen Ms. Marvel perform feats similar or almost the same as Wonder Woman and remember thinking that this is Marvel's version of Wonder Woman; I just can't track down the issues at the moment; I'm looking and I'll come back at you with some scans soon. We cannot say that Wonder Woman has easily defeated characters similar to characters that defeated Ms. Marvel, because, as you say, Wonder Woman isn't a Marvel character; basically, I can say Wonder Woman appears to be an exaggerated and blotted, cartoon version of Ms. Marvel feat and strength-wise, where the Wonder Woman material is out of cannon.

#37 Posted by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17: perez,ruka and simone sold more with their runs than messner-loebs.

ms marvel has never performerd feats similar to wonder woman,lifting a truck,a bus and a tank doesn't put her on wonder woman's strength level because even spider-man can lift a bus,a tank,a truck,wonder woman lifts ships with ease,she lifts planes of 500 tons by herself with complete ease,it's a fact that ms marvel has been defeated by characters in the 100 tons range and above ALL THE TIME,while wonder woman is always able to deal with characters in those ranges,and wonder woman isn't an exaggerated and blotted cartoon version of Ms. Marvel feat and strength-wise,because wonder woman came out 27 years before ms marvel and wonder woman has been performing strength feats through her 72 years of career that ms marvel has never performed,ms marvel is not a wonder woman level character and she has never been written as such.

#38 Posted by dmessmer (356 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:

@dmessmer said:

@dshipp17 said:

@dmessmer said:

@dshipp17 said:

You gave up with the Dr. Psycho debate simply because you lost it;

I'm not sure why you feel that you can presume to know why I choose to leave a debate. It is clear to me that your fundamental views of women are different from mine in a way that prevents reasonable debate. I'm not saying that in a hostile way - I simply realized that you and I will never agree because the "givens" from which begin the trains of our logic are so different. We could go in circles endlessly, and at some point I don't think that's productive.

With that in mind, I'm not going to engage you here, either. If you want to chalk that up as a victory, go ahead. I will take comfort in the fact that your views have very little purchase in our society anymore, and are thus pretty inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

What you're saying is something that's pretty transparent; you're saying that because we disagree with each other than we can't debate but if we agree with each other than we can debate; by definition, that's not a debate; it's two like minded people having an agreeable discussion about a topic. While I can say you lost the Dr. Psycho debate, I actually cannot see how you presume to know by views of women because I've never expressed them or discussed women as a whole; I only discussed a specific type of woman (the Amazons and shallow people in general, be it male or female) and Wonder Woman, and what conclusions can or cannot be drawn about her character based upon her pre and post crisis portrayal by the writers. That's fine though, only a special character knows how to lose debates and keep chalking along, but most people cannot lose and move in stride. You couldn't go along with the Dr. Psycho debate simply because you lost it based upon the stance you took in the argument; you just got check mated; you simply couldn't come back with anything that made logical sense, because your stance had very little logic; that's all, pure and simple. Says nothing of my fundamental views of women whatsoever; actually, to be honest, you haven't stated your views of women so much as you've stated your negative views of men and a male dominated society and have confused yourself into thinking that you can somehow know and speak for women as a whole; that's pretty blotted in my opinion; I don't like anyone receiving a broad brush, whether positive or negative.

I have never spoken ill of men. In fact, I am a man myself. Your notion of a checkmate is laughable, as are most of your points. That is why I stopped engaging in the debate - you tend to say the same thing over and over and refuse to budge even when there are obvious logical flaws in your reasoning. I have more important things to do than to engage in that kind of "debate." You have repeatedly said that you think women should not be shallow and should look past people's looks, yet you have also, on other threads, made it very clear that you only want to read comics with sexy beautiful women. If you can't see the inherent logical contradiction there, then you are not someone I want to waste my time on.

Thus I will, once again, remove myself from this discussion. I'm sure you'll post again and decide that that makes you the winner of the debate. If that is how you choose to see things, then enjoy your "victory."

#39 Posted by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@dmessmer: it's also funny to hear him say that wonder woman is an exaggerated version of ms marvel power-wise when wonder woma came out 27 years before ms marvel,wonder woman did not have any powerhouse female to copy because she was the first,and a much bigger powerhouse than ms marvel has ever been.

#40 Posted by Sinisteri (550 posts) - - Show Bio

Interesting topic.

I cringe at the statement that women have never been truly persecuted or that they haven't reflected to think on what they did to bring misfortune on themselves. Historically, women have been denied the right to vote, make major life decisions such as who they married or birthing kids, or make as much money as men by doing same job as men. There was a very long period of time were it was acceptable to be raped and/or beat by husbands or any man. To this history of women, someone would dare say women have never truly be persecuted and that they should think of what they did to bring these conditions on themselves. What they did was be born female.

I also keep reading in this thread that the Amazons did not interact often with men pre-new 52. Please note that part of the pact with the gods that gave the Amazons immortality and peace was a commitment to stay away from men. It was not just a whim on the Amazons part. And for many years prior to new 52, the Amazon nation did interact with the rest of the world & men as a world power. There was an attempt by writers to evolve the Amazons from isolated to having a political voice amongst nations.

Amazon is a fierce warrior and an example of a female at her best- physically, mentally and emotionally aware of herself and her surroundings by being independent, determined and a survivor.

#41 Edited by dshipp17 (544 posts) - - Show Bio

@dmessmer said:

@dshipp17 said:

@dmessmer said:

@dshipp17 said:

@dmessmer said:

@dshipp17 said:

You gave up with the Dr. Psycho debate simply because you lost it;

I'm not sure why you feel that you can presume to know why I choose to leave a debate. It is clear to me that your fundamental views of women are different from mine in a way that prevents reasonable debate. I'm not saying that in a hostile way - I simply realized that you and I will never agree because the "givens" from which begin the trains of our logic are so different. We could go in circles endlessly, and at some point I don't think that's productive.

With that in mind, I'm not going to engage you here, either. If you want to chalk that up as a victory, go ahead. I will take comfort in the fact that your views have very little purchase in our society anymore, and are thus pretty inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

What you're saying is something that's pretty transparent; you're saying that because we disagree with each other than we can't debate but if we agree with each other than we can debate; by definition, that's not a debate; it's two like minded people having an agreeable discussion about a topic. While I can say you lost the Dr. Psycho debate, I actually cannot see how you presume to know by views of women because I've never expressed them or discussed women as a whole; I only discussed a specific type of woman (the Amazons and shallow people in general, be it male or female) and Wonder Woman, and what conclusions can or cannot be drawn about her character based upon her pre and post crisis portrayal by the writers. That's fine though, only a special character knows how to lose debates and keep chalking along, but most people cannot lose and move in stride. You couldn't go along with the Dr. Psycho debate simply because you lost it based upon the stance you took in the argument; you just got check mated; you simply couldn't come back with anything that made logical sense, because your stance had very little logic; that's all, pure and simple. Says nothing of my fundamental views of women whatsoever; actually, to be honest, you haven't stated your views of women so much as you've stated your negative views of men and a male dominated society and have confused yourself into thinking that you can somehow know and speak for women as a whole; that's pretty blotted in my opinion; I don't like anyone receiving a broad brush, whether positive or negative.

I have never spoken ill of men. In fact, I am a man myself. Your notion of a checkmate is laughable, as are most of your points. That is why I stopped engaging in the debate - you tend to say the same thing over and over and refuse to budge even when there are obvious logical flaws in your reasoning. I have more important things to do than to engage in that kind of "debate." You have repeatedly said that you think women should not be shallow and should look past people's looks, yet you have also, on other threads, made it very clear that you only want to read comics with sexy beautiful women. If you can't see the inherent logical contradiction there, then you are not someone I want to waste my time on.

Thus I will, once again, remove myself from this discussion. I'm sure you'll post again and decide that that makes you the winner of the debate. If that is how you choose to see things, then enjoy your "victory."

You speak ill of men implicitly and I already knew you were a man; that makes no difference whatsoever; you do it by constantly pointing out how women are victimized by men or how women may be meted by men to be victimized; you also always talk about how the male culture victimized women; you always find a way to say how an artist is objectifying women; it's all for show, but that's basically all it comes down to. By proportion, your negative to positive rating of men is about 9 to 1. Of course the person who's check mated will rarely admit it and make excuses after it's done; that's the point of being someone who can't handle losing a debate. If I did say the same or similar things, it's because you're saying the same of similar things. Since I'm rebutting your logic, why is a budge required when one is in the process of the rebuttal? None of my posts said anything about my preference in the type of women that I prefer or that I had a restriction in the type of women that I like to read about; by that standard, you've additionally demonstrated shallowness because you read Wonder Woman comics. It's simply a positive suggestion for women, but all people by proxy. There is no inherent contradiction in my reading about Wonder Woman and Ms. Marvel versus how I might feel about women as a whole, since I've never expressed how I feel about women as a whole. My preference doesn't allow me to do that because I only form an opinion of someone after we've encountered each other; that's the only way my mind will allow me to form an opinion; I can speculate about some types of women, based on a behavior that fits into a pattern that I may have once witnessed, but not women as a whole.

#42 Posted by dshipp17 (544 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17: perez,ruka and simone sold more with their runs than messner-loebs.

ms marvel has never performerd feats similar to wonder woman,lifting a truck,a bus and a tank doesn't put her on wonder woman's strength level because even spider-man can lift a bus,a tank,a truck,wonder woman lifts ships with ease,she lifts planes of 500 tons by herself with complete ease,it's a fact that ms marvel has been defeated by characters in the 100 tons range and above ALL THE TIME,while wonder woman is always able to deal with characters in those ranges,and wonder woman isn't an exaggerated and blotted cartoon version of Ms. Marvel feat and strength-wise,because wonder woman came out 27 years before ms marvel and wonder woman has been performing strength feats through her 72 years of career that ms marvel has never performed,ms marvel is not a wonder woman level character and she has never been written as such.

I seriously doubt that's the case; there may have been parts of their runs when they were selling more than Messner-Loebs in a given month, but not overall, since he was on Wonder Woman for much longer.

You're obviously talking about some of the more recent adjustments to the Spider-Man character, while I'm talking about Spider-Man in previous times leading up to that adjustment when I say Ms. Marvel is much stronger than Spider-Man and that's hinted at in Captain Marvel #1.

In the issues that I was reading, Ms. Marvel was lifting things similar to Wonder Woman even if they were tanks and trucks; when I point that out, I'm not accounting for every available contradiction or anomaly in publication about Wonder Woman; I consider those but don't take those into account. Why do you think I said she reminded me of Wonder Woman or she's Marvel's version of Wonder Woman? Obviously I'm aware that Wonder Woman came first.

#43 Edited by gokuwarrior (4368 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17: perez,ruka and simone runs sold more overall,specially worldwide.

spider-man was always able to lift a truck or a tank,he was able to do that when he was a 10 tonner and now he is a 20 toner,yes ms marvel is much stromger than spider-man,but you can't compare ms marvel lifting a tank to the things wonder woman lifts regularly,ms marvel has never had the strength feats that wonder woman has shown consistently,and ms marvel has many contradictions herself,every character has inconsistencies sometimes,but wonder woman's consistent showins are always way above ms marvel's showings,ALWAYS.

#44 Posted by Danieles (124 posts) - - Show Bio

@dmessmer said:

@danieles said:

"At the time, the Amazons were one of the few known examples of truly independent and strong women, yet they were perceived as evil and man-hating. Marston wanted to reimagine what an all-female society would look like, replacing the fear and violence with a society of love and compassion (but without losing the strength). He was consciously rewriting the myth to make the Amazons into something positive" Positive? for who? Feminists? Our species gained success because there it was a sexual labor division in the early mankind. I knows that the current western civilization wants to erase this, and we are looking about the consecuences for this "positive" ideas: Family has been destroyed, marriages has been detroyed. The destruction of the family leads to worst problems, specially for the childhood: alcohol/drugs disorders, gangs, school problems, teenage pregnancy. You american guys thinks that to destroy families its a great idea, maybe the greeks had realized the danger of a independant strong women, and put the amazon myth into the high example for to warns us about the danger involved. Now i realizes that the greek people was right.

Yes, for feminists. Marston wouldn't have used that term as it didn't really exist yet, but I think it's safe to say that, had he lived in a slightly later time he would have been a feminist.

And, yes, I would consider that a positive thing. Feminists are not man hating (there are some out there, but feminists, like women, and men, are not all the same and most feminists have great respect for men as well). And independence does not have to lead to the dissolution of family. A woman can be a wife and be independent as long as they aren't married to neanderthal's who expect them to take on all of the domestic aspects of a family. Both feminism and independence in a relationship are about equality, not hate. Seriously, have you ever read anything by a feminist written after 1985?

"Seriously, have you ever read anything by a feminist written after 1985?" Yes , i do, everydays. I fight agsint feminist everydays, and the only thing that changes since teh second wave, its teh fact they has FB and Twitter lol

#45 Edited by dshipp17 (544 posts) - - Show Bio

@sinisteri said:

Interesting topic.

I cringe at the statement that women have never been truly persecuted or that they haven't reflected to think on what they did to bring misfortune on themselves. Historically, women have been denied the right to vote, make major life decisions such as who they married or birthing kids, or make as much money as men by doing same job as men. There was a very long period of time were it was acceptable to be raped and/or beat by husbands or any man. To this history of women, someone would dare say women have never truly be persecuted and that they should think of what they did to bring these conditions on themselves. What they did was be born female.

I also keep reading in this thread that the Amazons did not interact often with men pre-new 52. Please note that part of the pact with the gods that gave the Amazons immortality and peace was a commitment to stay away from men. It was not just a whim on the Amazons part. And for many years prior to new 52, the Amazon nation did interact with the rest of the world & men as a world power. There was an attempt by writers to evolve the Amazons from isolated to having a political voice amongst nations.

Amazon is a fierce warrior and an example of a female at her best- physically, mentally and emotionally aware of herself and her surroundings by being independent, determined and a survivor.

Well, didn't I start my post off with an example of persecution (e.g. people who were alleged to be Christians and targeted by the Romans from about 64 AD until about 317 AD)? The things you're pointing is more related to sex discrimination or how a male dominated society functions (e.g. and most of that functionality wasn't modeled with malicious intent for women or for the destruction of women, so much as surmising about the limitations to what women might be able to accomplish). Clearly, I could not have been talking about rape, at least in the context you're describing it, because such wouldn't involving a woman exercising her choices to choose a man. In some cases, it was bad for women, but not persecution, by the standard that I introduced; plus, Perez's Amazon's were clearly modeled after the struggles of westernized women to represent women as a whole (e.g. no women from an Islam, Chinese, Japanese, etc. culture). Thus, I'm speaking from that perspective of women being able to exercise that type of freedom. The Pre 52 Amazons clearly chose to separate themselves from men by their own preference, at least eventually.

#46 Posted by Sinisteri (550 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17:

I was responding to a comment made earlier(not by you) that perhaps the Amazons should reflect on what the Amazons did to put themselves in the position they were in. The myth of the Amazons were women warriors against a tradition of only male warriors.

In pre new 52, the Amazons purchased their freedom from slavery and captivity by making a pact with the gods who freed them. Part of that deal was immortality and isolation on Paradise Island. WW was once depicted to have forsaken her immortality when she chose to depart on her mission to Man's World. If doing what have to do to get out of slavery and captivity is reduced to "a choice they made"... Yes, the Amazons chose to separate themselves.

#47 Posted by dmessmer (356 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17 said:

The things you're pointing is more related to sex discrimination or how a male dominated society functions (e.g. and most of that functionality wasn't modeled with malicious intent for women or for the destruction of women, so much as surmising about the limitations to what women might be able to accomplish). Clearly, I could not have been talking about rape, at least in the context you're describing it, because such wouldn't involving a woman exercising her choices to choose a man. In some cases, it was bad for women, but not persecution, by the standard that I introduced; plus, Perez's Amazon's were clearly modeled after the struggles of westernized women to represent women as a whole (e.g. no women from an Islam, Chinese, Japanese, etc. culture). Thus, I'm speaking from that perspective of women being able to exercise that type of freedom. The Pre 52 Amazons clearly chose to separate themselves from men by their own preference, at least eventually.

Okay, I know I said I wasn't going to engage with your inanity, but I can't help myself because here is such a perfect example of it. First, you make a wholly unsubstantiated claim about what the word "persecution" means. You claim that "persecution would mean that the men in said society were targeting the women with grievous violence in mind." That is simply not what persecution means. Here are four definitions from three different dictionaries:

  1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.
  2. the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another individual or group
  3. to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief
  4. to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities)

In none of those definitions is violence necessary for something to qualify as persecution. In all of those definitions sexual discrimination would easily qualify. In other words, your definition of the word is only the definition in your own mind, not the definition of the word as it exists in the English language. Yet, you've come back to your definition repeatedly to try to make your point. But your definition is wrong, thus the foundation of your argument is fundamentally flawed.

That is why I am choosing not to argue with you any more. You make up meanings to suit your argument with no grounding in actual fact or knowledge. I'm sure, in your own mind, you win every argument because you are willing to take delusional beliefs as fact, or are willing to take contradictory claims as logically sound.

For instance, you claimed that I had no grounds for pointing out a contradiction in your idea that women should overlook men's physical appearance while you judge women by their physical appearance. I will concede that I shouldn't presume that your thoughts on Wonder Woman apply to every woman, but, regarding Wonder Woman (which is what we're talking about here) you have made the following statements:

"the complete lack of sex appeal in the art is actually the turn off associated with this Wonder Woman run [...] it's certainly waned my interest in Wonder Woman, starting in 2010, and has ultimately resulted in my non-subscription to Wonder Woman by the end of 2012 [...] I'm latching on to Marvel, but they seem to be falling into this pattern of reduced sex appeal, also"

And, in another post:

"The start of Rucka’s run was very good for me because Wonder Woman walked around the house with Ferdinand barefoot a whole lot. Such features with Rucka’s run was a starting point, but there was a lot of space to meet before it could have become objectification (or, I guess, a foot fetish comic), although I’d like Wonder Woman as a foot fetish comic."

Both of those comments make it clear that you judge Wonder Woman comics at least in part by their depiction of her physical appearance. Yet you criticize Wonder Woman comics on the grounds that she and the Amazons can't look past the physical appearance of male characters (though I've still not seen any evidence of that). That is a blatant contradiction by any application of the basic principles of logic.

Now, I'm sure you'll make up some more "facts" and "definitions" to try to prove me wrong, and that's fine. Part of the reason I try not to engage with you is that you strike me as someone who always wants to get the last word - and I simply have other things going on in my life that prevent me from getting into a contest of endurance on a message board like this. So, you may have the final word. I will leave you to your delusions.

#48 Posted by dmessmer (356 posts) - - Show Bio

@danieles said:

"Seriously, have you ever read anything by a feminist written after 1985?" Yes , i do, everydays. I fight agsint feminist everydays, and the only thing that changes since teh second wave, its teh fact they has FB and Twitter lol

Fighting against feminism and actually reading works by feminists is not the same thing. Third wave feminism consciously rejected the "man-hating" notions that, admittedly, did crop up in some earlier feminist writings.

Though there is the larger, more overarching question of why you would "fight against" feminism. The definition of feminism is: "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes." So, to fight against that is to fight for inequality of the sexes, which is misogyny/sexism at its most blatant. It's one thing to object to the approaches of specific feminists, it's another to categorically denounce a movement whose only defining characteristic is a belief that there should be equality between the sexes.

Unless you own up to being sexist, in which case, I suppose you're at least logically consistent.

In the context of these forums, though, the even larger question is why you read Wonder Woman in the first place if you are so opposed to strong, independent women. Again, if there are specific aspects of the characters' brand of feminism that you find problematic, then that is a worthy point of discussion. But to categorically assume that because she is a feminist icon she and/or the Amazons must be man-haters is simply ignorant.

#49 Edited by dshipp17 (544 posts) - - Show Bio

@dmessmer said:

@danieles said:

"Seriously, have you ever read anything by a feminist written after 1985?" Yes , i do, everydays. I fight agsint feminist everydays, and the only thing that changes since teh second wave, its teh fact they has FB and Twitter lol

Okay, I know I said I wasn't going to engage with your inanity, but I can't help myself because here is such a perfect example of it. First, you make a wholly unsubstantiated claim about what the word "persecution" means. You claim that "persecution would mean that the men in said society were targeting the women with grievous violence in mind." That is simply not what persecution means. Here are four definitions from three different dictionaries:

  1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.
  2. the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another individual or group
  3. to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief
  4. to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities)

In none of those definitions is violence necessary for something to qualify as persecution. In all of those definitions sexual discrimination would easily qualify. In other words, your definition of the word is only the definition in your own mind, not the definition of the word as it exists in the English language. Yet, you've come back to your definition repeatedly to try to make your point. But your definition is wrong, thus the foundation of your argument is fundamentally flawed.

That is why I am choosing not to argue with you any more. You make up meanings to suit your argument with no grounding in actual fact or knowledge. I'm sure, in your own mind, you win every argument because you are willing to take delusional beliefs as fact, or are willing to take contradictory claims as logically sound.

For instance, you claimed that I had no grounds for pointing out a contradiction in your idea that women should overlook men's physical appearance while you judge women by their physical appearance. I will concede that I shouldn't presume that your thoughts on Wonder Woman apply to every woman, but, regarding Wonder Woman (which is what we're talking about here) you have made the following statements:

"the complete lack of sex appeal in the art is actually the turn off associated with this Wonder Woman run [...] it's certainly waned my interest in Wonder Woman, starting in 2010, and has ultimately resulted in my non-subscription to Wonder Woman by the end of 2012 [...] I'm latching on to Marvel, but they seem to be falling into this pattern of reduced sex appeal, also"

And, in another post:

"The start of Rucka’s run was very good for me because Wonder Woman walked around the house with Ferdinand barefoot a whole lot. Such features with Rucka’s run was a starting point, but there was a lot of space to meet before it could have become objectification (or, I guess, a foot fetish comic), although I’d like Wonder Woman as a foot fetish comic."

Both of those comments make it clear that you judge Wonder Woman comics at least in part by their depiction of her physical appearance. Yet you criticize Wonder Woman comics on the grounds that she and the Amazons can't look past the physical appearance of male characters (though I've still not seen any evidence of that). That is a blatant contradiction by any application of the basic principles of logic.

Now, I'm sure you'll make up some more "facts" and "definitions" to try to prove me wrong, and that's fine. Part of the reason I try not to engage with you is that you strike me as someone who always wants to get the last word - and I simply have other things going on in my life that prevent me from getting into a contest of endurance on a message board like this. So, you may have the final word. I will leave you to your delusions.

My rebuttal had about as much a point to it as your post. You're basically cutting and slicing my posts to redefine what I said, meaning you're creating stuff that you want me to have said. You took what I said about persecution on three separate occasions out of context, particularly the one that I used to clarify my position in a subsequent post to another poster, so your rebuttal is fundamental flawed and ignorant. You're taking about a text book definition (e.g. a dictionary which you make no formal citing back to, so that wording could be embezzlement to try helping your position) that's been altered at future date, while I started off with a real life example of persecution (e.g. the Romans targeting people alleged to be Christians between 64 AD to 317 AD) as defined by Jesus Christ Himself to begin making my case. By that definition, the text book version of persecution is filled with biases towards future bases associated with future cultural shifts, particularly as things became much more settled and comfortable. The text book version introduced by you is also what most people who've experienced discrimination, but not persecution, as defined by my real life example, would associate with various forms of discrimination; persecution is at a whole different level of scariness. My claim of persecution is strongly substantiated by the time period associated with the example that I provided; it's your lack of an ability to follow along that incompetently identified what I said as unsubstantiated. Again, you're not continuing to debate because you've been constantly losing; you're choosing to engage in the debates that you think you're winning because those arguments have much less substance than my arguments. You're certainly trying to get the last word in with the debates that you thinking that you're winning. I know how to structure my points because I'm a scientist and have a legal background; had this been in a court of law, the judgement would be for me and against you, particularly now. You've become delusional in your claims because you've been playing you're delusional game of female defender for so long, as it's becoming so obviously clear; grown women don't need you to speak for them and structure their arguments.

Of course I'm viewing Wonder Woman from a male perspective because I'm male; I don't view those things in the same way as women and there's no way to really get both men and women to see things in the same way in certain issues such as sexual attractiveness. Actually, the examples you spliced from some of my previous posts and pointed out could apply to any woman, despite her looks; sex appeal is in the eye of the beholder and liking the feet isn't contingent on the woman's looks. Because I like things sexually according to my nature as a man has nothing to do with reducing a woman to an object, it only has to do with my chemical processes demonstrating that I'm probably a human male instead of a female.

#50 Posted by dmessmer (356 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17: I was taking nothing out of context - you specifically said, in response to my first post on this thread, that I was not using the word "persecution" correctly. You were flat out wrong about that. I was using it correctly, as evidenced by the definitions I provided (though I freely admit that I looked up the verb form "persecute," as the noun form, "persecution," resulted in things like "the act of persecuting," which doesn't really help define the word - I'm sure you'll say that invalidates my claim even though it doesn't - that's simply how language and dictionaries work).

Now you are backtracking and making delusional claims that I used your words out of context. I did not. You specifically claimed that I was wrong to say women have been persecuted, and, to support your claim, offered an erroneously narrow definition of the word persecution. In subsequent posts you continued to push forward your definition of the word to the exclusion of all others. I have now proved that I and other posters on this forum were using the word correctly, and that your claim that we were in error was wrong. That is a perfect example of the inaccurate information upon which you rest your arguments.

Here are my sources, though I think any credible dictionary would back up my claim (and I cut and pasted the definitions verbatim - feel free to check - I admit I didn't include all of the definitions listed, but that is because I don't have to - you claimed I used the word incorrectly, so my use only has to comply with one meaning of the word to have been a correct usage - again, that is simply how language works):

  1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/persecute
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution
  3. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/persecuting
  4. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/persecuting

I also freely admit that I did not include the entirety of your posts about Wonder Woman's sexiness. That is why I was careful to include bracketed ellipses ([...]) when I omitted some of your words that were not relevant (and by not relevant, I don't mean that they weakened my claim, I mean they had no bearing on the point one way or another) - that way I make it clear to everyone that I am not including every word that you wrote, and if others are curious about my choices they can look up the original quote and see the full context. This is standard academic practice. I stand by my choices and feel that they were an accurate representation of your claims, and I am confident that if anyone does choose to read your comments in full that he or she will see that I did not do anything to distort your claims. I'm sure you'll disagree, because to do otherwise would be to admit that I'm right and, as I've already predicted, you will never do that no matter how sound my logic is and how flimsy yours.

I only write this response because questioning the credibility of my sources or the accuracy of my quotations is something I take very seriously, and because outlining all of this might help others on these forums realize your complete lack of credibility and you willingness to spout whatever nonsense you think will make your case for you regardless of how that nonsense might contradict what you've said before. I am now done. Have fun crafting your delusional response and most likely adding still more contradictions to your frantic and paranoid ravings.

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.