What does it mean to be an Amazon?

  • 69 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Edited by dshipp17 (1123 posts) - - Show Bio

@dmessmer said:

@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.

Clearly you are taking what I said out of context and now you're looking silly doing it by not even citing my source; I defined persecution to you and other posters, though I later clarified with the example of the Romans against people alleged to be Christians between 64 AD and 317 AD to other posters; since you went about extracting some of my posts to cut and slice to fit with what you'd like me to have said, you should have cut and spliced my posts to fit with what I actually said; persecution is also a whole different level of scariness because it involves a government like structure. My credibility is supported by the example you've constantly omitted (e.g. Romans against people alleged to be Christians between 64 AD and 317 AD); my credibility, because it's a real life example, is much more sound than yours, because yours is a text book; such is the case because, in science, a theory will always need to be adjusted to fit with an observation; a scientist who refuses to adjust his theory to fit with an observation is usually referred to as a crack pot. Thus, with this last post, you're a crack pot debate loser, who's trying to embezzle the what little substance his credibility might have once generated by omission to create confusion to anyone who might want to remain confused; in other wards, you've actually proven yourself to be delusional. And for your information, clarifying is not backtracking. My information has substance because I supported my information with a real life example; to continue to overlook that is being deluded into thinking that you have a prayer of still having won the debate. Logically speaking, persecution is going to have a different definition than discrimination, because being discriminated against doesn't necessarily mean that you're being persecuted; I suppose that some of the worse forms of discrimination can overlap into the realm of persecution, but to be persecuted is to be treated with a worse level of torment than discrimination. Thus, I wouldn't broaden the definition of persecution to include discrimination, because discrimination is usually not as bad; because I'm not broadening the definition of persecution to include something else adds to the credibility of what I'm saying rather than reducing the credibility of what I'm saying; just for your information.

#52 Edited by Danieles (124 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

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.

LOL, let me educate ya messmer: there is 2 main groups against feminism: the Men Right Activists (MRAs) and the Traditional Rights Activists (TRAs); the first ones are for strict equality and against the bias from laws, media and political correctness against men. The second ones are for traditional roles & patriarchy. Maybe you knows more than me about WW, but definitively doesnt knows more than me about feminism lol. What you have been called "Third wave" its just just to soft some feminist speech because men in some countries, like Sweden and your US, are becoming a second-class citizens. So, to call me ignorant because i considers WW a feminist icon , shows that the ignorant one are you, because you has no idea who are you talking about. I strongly believes that ya guys are simple being severely indoctrinated, thats why you guys doesnt even complains about the fact that Amazons, in the way that Perez and other authors described them, are a misandric society. Any human collective in the world cant survive without both genders, and tell the truth, you fantasies with a only female society performing girl-girl lesbo actions for your wet dreams, dont you? As i told before, the fans made the character, and i saw a lot of defenders of physically stronger women, as i said before, thats were the Marlston wet dream, and ya guys are just followers of his cult lol. Amazons are misandric because they thinks that they has no need of men: but ill put you in this way: what if were a sole male society , where women were forbidden, and the males just goes to some place, takes the females by force and rape them for to get the new offspring? Wouldnt you call it mysonginy? this its the example of double standards.

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

@dshipp17 said:

@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.

Well first at your 4 points: do you knows what Cultural Marxism? And Political Correctness? This 2 concepts are so important to understands why many men here defends a female superheroine (aka WW) looks great beating men in comics, because they thinks that they deserve it. A woman punching a man its not often seeing like graphic violence in our western society,, its more being seen like a self defense with lot of rights. But when a men beats a woman, its often being seen like abuse, domestic violence, overwhelming, and criminal, even if its in self defense.

"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." >I agree with this. I also considers that WW should be writes by a real woman, a one that feels and experiences true feminine and exports it to the character. Maybe thats the whole problem with WW, her writers are men that doesnt understands the female condition.

#54 Edited by CheeseSticks (2565 posts) - - Show Bio

Replace Amazon by Feminist and you've got your answer

#55 Posted by dmessmer (368 posts) - - Show Bio

@danieles: I find it funny that you claim to provide an education, yet you can't answer a very basic and relevant question. Since you claim to know so much about feminism, I would like to know what recent feminist texts you have read and what your objection to them is. It's very easy to attack a movement when you are willing to decide what that movement is about rather than engage what that movement is actually trying to accomplish.

I agree with you that things like spousal abuse by a woman against a man is an under-discussed issue, though it is still statistically far less frequent as the reverse. Women are overwhelmingly more likely to suffer domestic abuse and random acts of physical violence than men are. So the idea of a superheroine who is capable of fighting off her attackers is an important one. Add to this that a lot of her villains are female, so Wonder Woman doesn't just go around fighting men.

I agree that the recent Azzarello retcon that claims that the Amazons rape men and kill male babies is awful (see what happens when you actually provide specific examples - the debate can actually go somewhere). I've said so before. I hope that a future writer undoes that retcon and returns to the previous origin, but until they do I would agree that this incarnation of the Amazons is problematic.

And, of course, a society without men would be a problem in real life - I can't think of a single feminist that would claim otherwise (that's not to say that such a feminist doesn't exist - I am willing to admit the limits of my knowledge, and I can't claim to have read every feminist text - but the overwhelming majority would make no such claim). A man dressing up as a Bat and fighting crime would be problematic, too. These are archetypal heroes that are meant to stand in as allegories for our society and not to be taken so literally.

That is why I went into the Greek myths. If the Amazons are a metaphor for feminine independence, as I believe they are, the Greeks portrayed that independence as frightening and hateful. Marston portrayed feminine independence as positive and loving. Azzarello has returned it to the frightening and hateful version, and I have critiqued him for doing so because I believe that feminine independence is a positive thing, in the same way that male independence is a positive thing.

Which leads me back to the point that you still have not addressed. Feminism is a movement that believes in the equality of men and women. Men and women should share the same levels of autonomy and independence. To be opposed to that is to be a misogynist.

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

@dmessmer said:

@danieles: I find it funny that you claim to provide an education, yet you can't answer a very basic and relevant question. Since you claim to know so much about feminism, I would like to know what recent feminist texts you have read and what your objection to them is. It's very easy to attack a movement when you are willing to decide what that movement is about rather than engage what that movement is actually trying to accomplish.

I agree with you that things like spousal abuse by a woman against a man is an under-discussed issue, though it is still statistically far less frequent as the reverse. Women are overwhelmingly more likely to suffer domestic abuse and random acts of physical violence than men are. So the idea of a superheroine who is capable of fighting off her attackers is an important one. Add to this that a lot of her villains are female, so Wonder Woman doesn't just go around fighting men.

I agree that the recent Azzarello retcon that claims that the Amazons rape men and kill male babies is awful (see what happens when you actually provide specific examples - the debate can actually go somewhere). I've said so before. I hope that a future writer undoes that retcon and returns to the previous origin, but until they do I would agree that this incarnation of the Amazons is problematic.

And, of course, a society without men would be a problem in real life - I can't think of a single feminist that would claim otherwise (that's not to say that such a feminist doesn't exist - I am willing to admit the limits of my knowledge, and I can't claim to have read every feminist text - but the overwhelming majority would make no such claim). A man dressing up as a Bat and fighting crime would be problematic, too. These are archetypal heroes that are meant to stand in as allegories for our society and not to be taken so literally.

That is why I went into the Greek myths. If the Amazons are a metaphor for feminine independence, as I believe they are, the Greeks portrayed that independence as frightening and hateful. Marston portrayed feminine independence as positive and loving. Azzarello has returned it to the frightening and hateful version, and I have critiqued him for doing so because I believe that feminine independence is a positive thing, in the same way that male independence is a positive thing.

Which leads me back to the point that you still have not addressed. Feminism is a movement that believes in the equality of men and women. Men and women should share the same levels of autonomy and independence. To be opposed to that is to be a misogynist.

"It's very easy to attack a movement when you are willing to decide what that movement is about rather than engage what that movement is actually trying to accomplish." Answer this its easy: what feminism wants, from the 2nd wave, its to destroy our western civilization and made men a second or even third class citizens. Feminism never was about equality.

"though it is still statistically far less frequent as the reverse" 47% of rape accustaion made in the 2012 was false. But this its worst in the context that you rprovided: because is lesser so, we must tolerates a society where women can beat men with no shame, gulit, or retaliation?

"Add to this that a lot of her villains are female, so Wonder Woman doesn't just go around fighting men." But mostly of her enemies are men, isnt? how percentage 80% 90%.?

"Which leads me back to the point that you still have not addressed. Feminism is a movement that believes in the equality of men and women. Men and women should share the same levels of autonomy and independence. To be opposed to that is to be a misogynist." LolL, you are spreading the same arguments than feminist says, you 'll not convince me if you uses the same feminist's words. Feminist doesnt represents all women: for example , they doesnt represents traditional women, since they blames that housewives are slaves. Feminist uses this shame tactic: the ones that oppose feminism, they are misogynists, but they has no right to represent all women. And i knows many women that doesnt agrees with this concept. About the Lie, that feminism is for equality, i ask you: if a woman beats you for no reason, are you able to reply her in the same way, without being accused of violence against women in your country? I dont hate women, i hate feminism, but feminists are not all women. My own wife is a housewife, she rejected feminism long time ago, from your point of view: is she a victim of me, as his oppressor? lol

#57 Posted by dmessmer (368 posts) - - Show Bio

@danieles: You like to ask me to provide evidence, yet you only speak in broad generalities with nothing to back them up. What feminist, specifically, has tried to bring down Western civilization (and what does that even mean?)? Where are you getting your one and only statistic? It's true that most accusations of rape don't lead to a conviction, but that is largely because rape is very difficult to prove. Rape is also one of the most unreported crimes in the world.

"if a woman beats you for no reason, are you able to reply her in the same way, without being accused of violence against women in your country?"

That's an easy one. Yes.

"you 'll not convince me if you uses the same feminist's words"

This goes back to my first point - how can you know what feminism is/stands for if you refuse to even listen to what it is/stands for? You've obviously made up your mind what you think it is, based on... I'm not sure what since you can't provide any evidence, but it's certainly not based on reality.

You clearly have no idea what feminism actually is. Third wave feminism is very clear on the point that, if a woman chooses to be a housewife, that is fine - the whole idea is that women should have a choice. Again, I'd love for you to provide actual evidence that any feminist believes that "traditional women" are in some form of slavery.

Getting back to Wonder Woman:

"But mostly of her enemies are men, isnt? how percentage 80% 90%.?"

That couldn't be further from the truth. Her three primary villains are Ares (male), Circe (female), and Cheetah (female) - so 33% male. In the Golden Age her primary villains were Ares (male), Paula von Gunther (female), and Cheetah (female) - so 33% male again. Even in Azzarello's run (which hadn't been long enough to really provide a representative sample) her primary antagonists have been Artemis (female), Appolo (male), Hera (female), and Firstborn (male) - so 50%.

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

@dmessmer said:

@danieles: You like to ask me to provide evidence, yet you only speak in broad generalities with nothing to back them up. What feminist, specifically, has tried to bring down Western civilization (and what does that even mean?)? Where are you getting your one and only statistic? It's true that most accusations of rape don't lead to a conviction, but that is largely because rape is very difficult to prove. Rape is also one of the most unreported crimes in the world.

"if a woman beats you for no reason, are you able to reply her in the same way, without being accused of violence against women in your country?"

That's an easy one. Yes.

"you 'll not convince me if you uses the same feminist's words"

This goes back to my first point - how can you know what feminism is/stands for if you refuse to even listen to what it is/stands for? You've obviously made up your mind what you think it is, based on... I'm not sure what since you can't provide any evidence, but it's certainly not based on reality.

You clearly have no idea what feminism actually is. Third wave feminism is very clear on the point that, if a woman chooses to be a housewife, that is fine - the whole idea is that women should have a choice. Again, I'd love for you to provide actual evidence that any feminist believes that "traditional women" are in some form of slavery.

Getting back to Wonder Woman:

"But mostly of her enemies are men, isnt? how percentage 80% 90%.?"

That couldn't be further from the truth. Her three primary villains are Ares (male), Circe (female), and Cheetah (female) - so 33% male. In the Golden Age her primary villains were Ares (male), Paula von Gunther (female), and Cheetah (female) - so 33% male again. Even in Azzarello's run (which hadn't been long enough to really provide a representative sample) her primary antagonists have been Artemis (female), Appolo (male), Hera (female), and Firstborn (male) - so 50%.

·This goes back to my first point - how can you know what feminism is/stands for if you refuse to even listen to what it is/stands for? You've obviously made up your mind what you think it is, based on... I'm not sure what since you can't provide any evidence, but it's certainly not based on reality."

Go to a "Voice of men" page, also, go to this place: https://www.facebook.com/groups/mensrightsmovement/files/ : how you can know about antifeminism is/stands for if you refuse to even listen to what it is/stands for?, they has plenty evidence; therefore, the evidence its around ya: do the next research, its easy to prove that men are second citizen class in your american society and feminism is evil: how many men health care associations organizations there it be in your area, how many of those health organization are for women? The sentences for the same crimes are the same for men and women? Ask to a Divorce lawyer, who has the right of alimony, to get the kids in a divorce process? What are the sexual harassment policies in your job, and tell me if any of them are even worried if the sexual harasser are a woman? what it says the VAWA laws about how men must be prosecuted, what ERA says, and tell me if the equal rights amendement says a single word for men. Your country was kidnapped by feminism long years ago, they make you a second citizen class, and you still defending feminists: i has a word for you: you are inside the Matrix lol

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

@danieles: "That couldn't be further from the truth. Her three primary villains are Ares (male), Circe (female), and Cheetah (female) - so 33% male. In the Golden Age her primary villains were Ares (male), Paula von Gunther (female), and Cheetah (female) - so 33% male again. Even in Azzarello's run (which hadn't been long enough to really provide a representative sample) her primary antagonists have been Artemis (female), Appolo (male), Hera (female), and Firstborn (male) - so 50%." But what i see from teh comics its that she beats more males than males, so, you mutst remade yoru calculations, Also, why do you guys enjoys seeing her so much beating more males than females? you must expalin this

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

@danieles: i love how you put words in people minds,nobody here said that we enjoy her more beating males than females,and she doesn't beat males more often than females,so get your facts right.

she needs a female writter?,simone is a female and she didn't take away her super strength,super durability and super speed because it's pointless.

you were wrong from the start when you said that WW is a headstrong warrior that goes around forcing peopled and saying she is superior,i told you that what you say is not part of her character in most of her versions except in the new JL comic,so get your facts right.

#61 Posted by dmessmer (368 posts) - - Show Bio

@danieles said:

@danieles: "That couldn't be further from the truth. Her three primary villains are Ares (male), Circe (female), and Cheetah (female) - so 33% male. In the Golden Age her primary villains were Ares (male), Paula von Gunther (female), and Cheetah (female) - so 33% male again. Even in Azzarello's run (which hadn't been long enough to really provide a representative sample) her primary antagonists have been Artemis (female), Appolo (male), Hera (female), and Firstborn (male) - so 50%." But what i see from teh comics its that she beats more males than males, so, you mutst remade yoru calculations, Also, why do you guys enjoys seeing her so much beating more males than females? you must expalin this

I don't have to explain something that isn't happening. My numbers are based on facts. I'm not sure which comics you read, but I've been a fan of Wonder Woman for a long time and have read a lot of her comics and am confident in my assertion that she fights at least as many women as she does men - for most of her history she fights more women than men. She certainly fights a greater percentage of women than any male superhero that I've ever read. Every villain of Superman's that I can think of is male (I'm sure he probably has a few female villains, I'm not an expert, but his major villains are all male) - does that make him misandrist?

To your other point, reading people's attacks on feminism is not a stand in for reading actual feminist texts. Why are you so willing to trust something like the "Voice of Men" page without at least hearing what the other side has to say directly from their own mouths (or texts)? Your approach to learning about these things seems extremely narrow minded and logically flawed. You keep making claims about what feminists think, but it's becoming clear that you don't know what feminists think, you only know what people who don't like feminists think, which isn't even close to the same thing.

I also find it odd that you deem yourself such an expert on a country whose history and culture you seem to know very little about. For instance, the equal rights amendment to the Constitution reads as follows:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.


So this amendment states that there can be no discrimination on the grounds of sex, which applies to both men and women. You are correct that it doesn't mention men specifically, but it doesn't mention women specifically either. The law includes both equally.

Also, men do have the right to sue for alimony and the grounds for their receiving it are the same as they are for women. It happens less often because men are less likely to be homemakers than women and typically make more money than women (for a variety of reasons, including unequal rates of pay, an example of discrimination against women), but the laws apply equally to both genders.

Most women's health care facilities focus on child birth - I assume you know biology well enough to understand why a man wouldn't need those kinds of services. There are clinics that focus on men's issues (such as fertility problems and erectile dysfunction), but these issues are not nearly as common as pregnancy, nor do they require as many resources, so the clinics are less numerous.

I could go on, but I'm tired of this. It gets really boring trying to have rational conversations with people who don't know what they're talking about. You clearly haven't read much Wonder Woman yet you like to make huge claims about the character that are simply inaccurate - objectively so. You haven't read any texts by a feminist, yet you like to make huge claims about what feminists believe and what their goals are. You like to make huge comments about U.S. culture though you clearly have no real experience of it. I'm not going to debate with about this any longer because it is pointless to try to debate with someone who as already stated that he will not listen to anything that a feminist says, yet likes to criticize feminism.

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

@dmessmer: "Every villain of Superman's that I can think of is male (I'm sure he probably has a few female villains, I'm not an expert, but his major villains are all male) - does that make him misandrist?" No, Superman has many male villains for 2 reasons: 1. Because comic writers loves to show men as evil, and 2. How it'll be the reaction of the press, teh feminis organizations and the public opinion if he starts to beat women by bare hands in public, even if they are criminals? think about it. Its more misandric to me that mostly men are portrayed in the popular media as villains/pathethic/sexual seekers-harassers than to show a man beating men in popular culture.

To your other point, reading people's attacks on feminism is not a stand in for reading actual feminist texts. Why are you so willing to trust something like the "Voice of Men" page without at least hearing what the other side has to say directly from their own mouths (or texts)? Your approach to learning about these things seems extremely narrow minded and logically flawed. You keep making claims about what feminists think, but it's becoming clear that you don't know what feminists think, you only know what people who don't like feminists think, which isn't even close to the same thing.

For to answer this, you must know my background: i has many feminist gf's , because i

like you, a feminist believer man. Since they treated me like garbage, fooled me, stealed me, beahve like bitches, even commit domestic physical and emotional violence against me ( dont even think that domestic violence its only when a man beats his wife), i realized that there it must be something wrong in our society: that led me to the main reason: women behaves bad because feminism, they has been indoctrinated that all men are disposable objects, all men are evil, all men are rapists/beaters/harassers. Thats how men are portrayed in the popular media, thats why do you thinks that mostly violence against women are performed by men. Thats why i ended here, looking for teh wonder woman, and looking if she is part of the social construct that feminism contaminated teh popular media long time ago, to make people like you, dmessmer, that feminism is good, feminism defends all women, and men are in essence: bad guys that must be fixed/controled.

"Most women's health care facilities focus on child birth - I assume you know biology well enough to understand why a man wouldn't need those kinds of services. There are clinics that focus on men's issues (such as fertility problems and erectile dysfunction), but these issues are not nearly as common as pregnancy, nor do they require as many resources, so the clinics are less numerous." If you get a prostate cancer, dont come to me crying, because there is not many cancer organizations that'll helps nyou, but breast cancer has thosuands.

#63 Edited by dmessmer (368 posts) - - Show Bio

@danieles said:

@dmessmer: "Every villain of Superman's that I can think of is male (I'm sure he probably has a few female villains, I'm not an expert, but his major villains are all male) - does that make him misandrist?" No, Superman has many male villains for 2 reasons: 1. Because comic writers loves to show men as evil, and 2. How it'll be the reaction of the press, teh feminis organizations and the public opinion if he starts to beat women by bare hands in public, even if they are criminals? think about it. Its more misandric to me that mostly men are portrayed in the popular media as villains/pathethic/sexual seekers-harassers than to show a man beating men in popular culture.

To your other point, reading people's attacks on feminism is not a stand in for reading actual feminist texts. Why are you so willing to trust something like the "Voice of Men" page without at least hearing what the other side has to say directly from their own mouths (or texts)? Your approach to learning about these things seems extremely narrow minded and logically flawed. You keep making claims about what feminists think, but it's becoming clear that you don't know what feminists think, you only know what people who don't like feminists think, which isn't even close to the same thing.

For to answer this, you must know my background: i has many feminist gf's , because i

like you, a feminist believer man. Since they treated me like garbage, fooled me, stealed me, beahve like bitches, even commit domestic physical and emotional violence against me ( dont even think that domestic violence its only when a man beats his wife), i realized that there it must be something wrong in our society: that led me to the main reason: women behaves bad because feminism, they has been indoctrinated that all men are disposable objects, all men are evil, all men are rapists/beaters/harassers. Thats how men are portrayed in the popular media, thats why do you thinks that mostly violence against women are performed by men. Thats why i ended here, looking for teh wonder woman, and looking if she is part of the social construct that feminism contaminated teh popular media long time ago, to make people like you, dmessmer, that feminism is good, feminism defends all women, and men are in essence: bad guys that must be fixed/controled.

"Most women's health care facilities focus on child birth - I assume you know biology well enough to understand why a man wouldn't need those kinds of services. There are clinics that focus on men's issues (such as fertility problems and erectile dysfunction), but these issues are not nearly as common as pregnancy, nor do they require as many resources, so the clinics are less numerous." If you get a prostate cancer, dont come to me crying, because there is not many cancer organizations that'll helps nyou, but breast cancer has thosuands.

Wow. I will resist the urge to make comments about what you've revealed about your personal life because I find personal attacks disrespectful and inappropriate. I will say that I find it odd that you would let a few experiences cause you to condemn an entire movement - especially one that encompasses so many different schools of thought.

And for the record, if I do get prostate cancer (and I hope I don't), I will visit my urologist, whose practice is within walking distance of my house, and who is fully qualified to treat prostate cancer and to refer me to the ample resources that are available in my area (and just about any area in the U.S.). Once again, you are speaking of things you know nothing about. Seriously.

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

@dmessmer: http://www.avoiceformen.com/activism/about/ there: a help for your lazy butt .

#65 Posted by dmessmer (368 posts) - - Show Bio

@danieles said:

@dmessmer: http://www.avoiceformen.com/activism/about/ there: a help for your lazy butt .

Since I don't want to be guilty of the same narrow mindedness that you have demonstrated by refusing to read anything by a feminist, I visited the site. It is laughable.

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

@dmessmer: im glad that at least make you laugh,but , when you 'll be another victim of feminism, ill be the one that laughs lol

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

@dmessmer:

i have readed Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan, the second sex by Simone Beauvoir, the awakening by kate chopin, and i can still counting ya how many feminist articles, magazines, interviews i have readed. Much more than you, get very sure, than you reading something antifeminist. Your ignorance is daring dmessmer, since you has no idea who i am.

#68 Edited by WhineHaus (88 posts) - - Show Bio

"Last of the Amazons" by Steven Pressfield, while a mediocre book, is a great interpretation of Amazon culture. According to Pressfield's fictional take, they they embody savagery, nobility, and passion in equal amounts. They practice their own versions of Ancient Greek religion, and they're extremely devout to the natural order of things. I found there to be parallels to Native American culture, except the Amazons are much more fierce.

As with Themyscira, the Amazons live separate from the immoral and "civilized" world, and they abhor customs and visitors who threaten their honorable way of life.

Pressfield's historical take was impressive, and it gave me a groundwork from which I could interpret Amazonian culture. While fictional, the story depicted the Amazons outside the constraints of gender. It abandoned a feminist take, which is too often attached to Amazons. Instead, they are defined by their military and culture (as you would see with Spartans, Samurai, or other traditional warrior races).

I encourage the book to anyone curious about Amazons.

#69 Posted by dmessmer (368 posts) - - Show Bio

@whinehaus: The comparison between the Amazons and Spartans is interesting. That might be another reason that the Greek myths depict the Amazons in such a negative light - Athens was the cultural hub from which most of our knowledge of those myths come, so the Athenians would probably revile a group that reminded them of the Spartans.

#70 Edited by GWHH (585 posts) - - Show Bio

@outside_85 said:

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

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.