More WW meta
I sat on the my last "WW meta" post for a few days. I wrote it for myself, decided not to post it, then did anyway. And got into an argument.
I think some persons may misunderstand something that wasn't explicitly spelled out. I'm thinking there about why I have certain tendencies, not necessarily to justify them, but to understand them. Maybe I'm wrong.
However, one of the arguments in the comments (although Mr A. may think it's all one argument) is about what DC kind of should be doing. About marketing a "classic mainstream superheroine."
Digression:
Is Wonder Woman a classic mainstream superheroine? Yeah, of course.
Is she a sexual fetish object? Sure. So's an apron. Any emblem of femininity (or masculinity) can be so fetishized.
Is she just a sexual fetish object? Well, that's the question. I lean toward, "no," right now, but in the past I've considered it.
Is she my sexual fetish object? Not really, no. Though she & her clan have set up camp in my head for the last 15 years, & I worry I think too much about this franchise.
OK, so if Wonder Woman, the trademark, is supposed to be the mainstream superheroine, what? I don't much care what Marston thought; Wonder Woman stopped being a Marston/Peter pastiche long ago. A better question is what should such a character, such a--yes--role model, be now? I think DC has sometimes gotten it very wrong.
A. Tokenism. Wondy has often been the one woman on the JLA/JSA, if not the one superheroine to have her own stable title (all US comix companies).
B. Sexobjectification. Is that a word? Is now.
C. Thematic whiplash. Is she the all-American matron, the laughing ancient Roman funtime gal, the emotionally depressed warrior champion? Hey, it depends on the writer.
I think some persons may misunderstand something that wasn't explicitly spelled out. I'm thinking there about why I have certain tendencies, not necessarily to justify them, but to understand them. Maybe I'm wrong.
However, one of the arguments in the comments (although Mr A. may think it's all one argument) is about what DC kind of should be doing. About marketing a "classic mainstream superheroine."
Digression:
Is Wonder Woman a classic mainstream superheroine? Yeah, of course.
Is she a sexual fetish object? Sure. So's an apron. Any emblem of femininity (or masculinity) can be so fetishized.
Is she just a sexual fetish object? Well, that's the question. I lean toward, "no," right now, but in the past I've considered it.
Is she my sexual fetish object? Not really, no. Though she & her clan have set up camp in my head for the last 15 years, & I worry I think too much about this franchise.
OK, so if Wonder Woman, the trademark, is supposed to be the mainstream superheroine, what? I don't much care what Marston thought; Wonder Woman stopped being a Marston/Peter pastiche long ago. A better question is what should such a character, such a--yes--role model, be now? I think DC has sometimes gotten it very wrong.
A. Tokenism. Wondy has often been the one woman on the JLA/JSA, if not the one superheroine to have her own stable title (all US comix companies).
B. Sexobjectification. Is that a word? Is now.
C. Thematic whiplash. Is she the all-American matron, the laughing ancient Roman funtime gal, the emotionally depressed warrior champion? Hey, it depends on the writer.