Mark Waid, guestblogging over at John Rogers’ pad, gets it right about the basic inner story of Thor. And then someone else adds in comments:
…the most perennially troubled titles are the ones that have been the most disconnected from their simple concept. Wonder Woman is the classic example. It was a title the was gender and power. That included sex, which is why it was slowly scrubbed of its original theme. Now, it is about nothing, which is why it gets re-booted every fifteen minutes.
This is of course correct, but “gender and power” is a very generic way of talking about what Wonder Woman’s core story is about. It is about a woman in a man’s world. You don’t need to focus on sex to write that story – Buffy the Vampire Slayer covered a lot of this ground and although Buffy had her share of romance and doin’ it, most of the time that ground was mostly secondary to her story as a whole, which was often about reconciling femininity with being a kick-ass hero who was also doomed, doomed, doomed.
Now, drop the “doomed” part and you’ve got Wonder Woman. Except Wonder Woman stories are never actually about that. Has “woman in a man’s world” even been mentioned once in Trinity, which – last I checked – is ostensibly about the ideas and motivations behind Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman? No, not at all – instead we get some vague blather about Diana being a “bringer of peace,” and so forth.
And, of course, let’s be honest: “woman in a man’s world” is a hard sell in comics. Most of the readership is male and most of the creators are male, and most of them are not particularly interested in reading feminist literature unless it is disguised in some way (cf. Buffy, which is also a genre television show; ditto Xena, Warrior Princess).
I’m not sure if this is because the idea of “woman in a man’s world” is so explicitly feminist, and that men are traditionally sort of crap at writing strong feminist narratives no matter how personally enlightened on the topic they might be. (Even Joss Whedon, the poster boy for men writing strong women, has been accused – and not unfairly – of fetishizing “strong women” rather than simply writing stories about women.) But it’s a good point to remember; after all, if you are a male writer, the odds that you will be comfortable writing about Diana’s experience as a woman in a male-dominated world (and more importantly, finding that male-dominated world to be odd or irregular or irrational or improper) are just going to be lower than the odds that you will be comfortable writing Diana as a relatively asexual being.
Even Gail Simone (and I’ve quite enjoyed Gail’s run on the book thus far) treats Diana’s sexuality with relative kid gloves. I’m glad to see her starting up a romance with Nemesis – who, incidentally, is a vast improvement over douchebag Steve Trevor, who should die in a swamp1 – but come on, said romance has been so tentative as to almost seem editorially mandated that all pains be taken to make sure Diana doesn’t come across as a slut or something. (Because when I think “asexual society,” I think the Amazons?)
Woman in a man’s world. It’s not rocket science. It’s not irrelevant to comics readers (much as some might wish otherwise). But it’s definitely edgier territory, and there’s a political aspect to it that a lot of comics fans might not appreciate.
Also, the invisible plane. What is up with that?
Top comment: The invisible plane is a metaphor for the glass ceiling!
Except that Wonder Woman can control how much it can be lifted, so that doesn’t work either. — Eli Balin
- Dying in a swamp is the new dying in a fire! [↩]
Related Articles
42 users responded in this post
The Invisible Plane is like the sword in the stone of Wonder Woman. It’s a fantastic comics idea, but one that almost every writer has failed to really get to grips with. We’ll know that the one true rightwise writer of Wonder Woman has come when manage to make that sucker fly.
Wow I really beat that metaphor with a potato.
This is a great post, and I love the topic of a woman being in a man’s world while retaining her femininity, but unfortunately it’s late and I probably will not have much intelligent to say on the topic, so:
Something seems to be funny about the link you put in the first sentence. It highlights blue like a link, but nothing happens when you click on it… thought I’d let you know.
As Wondy once observed, the invisible plane is there to carry her invisible luggage.
“A Woman in Man’s World” had more bite to it back when women were actually treated as inferior. True, they still are treated as such in several aspects, but its not nearly as permissible today as it was then. I mean, the concept implies that Wonder Woman is standing against overwhemlming odds and ever since they made her as strong as (if not stronger) than Superman, they’ve simply muted that part of her character.
As a social symbol, Wonder Woman is more like Marvel’s Black Panther and now that society has matured a little bit more since these characters’ individual conceptions (even the Republicans have a token black guy leading its national committee, albeit in a very puppet-like fashion), the core definition of each character simply doesn’t have the social bite it used to. And now the characters are floundering and begging for relevancy. It would be like creating characters based off the American political of Teapot Dome or even Richard Nixon lying about Watergate. Expecting such characters to have any kind of relevancy in the modern world without major renovations would be foolhardy, at least.
If DC wasn’t scared to death of how the public sees their “Big Three”, I would suggest that they drop the pretense of the whole “Woman in a Man’s World” thing and go back to the other part of Wonder Woman’s character that permeated her storylines back in the golden age of comics. Namely the whole BDSM angle. I mean come on, she ties up men with her lasso and forces them to tell the truth and she loses her abilities when her wrists were bound together.
I say move Wonder Woman to Vertigo and give her a couple of S&M slaves (especially if they want to maintain the idea that the Amazons were an offshoot of Ancient Roman culture). They’ll lose the younger readers, but at least it’ll give the character a direction more in keeping with her core nature.
Also, they really need to work on a better rogue’s gallery for Wonder Woman. Her’s is almost as bad as Iron Man’s and for the same basic reason. Most of their worst enemies were taken on while they were each part of a larger team (Justice League/Avengers).
As for Black Panther. Marvel should just hang it up. I mean, they married him to Storm and now they both suck. How much more of a hint do they need?
Invisible plane (from Themescara Airlines, I’m guessing) or flying boots. Pick yer poison.
New OTP: Wonder Woman x Grundy Steve Trevor.
I’d swear there’s a connection to be made between the invisibile plane and the invisibility of modern-style sexism, but goddamned if I can find it.
The invisible plane is a metaphor for the glass ceiling!
Except that Wonder Woman can control how much it can be lifted, so that doesn’t work either.
I always thought one of the interesting things about Wondy is that she’s not so much a “feminist” superheroine as she is a “matriarchal” one. Feminism is basically a response to being a woman in a man’s world, but Wonder Woman literally comes from a different world, where it’s natural that women get to run the show. I always liked that–like Superman, she has a whole philosophy derived from her “alien” heritage, which makes her stronger for having a different perspective.
She even sort of has a different style of crimefighting…instead of throwing them in jail, she ties them up, makes them submit to her authority, and “re-educates” them. Sort of.
…OK, I’ll go now.
I think you’re onto something, Eli. I think maybe she not only controls the glass ceiling (invisible jet), but she lets it take her wherever she wants to go.
And see, Prankster agrees with me about the dominatrix bit too.
The problem with the current Nemesis-Wonder Woman relationship (which is why Gail’s handling it with kid gloves) is that Wonder Woman shouldn’t have fallen in love with the post-Infinite Crisis pre-Gail Nemesis, since he was a complete tool.
The Nemesis of Brave and the Bold and Suicide Squad would have been a good fit, and Gail’s been trying to return him to those roots.
Also, the slowness may actually be editorially mandated, given that Nemesis is supposed to be the leading character in Final Crisis: Editorially mandated six issue tie in with a quirky name 3.
I don’t know how I discovered Madeley’s blog, the Fractal Hall, but I have a feeling it must have been through this site, as you’re on the blogroll there. I don’t know if you read it, but Madeley did a rather brilliant series of “Delineated” posts, which outlined and discussed core ideas for many major superheroes, broken down by genre and tool.
Here’s the one for Wonder Woman.
I think there’s a link to the “Delineated” archive, which is worth exploring.
I mention that because I’m not sure about the whole “woman in a man’s world” thing; and especially that Madeley goes further back–rather than trying to be social or political about it, it goes down to story and genre. The Amazon. The mythology. It’s no coincidence her name is Diana, after all.
I should mention that the second issue of Fred Van Lente and Ryan Dunlavey’s fine series Comic Book Comics has a lot of Wonder Woman history in it. Many MGK readers may not be aware just how kinky WW’s creator William Moulton Marston was. Obviously his interests showed through in the work, and that’s been a burden anyone working with the character since has had to deal with.
“Here’s the one for Wonder Woman.
I think there’s a link to the “Delineated” archive, which is worth exploring.
I mention that because I’m not sure about the whole “woman in a man’s world” thing; and especially that Madeley goes further back–rather than trying to be social or political about it, it goes down to story and genre. The Amazon. The mythology. It’s no coincidence her name is Diana, after all.”
I think you keep both the Man’s World stuff and the mythology to make the whole thing work. I like the linked article because it points in one direction for getting the character to work – making a point of making her not-Superman to whatever extent the core concept allows. Like instead of giving her flight/invulnerability and then keeping the bracelets and the jet as just sort of random junk-jewelry – take away flight and take away invulnerability, but in exchange make her stronger and faster than Supes and a hell of a lot better of a fighter. Of course Superman gets to rely on an invisible field of protection and support to help him succeed. But Wonder Woman doesn’t have that, and that’s what makes every fight for her a struggle, that she has to be tough and quick and smart enough to overcome. (Yes I just said that invulnerability = the patriarchy. Deal with it!)
I’ve been thinking about WW a lot, I think due to all those recent failed attempts at a movie.
I think there is still a lot of potential for WW. The feminist movement may have progressed a lot since her introduction, but I think today there is a lot there that can be used for the character. Role models for girls are actually on the decline. Look at Paris Hilton, Bratz dolls, Sex and the City.
As Will posted, those Delineated posts at Fractal Hall are really good, and I generally agree with it. Though I believe the most important factor for WW is strength, both physical and in character. And also about embracing that strength.
The thing about Joss Whedon’s strong female characters, is that they generally are granted supernatural strength unwillingly and focus on the negative challenges of having that strength rather than being ‘a normal girl. WW should be about having that strength more embracing it
I also think a more modern theme for WW, as opposed to ‘a woman living in a man’s world’ would be ‘a truthful and immaterial woman living in a dishonest and material world’
Yeah, if you think Whedon fetishizes strong women, he had nothing on Marsden. Anytime Bill Willingham or any of these guys starts talking about “when comics were about good American values” just break out a Golden Age Wonder Woman comic where she’s being tied up and spanked, only to turn to the tables and tie up and spank her opponent. And no, not exaggerating about that.
‘a truthful and immaterial woman living in a dishonest and material world’
An excellent concept, and one that various branches of feminism examine in some detail, especially eco-feminism and Marxist-feminism. To say that “Man’s World” is now gender-neutral and value-neutral is skipping over a great deal of political and social interest.
You know you could go further with what Wonder Woman’s about. Sheltered at home a young person leaves to explore the world.
Anytime Bill Willingham or any of these guys starts talking about “when comics were about good American values” just break out a Golden Age Wonder Woman comic where she’s being tied up and spanked, only to turn to the tables and tie up and spank her opponent. And no, not exaggerating about that.
And honestly, I think WW is less for having lost that. There’s a demented energy to the early Marston stuff that I think got lost in the reboot.
“You know you could go further with what Wonder Woman’s about. Sheltered at home a young person leaves to explore the world.”
Soooo… Wonder Woman is an allegory for being Amish?
I didn’t know the Amish were into bondage.
What would you do without electricity? Yay, barn raising doth have several meanings.
The last time I read a story that treated WW well was the original Trinity, by Matt Wagner. It is absolutely great when Batman sees her naked and, for a single moment, forgets all the trauma in his life and cares only about her… It’s sexual, yes, but also a great metaphor for growing up and leaving the kid’s stuff behind.
It’s of course going to be difficult for men to get into feminist anything, because you know better than most, MGK, just how hostile that feminism can be to men. Some elements of feminism conflate looking at a billboard with an attractive woman on it with rape, after all.
Having grown up with 99% of the authority figures in my life being women, it’s hard for me to see the problem with Wonder Woman being Superman. Why shouldn’t she be the apex of morality and power? Why shouldn’t she be the nigh-omnipotent rallying point around which all other heroes and heroines gather to face down seemingly impossible odds and look to to lead the charge against the greatest foes?
“Yay, barn raising doth have several meanings.”
It’s yea. To be a pedantic douche bag.
You know, sometimes a kinda fun, quirky, kinky adventure story about an Amazon princess sent to man’s world to fight Nazis is just a… well, you get the point.
I mean, this Superheroes Mean Something, Really thing is tedious. Wonder Woman was the creation of a fetishist/adventure story writer, then she was handed off to a bunch of indifferent or untalented writers and now she’s supposed to be a capital-s Symbol, full of capital-m Meaning? I don’t buy it.
For further and better reading, Noah Berlatsky just wrapped up a series on the Wonder in question, with a focus on the Marston era and looks at Rucka, the O’Neill/Sekowsky stuff, etc.:
http://hoodedutilitarian.blogspot.com/2009/03/thats-not-truth-oocwvg-9.html
“And, of course, let’s be honest: “woman in a man’s world” is a hard sell in comics.”
Perhaps that’s just her excuse for incompetence?
I’m not sure I agree when you say that you don’t need to focus on sex to write Wonder Woman’s story, because I’m not sure I agree that Wonder Woman’s story is “woman in a man’s world”. Marston really did intend the character to be an exemplar not just of “female” power, but very specifically of sexual power. His beliefs about sexuality informed the character and the series from day one, and I do think that yes, the core of Wonder Woman’s character is “Sex gives women power over men, and they should own that power.”
That’s still a powerful and controversial concept even today (which is why Wonder Woman seems so continually adrift–a major company like DC would prefer something “safer” for one of their core titles.) A lot of people feel that for women to be powerful (or worthwhile, for that matter), they have to deny their sexuality, and I think that stories that explore this concept would have a lot of currency. (While, of course, freaking out parents’ groups.)
Kyle W,
Its a shame there isn’t an internet dating forum for meeting Amish women.
Damn. This is so on point. Very thought-provoking post.
One reason WW is a tough sell is that she doesn’t have an easily-understandable origin story, too. Alien sent from his exploding home and raised an a human to fight for Truth, Justice, And The American Way. Orphan who makes a solemn vow to battle crime in the night. Both are simple. Amazon princess from an all-woman’s island is created out of clay and given magic gifts by the gods comes as an symbol of peace but she’s really a warrior into man’s world to do..what? Not simple. The memorable heroes have simple stories. She doesn’t. And I agree about the problem of men writing her: I don’t have any idea how she or any woman would see things, because I was raised with guy ideas and differient trouser luggage.
And I see that the link provided by Will Entrekin already said much of that. Oh well.
AERose, it’s not so much that we think Marsden or any of the other comic book hacks who’ve written WW over the years were serious artists, it’s just that certain characters occupy a place in the collective cultural consciousness that makes them resonate in a way that ought to make for good stories in the hands of a canny author. And superheroes are particularly good for that, because, even if it’s sheerly by accident, they have a highly iconic nature. They end up standing for things simply by attribution.
That said, there were some interesting things that went into the Wonder Woman character in the first place–not necessarily acts of literary genius, but a weird psychological stance that, again, resonates in interesting ways. But even if there hadn’t been, the fact that she’s probably the single most well-known female superhero in the world, and one of the superheroes whose names has more or less entered the vernacular, means that she really ought to be handled better from a storytelling perspective.
From John Seavey:
A lot of people feel that for women to be powerful (or worthwhile, for that matter), they have to deny their sexuality, and I think that stories that explore this concept would have a lot of currency. (While, of course, freaking out parents’ groups.)
The problem that ‘a lot of people’ have with the idea of a woman using sex for power is that it is often presented as the only way for a woman to be powerful or to have worth–there are no genuinely ugly-girl movie stars analogous to John Candy or David Spade or that guy who starred in Knocked Up as ‘Ugly Guy Who Gets the Hot Chick’.
Male superheroes are not expected to ‘look hot’ at all times, are not required to show skin to interest readers, and do not have their self-worth evaluated on whether or not they can snare sexual attention.
That’s the flipside to ‘sex gives women power’, as those women who do not have a lot of sex are thusly powerless in a man’s world and of course, we all know what is thought of those women who have a lot of sex–besides that they might be powerful by proxy.
Just look at how many times Themyscira/Paradise Island has been ravaged by invading forces to see how powerless women who “never have sex” are.
“Male superheroes are not expected to ‘look hot’ at all times”
Are there really all that many male comic book characters that are truly considered ugly, at least among the heroes? From my experience most male comic book characters are certainly better look and more physically fit then their readers. Let me put it another way: you female comic book readers? Who would you rather go on a date with: Spider-Man/Batman/Superman/whoever or the guy reading his comic? (Given the premise that said character was real.)
“AERose, it’s not so much that we think Marsden or any of the other comic book hacks who’ve written WW over the years were serious artists, it’s just that certain characters occupy a place in the collective cultural consciousness that makes them resonate in a way that ought to make for good stories in the hands of a canny author.”
And Wonder Woman is not one of them.
It’s a matter of confusing historical significance with actual cultural cachet. Wonder Woman has plenty of one, none of the other.
Who would you rather go on a date with: Spider-Man/Batman/Superman/whoever or the guy reading his comic?
Peter Parker and Clark Kent are both nerds who are secretly powerful. Yes, male characters are drawn in an idealized manner but it is quite different from how females are handled. They are drawn to show power.
Also: Reed Richards (another nerd done good), Logan, the Thing, the Hulk, Vision, Martian Manhunter, Metamorpho, Kid Devil, off the top of my head.
I think I like the way Linkara put it:
Wonder Woman is the Spirit of Truth.
Woman in a man’s world? Edgier, sure. Also boring as fuck, it’s been done to death in popular fiction.
“You know you could go further with what Wonder Woman’s about. Sheltered at home a young person leaves to explore the world.”
My first thought was Siddhartha. Adventures of sexy dominatrix buddha would be kind of cool, actually.
I’m sorry, AERose, but that’s just not true. Everyone knows who Wonder Woman is. She’s had her own TV show. She had enough resonance for “Ms.” magazine to adopt her as a feminist icon and put her on their first cover. Simply by being the best-known female superhero, she automatically has a certain cultural cachet. It’s almost reflexive. Again, that’s the funny thing about superheroes–they squirm into our culture almost by default.
The fact that she’s almost never been written well is beside the point. The fact that the only “plan” for the character was a half-baked jumble of “role model” and “fetish object” is beside the point. Anything they’ve actually done in the comic is beside the point. In spite of everything, the character occupies a place in our culture, even if it’s simply a matter of everyone projecting onto her.
A name and a face is not a character. That Wonder Woman contains convenient aspects to be adopted by various groups as a symbol (for widely varying purposes) does not mean the character, in and of itself, is A Symbol, or Has Meaning, or even has a “core” missing or otherwise.
I always assumed the “invisible jet” was a practical joke. Like, really she’s a short-range telekinetic who can move herself and a few other people at high speeds, and how she chooses to use this power is to convince a bunch of gullible men that she has an invisible jet. I blame her fighter-jock first boyfriend for giving her the idea.
[…] is hard to write well, because there is no definitive Wonder Woman. I’ve written about this before, but think about it for a second. There’s a definitive Batman, now: he’s been arrived […]