Society/Culture Did a male get in the way of Wonder Woman?

Remove this Banner Ad

Oct 23, 2014
38,592
44,472
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Melbourne Hawks, NY Rangers
An interesting read from the AV Club about how male and female love interests differ, even in supposedly feminist superhero films. In recent successful comic book movies, the likes of Mary Jane, Lois Lane, Rachel Dawes are the female love interests who represent only one part of the male hero's life, yet when it comes to the male partner, it seems the heroine's entire journey is seen and characterised through him. This is certainly the case in Wonder Woman, the latest from DC.

http://www.avclub.com/article/steve-trevor-joss-whedon-and-men-getting-way-wonde-257124

Steve Trevor may not be a household name like Lois Lane or Mary Jane Watson, but like those characters, he’s been a staple of Wonder Woman’s story from her very first appearance in All-Star Comics #8. Steve’s plane crash landing on Paradise Island is a key part of Wonder Woman’s origin story, in much the same way Jor-El sending Kal off in a space bassinet is a key part of Superman’s. So it only makes sense that Steve would have a major role to play in the first-ever big screen take on Wonder Woman, where he’s winningly brought to life by Chris Pine.

Though I’m hesitant to judge anyone too harshly by an unproduced script that was written more than 10 years ago, the excerpts represent the sort of Wonder Woman film many feared the first female-led superhero property of the cinematic universe era would be—one filtered largely through the perspective of her male love interest. Whedon’s script uses Steve Trevor as a snarky POV character, and—from the limited excerpts at least—it seems as interested in Steve’s reaction to Diana as it is in Diana herself.

Still, even though Steve never threatens to overshadow Diana, her relationship with him overshadows her relationships with just about every other character—and that’s disheartening. While a male hero like Spider-Man can be motivated by both his love for Mary Jane and the moral code imparted to him by his Uncle Ben, Diana isn’t granted those kinds of layered, complex emotional connections. In her final battle, she’s thinking of Steve and Steve alone—not, say, her beloved aunt and mentor whose untimely death has relatively little impact on her arc.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7
Obviously the posters above are cucks.

I can't get comfortable with that word, it seems sexist against women, the implication being that only weak men would allow promiscuity in their partners, and it's up to those same men to keep their women in line.
 
It's about women's roles in society.
They dont have roles. They can do whatever the hell they like. It's the ides that they should have roles is the problem. Equally so with men and their supposed roles.

Wish people wold stop worrying about other people, get selfish, harden the * up and just live and enjoy`. We are all wealthyy, we can do what whatever we want. Stop whinging about little s**t and live.
 
I can't get comfortable with that word, it seems sexist against women, the implication being that only weak men would allow promiscuity in their partners, and it's up to those same men to keep their women in line.
Not sexist at all. Women are weak too if they let their men sleep with other women without their consent. Both sexes are weak in the same situation. You are the only one that views it through a biased gender prism suggesting you are the one that has sexism problems.
 
Not sexist at all. Women are weak too if they let their men sleep with other women without their consent. Both sexes are weak in the same situation. You are the only one that views it through a biased gender prism suggesting you are the one that has sexism problems.

I wasn't accusing anyone of having sexism problems, so there's no need to try and throw that back in my face. It's not an argument I am making here. I just feel that the word itself is sexist, and possibly homophobic. After all, isn't 'cuck' just the latest right-wing replacement for 'f**' in the way that it calls traditional masculinity into question? They can't say 'f**' anymore, but 'cuck' is safe apparently. :rolleyes:

Then there's the fact that it implies ownership over women, as though it's up to men to keep them safe from outsiders, almost as if they were property. I was introduced to a similar concept from an early age having grown up in an old-fashioned regime. Although I instantly rejected this notion, I do spot it now from time to time in society with the use of this word, and it is unnerving how it is now applied not only to women, but to possessions. In other words, used very much according to the sexist notion of masculine responsibility that implicitly equated women to property that I rejected years ago. I'd rather we didn't regress to that.
 
They dont have roles. They can do whatever the hell they like. It's the ides that they should have roles is the problem. Equally so with men and their supposed roles.

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting men should have certain roles and women have others. I'm attempting to highlight the fact that lesser roles for women still prevail, even in the arts.
 
Last edited:
By the thread heading, assumed some bloke took the bullet for her, because her bullet deflecting bangles were defective.....Oh well.

Perhaps an analytical synopsis upon the Western childhood psyche of the role that super-heroes & villains play, in their shaping of the Us/Them, Black/White, Good/Evil dichotomies, could be a worthwhile enterprise.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

By the thread heading, assumed some bloke took the bullet for her, because her bullet deflecting bangles were defective.....Oh well.

Perhaps an analytical synopsis upon the Western childhood psyche of the role that super-heroes & villains play, in their shaping of the Us/Them, Black/White, Good/Evil dichotomies, could be a worthwhile enterprise.

Let's start with Song of the South...
 
I wasn't accusing anyone of having sexism problems, so there's no need to try and throw that back in my face. It's not an argument I am making here. I just feel that the word itself is sexist, and possibly homophobic. After all, isn't 'cuck' just the latest right-wing replacement for 'f**' in the way that it calls traditional masculinity into question? They can't say 'f**' anymore, but 'cuck' is safe apparently. :rolleyes:

Then there's the fact that it implies ownership over women, as though it's up to men to keep them safe from outsiders, almost as if they were property. I was introduced to a similar concept from an early age having grown up in an old-fashioned regime. Although I instantly rejected this notion, I do spot it now from time to time in society with the use of this word, and it is unnerving how it is now applied not only to women, but to possessions. In other words, used very much according to the sexist notion of masculine responsibility that implicitly equated women to property that I rejected years ago. I'd rather we didn't regress to that.
Something seriously crazy in your mind to come up with those interpretations. A cuck is a women who gets pregnant with kids from one man and then gets another man to look after those kids without telling him he is not the father. Exactly like a cuckoo bird. There is noting more to it then that. There is zero way you could ever conclude the term is sexist against women.
 
Something seriously crazy in your mind to come up with those interpretations. A cuck is a women who gets pregnant with kids from one man and then gets another man to look after those kids without telling him he is not the father. Exactly like a cuckoo bird. There is noting more to it then that. There is zero way you could ever conclude the term is sexist against women.

That's simply the etymology of the word, it has nothing to do with how it is used today to pertain to those issues of sexism and homophobia that I alluded to.

Might as well say that "f**" is not homophobic because it originally meant a bundle of sticks.
 
Obviously the posters above are cucks.

Honestly I actually thought the same thing as the writer of that article. The movie was a little bit too much Steve and his sacrifice.
The male is the only character to make a truly noble sacrifice.

That said, I think this thread (and to a lesser extent, the article) is just trawling for responses.
 
An interesting read from the AV Club about how male and female love interests differ, even in supposedly feminist superhero films. In recent successful comic book movies, the likes of Mary Jane, Lois Lane, Rachel Dawes are the female love interests who represent only one part of the male hero's life, yet when it comes to the male partner, it seems the heroine's entire journey is seen and characterised through him.

But is this isn't a bad thing? Maybe it is the male superheroes who can be judged more harshly that their characterisation is not wholly dependent on their lifelong partner. Maybe Superman's world view and characterisation should be more dependent on Lois Lane and Lois Lane should get more screen time and characterisation.
 
That's simply the etymology of the word, it has nothing to do with how it is used today to pertain to those issues of sexism and homophobia that I alluded to.

Might as well say that "f**" is not homophobic because it originally meant a bundle of sticks.
f** isn't homophobic. Words aren't discriminatory. Only the way people use them is discriminatory and even then it's not the actual words that are discriminatory.
 
America the Super-hero coming to save Lady Liberty.....LOL....The pax americana moral via a well-honed Zionist owned, Hollywood formulae....The duping of our Western world kids minds, does indeed begin early.

MANUFACTURED CONSENT: 101.
Do even you know what that post is supposed to mean? It looks like gibberish to me.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top