Books by Greg:

Comics by Greg:

Media by Greg:

Email the webmaster

News Feed

Blog Feed

Either You Get It Or You Don’t…

I’m linking here to Pink, entry from January 11th.

I could have happily lived out the rest of my days without knowing about this. And I am quite literally forcing myself from breaking into a vicious and invective-filled rant about the sheer, grotesque double-standard that’s being applied, here.

There are so many things I could say on this subject. So many things. And perhaps I will at a later date.

But I’ll leave it with this. I’d much rather my daughter see this…

…than ever see that.

And, for those of you who consider such things, take a look at the banner on the Ms. cover. “Wonder Woman for President.”

Do you really think it’s a coincidence that Playboy chose this year, the issue for the month containing “Tsunami Tuesday,” to run this particular pictorial? Do you really?

I can hear the WB wanks right now. “As long as it’s tasteful….”

Bastards all. You’ve no idea the damage you’ve done. No idea at all.

95 Responses to Either You Get It Or You Don’t…

  1. shanejayell

    *shakes head*

    I hope DC sues them.

  2. lithera

    *points to the icon*

    That’s really about it.

  3. davidwynne

    Up to this point I have been looking at this from the perspective of: it’s Playboy. I expect this kind of thing from Playboy. I have no interest in Playboy for exactly that reason.

    But I get the impression you’re coming at this from another angle, one I’m missing- what exactly is “Tsunami Tuesday”? I’ve never heard of such a thing. Is it something US specific (I’m in the UK)?

  4. morchades

    US specific. Tsunami Tuesday is Feb 5th, when 20 states hold their primary elections to choose the candidate for the Presidential election. This is the first year there’s a woman with a real shot.

  5. morchades

    Y’know, I’ve been watching that damned thing explode for a couple of days and the same people keep popping up with “It’s just Playboy!” and “Wonder Woman is a fetish character anyway!” and such.

    I might be stepping over the line asking you this (and, fair warning, I’d take your answer to other blogs), but you’ve written this character so I have to ask. Does DC have any idea how much stuff like that hurts her credibility in her true target audience? That whole idea that she’s a plaything for male readers and was created that way just makes it so hard to get women interested in her.

    And do they realize that if her originally intended target audience took her seriously, she’d sell a lot better?

  6. davidwynne

    I’m starting to see a whole other side to this, now. I must say I hadn’t actually heard of Ms magazine till today, either- another US specific thing, I think, since I was raised by a particularly commited feminist, who went out her way to educate me about such things…

    With a little context, that stupid cover gains a whole extra dimension of hatefulness.

    Funny that none of the Official Feminist Comics Bloggers caught this angle though.

  7. morchades

    “Official Feminist Comic Bloggers”?

  8. admin

    They won’t. Playboy had to have permission to use the character, which means that, at the least, it was approved by Warner Bros., and at the worst, it was approved by WB and DC.

  9. kali921

    Hear, hear.

    Hear, hear.

    I saw that and…I got that aching, hollow sense of futility you feel when you realize that no matter how far women have come, no matter how hard you work to communicate effectively with the males of the species, no matter how much effort you put into written and spoken words trying to explain how something like this is really, really indicative of so much that’s wrong with modern American society…

    …it’s pointless. Because it happened.

    I’m a pro-porn feminist. I don’t mind sexualization up to a point in comics. I never complained about Moondragon’s costume back in the day when Jim Starlin was drawing her as wearing nothing but green dental floss.

    But to take a feminist icon like Diana in an election year and sex her up?


  10. kali921




  11. admin

    I’m going to take the Fifth on this for the moment…except to say the following:

    I honestly think DC/WB has no idea who her target audience is. I suspect, more often than not, they think she has none.

    And as for those who say that Diana is a fetish character, 1) find me a superhero who isn’t (“Spandex,” says Mark Waid, “is a privilege, not a right.”) and 2) how many of those people would burst a vessel, if not a vital organ, if Playgirl ran a similar cover/pictorial with a male, semi-erect model painted up as Batman?

    I call bullshit.

  12. thetathx1138

    Does DC have any idea how much stuff like that hurts her credibility in her true target audience?

    Hardcore DC fanboys. Oh, they’re well aware.

    Honestly, I can understand the outrage to a point but we rocketed past that point a while back. We have easily reached fanwank at this stage.

  13. shanejayell

    Which is insane, considering how much it damages the character. Even if you don’t take her seriously as a character, Wonder Woman has immense symbolic value… which is being pissed on as we speak. *argh*

  14. davidwynne

    sorry, should have used my [attempt at humour] tags. I’m referring to the usual suspects that generally get linked by Newsarama and CBR in order to (pretend to) represent feminism in comics fandom.

    (Valerie D’Orazio, for example, completely missed this angle, as did Cheryl Lynn, and every other blog I’ve read apart from this one.)

    I should make it clear at this point that I read and enjoy most of the blogs that I’m referring to.

  15. kali921

    So very much agreed. As for the bullshit argument that Wonder Woman is a fetish character, not in my family. I’ve mentioned before to you (pardon the repetition, but I feel it needs to be said publicly again) that my mother raised me on generous portions of Wonder Woman. A lot of young girls in America grew up reading Diana. Fetishization? Bullshit. For a man to call Diana’s strength and persona a fetish is so very much missing the very essentials of her character.

    She is a symbol. DC knows this, I suspect.

  16. kali921

    Not quite.

    That whole idea that she’s a plaything for male readers and was created that way just makes it so hard to get women interested in her.

    As a woman raised by a mother who owned tons of Wonder Woman comics, and kept Diana posters all over the house, I beg to differ. That awareness of Diana as being considered a “fetish” character did not enter my awareness until into adhulthood when I started reading research and meta on her character.

    I know I’m not alone in this. She might have been considered a fetish icon early in the Golden Age, but to diminish her character with such a cavalier dismisssal and petty miscategorization is laughable. If I want to look at the core of the DC universe, the fundamental character that embodies heroism in the DC verse, I look at Diana. I don’t look at Clark or Bruce. I look at Diana.

  17. thetathx1138

    Do you really think it’s a coincidence that Playboy chose this year, the issue for the month containing “Tsunami Tuesday,” to run this particular pictorial? Do you really?


    Hey, you asked.

  18. kali921

    sorry, should have used my [attempt at humour] tags. I’m referring to the usual suspects that generally get linked by Newsarama and CBR in order to (pretend to) represent feminism in comics fandom.

    “Pretend” to represent feminism? Could you clarify that, because I don’t know you, so I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic or not.

    Alternatively, there are real actual feminists like me that read comics, write meta about them from a feminist viewpoint, and don’t pretend to represent anything but our own POV.

  19. morchades

    Thank you. :)

  20. morchades

    Re: Not quite.

    No, you’re not alone in this.

    Howeer, not every woman who reads comics comes there through an existing WW fan. It’s funny, there’s this view of her from inside her audience, and there’s a view of her from without. Problem is, in order to get new Wonder Woman readers, you need to get people who aren’t her fans to pick her up. People who aren’t already her fans often use this as a way of waving her off.

    I have seen a lot, a lot of female writers who dismiss her as non-feminist because of the bondage-thing. The idea’s out there, and stuff like this cover perpetuate it.

  21. davidwynne

    I’m saying that Newsarama and CBR pretend to represent feminism in comics fandom, by linking to the same 5 blogs over and over again.

    I really don’t think I’m being that unclear, I have to say. Twenty seconds on my lj should make it pretty clear where I stand on feminst issues, whether you know me or not.

  22. kali921

    Re: Not quite.

    I have seen a lot, a lot of female writers who dismiss her as non-feminist because of the bondage-thing. The idea’s out there, and stuff like this cover perpetuate it.

    I’ve seen a bit of that, mostly from the clueless, but mostly I’ve seen the opposite. I’ve been in comics fandom for three decades, and anyone who dismisses Diana because of what she was in the 1940′s or because of her lasso really, really isn’t getting it. They aren’t reading with depth, I suspect.

  23. kali921

    I thought that’s what you meant, but wasn’t sure. :-) You never know when discussions like this come up. Your previously rational and sane and credible fanboy can randomly come up with some freakishly implausible statements once the spectre of OMG feminism!!1 rears its head.

  24. morchades

    Re: Not quite.

    I’d put the clueless in the majority, here. :(

    If DC had brains they’d be suing Playboy’s ass off, and doing their best to send the message that this is NOT what that character is about.

  25. morchades





  26. kali921

    Re: Not quite.

    Well, as General Rucka pointed out above, DC might have approved this usage of Diana. I thought about that possibility over the weekend – I mean, someone must have approved the usage of her likeness on a mainstream publication like Playboy, unless Playboy tried to snake it on by as a parody.

  27. admin


    In all fairness, you can’t lay this at Dan’s feet. Many are the Sins of DiDio, but this, I think, cannot be counted amongst them.

    (And mind, I say “many are the sins,” knowing full well that I am in NO position to be casting that stone.)

  28. kali921


    But DIIIIDIO has a nicer ring, and I still hold him accountable for too much just to let him off the hook this easily, you know?

    I propose an amalgamation. Kinda like Zinoviev-Kamenev, the Hyphenated Entity (howzzat for a random Russian history reference?):


  29. admin


    Yes, I did.

    It’s a fair cop.

    (And don’t talk to the audience.)

  30. morchades

    Oh, I think I may be one of the 5. :)

    In that case, no one was willing to give Playboy that much credit for forethought.

  31. morchades

    Re: Not quite.

    Playboy is too “respectible” to do that.

    So now I’m pissed. DC once shut down a smalltime artist for a shirtless Batman, and they let this shit go through?

    Time to spread Levitz’s contact info.

  32. kali921


    It’s a catch all curse at this point, representing Everything That Is Wrong With DC. Point taken though, sir.

    Me, I keep Googling to see if DC has an Official Position™ on this and coming up with nothing.

  33. morchades


    But… Didio let Hal come back… :(

  34. kali921

    That’s really interesting to me, something I’ve been thinking about for the last two days. I consider Playboy’s actual writing and editorial staff, the staff that isn’t focused on T&A, to be rather sharp. YES, I’VE READ IT FOR THE ARTICLES.

    Seriously, there was a time when Playboy had a decent roster of writers!

    But I can’t begin to believe that Playboy didn’t consider how this naked!Diana would read to women, and I find it hard to believe that they don’t take some pleasure in the negative reaction.

    You know what hurts? At least they could have used someone with intelligent eyes. Tiffany Brittany Summer Rain, or whatever her name is, looks…just…vacuous to me.

  35. morchades

    And her resume. They couldn’t have used an actress with some Wonder-Woman-like roles under her girdle?

  36. kali921

    Re: Not quite.

    Oh, please do. If I can write a three page letter about MJ and Peter’s marriage being destroyed and FedEx it to Joe Quesada, you can sure that I’ll do the same and lots more where Diana is concerned.

  37. davidwynne

    hey wait-

    Are you Ragnell?

    Woah. Scuse me while I have a complete fanboy moment…

  38. kali921

    No, I meant the cover model that was naked.

    I don’t think Diana can be played by a real live actress in the 21st century. Who has the athletic Amazon build coupled with the intensity, ferocity of intellect, exquisite bone structure, and sheer force of personality? No major actress that I can think of, to be honest. When I think of Diana, I think of a woman that looks to be in her thirties. I think of a woman, not a girl.

    Lynda Carter was marvelous, but that was camp, and that era is long gone.

  39. morchades

    Re: Not quite.

    Paul Levitz, Publisher
    DC Comics
    1700 Broadway
    New York, NY 10019

  40. morchades

    Oh, you missed the inside text, didn’t you?

    See, this cover model is called a “modern Lynda Carter” for all her reality TV appearances.

  41. kali921


    Look, as the Biggest Hal Fangirl in the History of Time and Space, I’m putting that on the relentless clamoring of fangirls and fanboys and on Geoff Johns, who made me start reading DC again (outside of Wonder Woman) in 2004 after it was officially Dead To Me when Hal was gone. Hal AND Carter, I might add.

    I only believe in redemption up to a point. :-)

  42. morchades

    You just made smile.

  43. kali921

    No, I read it. I read it and disregarded it for the tripe aggregation of utter bullshit that it was.

    I mean no disrespect to Tiffany Fallon, but she is no Lynda Carter.

    (Lynda had those blindingly blue eyes.)

  44. morchades


    Fair enough. :) Especially as I understand it was Johns who insisted on keeping Kyle, too.

  45. kali921


    Johns is sometimes a Golden God. I mostly love the way he writes team books, I really, really do.

    Now, if they ever screw with Kilowog again, I’m getting the manpack flamethrower and spewing forth white hot death indiscriminately.

  46. kali921

    Re: Not quite.

    Thank you! Because I haven’t been able to bring myself to go to DC’s website over the past three days to look up the corporate addy.

  47. davidwynne

    Well then, I have returned the favour, since you’ve made me smile yourself many times.

  48. morchades

    Re: Not quite.

    I keep it around for emergencies like this. :)

  49. skalja

    You know, the first time I heard/read feminists from an older generation than I saying, “Sometimes, I get the impression that we’re going backwards, not forwards,” I thought, “Well, I’m sad that they feel that way, but how silly!”

    More and more, I wonder if they’re right. Goddamnit.

  50. retro_noir

    Yay! There will be no other like Lynda.

  51. skalja

    Re: Not quite.

    Just dropping by to say thanks for the info-gathering; this is going to be my month of letter-writing, it seems. :)

  52. zhinxy

    I have to agree. It is a coincidence. I’m not going to attribute to conspiracy what I can attribute to unthinking business-as-usual. And I say this as a conspiracy nut.

    But I’m really only spamming you to tell you that you + that icon means the world is an even cooler place than I thought it was when I got up this morning.

  53. lurkerwithout


    Fandom has to be FAIR now? Why must you people keep changing the rules on me? What am I going to do with my Dan DiDio Wicker-Man now?

  54. lithera


    Some part of me has to wonder, really, how much of what happens is the direct result of someone like DiDio or Quesada saying that they want something to happen. Some things, sure, are obviously coming from there but it can’t all be that way.

    I have stopped having conversations about comic books with a lot of people these days because it always ends up being the same conversation about how everything sucks and they hate it all and “OMG, They’re KILLING EVERYONE.” And then they just go and spend their $100+ a month at the comic shop.

    After a point, it really just has to be people addicted to complaining, doesn’t it? Or are they really just that masochistic? If reading the comic book makes you that upset – vote with your dollars and stop buying.

    I know it is only slightly related to the topic at hand but more and more I wonder at my fellow fans and how vitriolic they get about the same things over and over again. Was it always this way and the internet made it easier to see or was I just too wrapped up in my comic book warm and fuzzy place to notice?

  55. zhinxy

    Re: Not quite.

    Thanks. I should probably stick it to my fridge, really…

  56. morchades


    Well, I keep reading when it makes me more happy to read than makes me irritated (this has led to my dropping Green Lantern at least three times, only to pick it up lately when they had a shiny new event). I think most people do, and just need to vent online so they can continue enjoying what they enjoy without it weighing on their mind.

  57. wyldemusick

    What irks me is the present testosterone-driven upper management at Warner Bros (particularly Robinov) who have an overwhelming anti-women attitude right now…this probably meets with their full approval.

    Arrgh. I don’t have time to properly think about this right now, which means I don’t have time for a rant (or I’d be rabbiting on in my own LJ.)

    I swear there are active elements in this country that want to put us back to the Dark Ages or worse, though. Another rant for another time, gotta get back to Shakespeare….

  58. lurkerwithout


    OR we complain about one (or multiple) comic(s) and then go and spend that 100+ bucks on some other comics. I mean even just limiting it to super-hero books, thats a pretty wide ranging field…

    I can happily complain about the current JLA and then JUST as happily continue to buy Blue Beetle

    Or to move away from comics, I can watch “Pushing Daisies”, change the channel or leave the room when “Private Practice” comes on and then go back to watch “Dirty, Sexy, Money”…

  59. andrensath

    Ooh, can I steal yours? It’s awesome.

  60. dr_jekyl

    It’s depressing, really it is.

    On one hand, you have a comic and character whose natural, inbuilt fanbase are women and men who like to see strong, intelligent women – who happen to be beautiful – kicking ass and taking names. On the other, you have all the marketing of the comic and character, which focuses on the fact that she’s gorgeous. Advertise a sexpot and you attract people who want to see a sex-pot. The words’ self-fulfilling prophecy’ spring to mind.

    Wonder Woman has the potential to be one of DC’s biggest advantages when competing with Marvel for market share. Ask any layman on the street to name a male superhero and they’ll list ones from both stables – Batman, Spiderman, Superman, Wolverine, maybe the Flash and the Hulk. But ask for a female superhero and what you get is Wonder Woman. There is no Marvel equivilant, no hero as deeply embedded in the public conciousness. The closest they have is Jean Grey, and she’s not even the most famous of the X-Men.

    Wonder Woman is a touchstone and a gateway for getting more people – more women – into comics. DC comics. She’s a way to enlarge the pie, but that will only work if they stop trying to persuade the public at large that the title and character are all about catering to horny fanboys.

    *sighs* I’m mortally afraid of what Warner Brothers will do to Wonder Woman in any big-screen appearances. Mortally. I keep having visions of ‘Catwoman’.

  61. sora50

    Megadittoes. I somehow doubt that The Man would make a connection between the Ms cover and this one. Even if he did, I doubt that the typical American would know the connection.

  62. thetathx1138

    What irks me is the present testosterone-driven upper management at Warner Bros (particularly Robinov) who have an overwhelming anti-women attitude right now

    Oh Christ, I KNEW this was going to come up.

    Yes, some idiot Warner Bros. executive said they weren’t making movies starring women. But I sincerely doubt the moron who said that, who’s an executive in an entirely different branch of an absolutely enormous media conglomerate, even knew this was happening. This request probably went to and came back from DC; if you want to curse the name of anyone, try the licensing director of DC.

    I understand being pissed off about this, I really do, but I beg, for the love of God, for some reason, or the fanwank is going to get ridiculous

  63. spitfire92

    Yikes, that isn’t the wonder woman image I remember you writing!

    Chris Y

  64. wyldemusick

    Sorry, but I hold to my high dudgeon about the bullshit coming from Robinov and his cronies. I didn’t say that the berk had anything to do with licensing approval (if there was even any approach to licensing, which seems (to me) unlikely; there’s enough design variance that Playboy’s legal team might well have okayed it without feeling a need to try for DC/WB approval) and hadn’t even thought in those terms.

    I can, however, see the Warner Bros Boys Club being quite approving of this piece.

    Incidentally, I am very well aware of the size and variety of Warner Bros in all its myriad shapes and names. Amongst other things, my ex-wife was a Warner Veep (one of many, many, many of that ilk), and over the course of a number of years I connected to feature, animation, TV, home video and music for various and sundry reasons. The corporation has devolved rather badly over the past two decades, and Robinov is only one symptom of the overall rot.

    (edits to tidy a thought and correct typos. Cause I can’t type.)

  65. robgpugh

    “…how many of those people would burst a vessel, if not a vital organ, if Playgirl ran a similar cover/pictorial with a male, semi-erect model painted up as Batman?”

    Wait… those were the Schumacher movies, right?

  66. thetathx1138

    Don’t get me wrong, I think Robinov’s an idiot too, and not just for his well-documented misogyny (honestly, the only thing unique about Robinov among Hollywood executives is that he doesn’t keep his mouth shut). It’s just it’s a very short jump from you saying “I’m sure he likes this cover” to someone ELSE using that for “OMG Time Warner is plotting to keep women down!” I personally guarantee you somebody’s going to take our host’s conspiracy theory and run with it.

    Here’s what drives me nuts about things like this: yes, there are a lot of problems in comics, especially when it comes to feminism, but things like this or that goddamn M.J. statuette are really trivia, symptoms of a larger problem as opposed to a problem itself. I’d just like to see something mildly productive out of all the outrage for once.

  67. dandycat

    Gina Torres?

  68. davesbu

    i’ve only heard of that Tuesday referred to as Super Tuesday. I would like to know Gail Simone’s opinion on this. She’s usually very outspoken about this kind of thing, but yeah, I’m so sick about this thing that words are completely failing me.

  69. lithera


    And that’s fair.

    I’d like to have a positive conversation about comics and what people love instead of “OMG, I HATE IT, EVERYTHING SUCKS.” I know someone who thinks there hasn’t been much of anything good written in comics since 1990, which makes me boggle. And to save you, I’m not going to get started on death and change in comics, except to say that if no one ever died and nothing ever changed, wouldn’t it get really boring….?

  70. lithera


    Another valid point.

    I’m more talking about the people who are, for example, complaining about Spider-Man currently, saying it is the worst thing ever and yet… still buying it. I totally encourage people to find comics to read that they love. I know I’ve been pushing Queen and Country and Strangers in Paradise and Powers on people for years now.

    There is life outside the spandex, my friends. Come and breathe the free air.

  71. lithera

    Go right on ahead.

  72. lithera

    Not too far from it.

    And I think I’m still attempting to recover the braincells that ran away when I watched that. To this day the words “Suit me up Uncle Alfred” can send me into a twitching fit.

  73. admin

    Actually – and I gave this some thought last night – I do believe it is deliberate, but that’s not the same as ascribing malice to the decision. I think the irony of the cover certainly didn’t escape the folks at Playboy. There’s enough history between Hef and GS that it’s not beyond the realm of possibility. Perhaps I’m giving too much credit.

    Nothing happens in a vacuum. I think the timing is significant. As for the agenda behind it — or whether an agenda even exists — I can’t say.

  74. manwithpez

    Yours is pretty kick ass too!

  75. victor_with_a_c

    I saw the cover :( , and I am a big Wonder Woman fan. I love the Greek Myth/history intertwined with the character, I love the character of Diana herself and like the fact that she is more than a one dimensional character (which Bats and Supes often are). I do agree however, that DC doesn’t know who she is, who her target market is or how to sell her, which is why every few years there is a new writer coming on with their “take” on the character and series. DC can’t seem to figure out that one of their characters can me multi-dimensional much like us humans are (for the most part). Which also possibly factors in why this character only has one series instead of 2 or 3 like her “trinity” counterparts. They can’t get two writers to agree as to the character, since the writers would look at her in completely different lights. And the editors don’t seem to have a true understanding either.

    This by the way is in know reflection of Greg, who in my opinion “gets” Diana and showed her brilliantly as multi-dimensional. (Can’t wait for your return sometime in the future!)

    If WB/DC did say o.k. to this, very sad. By saying yes, some knuckle-head got his jones off by seeing his “fantasy”. Which shows how one-dimentional he is.

    Ahhh, I’ll just reflect back onto Hiketeia.


  76. shanejayell

    Dc has no comment, it seems.

  77. andrensath


  78. sonofbaldwin

    The most difficult time I’m having is trying to explain to the members of why this is problematic. It appears that they can’t see past their erections.

    And I guess I’ve got to learn to stop banging my head against them.

  79. bar1scorpio

    Bullshit called, and I raise you Joel Shumacher.

    Spandex to Rubber. With nipples… and codpieces for everyone! Of course I guess here we see the reflection.. well, not really, I’m not sure how Batman & Robin went over with female viewers… I guess somebody’s gotta be a Clooney fan.

  80. athelind

    Re: Not quite.

    So long as you don’t stick it IN your fridge.

    Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry…

  81. scavgraphics what does this have to do with Hillary Clinton?
    You really think it’s about her..and not perhaps all the casting rumors about Wonder Woman or if the “actress” has actually been compared to Linda Carter.

    Aren’t there a few dots you’re missing in your connections there?

  82. admin

    Quite possibly.

    To be totally frank, the only thing that I am truly certain of in all this kerfuffle, in all honesty, is that, if DC had known this was coming, they never in a million years would have allowed it.

    Anything else I offer is solely speculation and connections drawn by my own hyper-active brain.

  83. andrensath

    Why am I not surprised that they don’t care about nude portrayals of Wondy as much as Batman and Robin?

  84. maltlick

    I wandered over from the wide world of blogs and links, and just wanted to respond to one bit you said:

    how many of those people would burst a vessel, if not a vital organ, if Playgirl ran a similar cover/pictorial with a male, semi-erect model painted up as Batman?

    How many comic book fans went into a spiraling, exceptionally vocal, homophobic tirade after Justice Society of America #7 hit shelves?

    Probably the same number of people who don’t see a problem with Wonder Woman in Playboy.

  85. madthinker12357

    Call me crazy, but I’m guessing very few would be bothered by Playgirl doing it. They get a little crazy when it looks like the sexual picture is being aimed at them because it seem like they are buying a gay picture, but if it was in Playgirl, I think most guys would be fine with it.

  86. kali921

    PS: If we can’t have Lynda Carter, how about Nadia Bjorlin? Y/N?

    So, General Rucka, this whole thing got me thinking again about who could possibly embody Diana in a live action film role.

    Nadia Bjorlin, perhaps? I’ve no idea if she has the required outrageous charisma and dazzling intelligence that Diana has, but Nadia’s spoken freely about how much she loves Diana as a character. I think that’s the most important thing in casting her.

  87. davidwynne

    …dude, read the comments above yours.

    To save you the time: Schumacher’s Batman, that picture of Citizen Steel (or whatever the hell his name is) where *gasp* HE HAD A PENIS.

    And that’s not even close to a playgirl spread. Maybe you think most fans would be fine with it, but the evidence life has so far presented does not back you up…

  88. madthinker12357

    Those things you mention are true, David, but I think most guys think those things were marketed to them, to men. But Playgirl is marketed to women. I’ve never heard of a guy being bothered by a penis in Playgirl. Have you? I think the evidence is that guys aren’t bothered by penises marketed to women.

    I think those things you mentioned had a whiff of homoeroticism to them to those guys who were bothered and their homophobia kicked in with the fear that someone would think they were gay or supporting something gay if they paid for something with man nipples or dick.

  89. mightyfastpig

    Always and already

    Wonder Woman has always, already been a highly ambivalent figure, right back to the character’s genesis. Marston designed her as an embodiment of his utopian, progressive and patriotic ideals and his fetishistic sexual fantasies. There is no separating the two, any more than you can ever completely excise the homoerotic subtext of the Batman/Robin relationship.

    Wonder Woman as signifier can signify nearly anything: sexual fantasy, feminism, patriotism, a way to make a quick buck, etc. Read Robert Rodi’s novel “What they did to Princess Paragon” and see how a group of men struggle for control of an image of perfect woman.

    So, I can’t get terribly worked up about this. The fact that Wonder Woman does not mean any one thing, that she is not uniformly a feminist icon or modern day Spirit of Liberty or a sex object or what have you, speaks to the power of the archetype of the “unruly woman”, who is greater than the sum of all her depictions and parodies and defies reductionism.

  90. joeleland

    Wonder Woman Playboy Cover

    I think Wonder Woman creator William Moulton Marston….Mr. Alternative Lifestyle….would be proud. And for God’s sake, everyone lay off of Tiffany Fallon. She’s being burned in effigy because she’s not Linda Carter. What awful thing has she done to everyone to deserve the abuse over this?

  91. sterlingnorth

    Re: Wonder Woman Playboy Cover

    Honestly, I thought the cover came about in part because Ms. Fallon herself is a big fan of Wonder Woman. She dressed the part before.

  92. hammerheart_7

    What, Wonder Woman’s costume ISN’T exploitative? The cleavage and thong and everything? Wow, that’s news to me.

    Come ON. Her costume is a friggin’ swimsuit, and she’s ususally protrayed with vast boobs that barely fit inside the swimsuit. Of COURSE she’s treated as a sexual object; she has been treated like a sexual object for DECADES.

    IMO, the problem isn’t with Playboy’s silly cover; it’s with the costume itself. We can’t really complain when a character who is ALWAYS drawn as a sexual-object in comics suddenly is treated as a sexual-object outside of comics as well.

    I think Wonder Woman’s costume should be changed for something that a warrior/diplomat superheroine might actually wear. Wearing spandex is one thing, but Wonder Woman’s costume is a skimpy swimsuit. Look at Storm: nowadays she wears a beautiful full-body black/golden costume, and it looks CLASSY. Phoenix’s costume is another example of a full-body spandex superheroine costume that works perfectly well without cleavages and thongs. Invisible Woman is another good example. Meanwhile, Wonder Woman’s breasts are always on the verge of bursting out of her generous cleavage.

    And now it’s Playboy that’s treating her like a sex-symbol??

  93. admin

    No argument from me. I tried to get the costume changed from the start. Even had a story built around it. Despite repeated attempts, the response was a resounding no, and the arguments made were always commercial and economic ones, rather than those of story or content.

    I think I agree with you about the heart of the problem. Absolving DC/WB of all guilt in the publication, arguing that Playboy was simply exercising fair-use…the fact is, she’s been hyper-sexualized from the moment of inception, and there’s no likelihood that portrayal will ever change, no matter who’s writing the book, nor who’s drawing it. It’s not unique to that character, though she is, I think, by far, the most visible example of it.

  94. hammerheart_7

    For what it’s worth, mr. Rucka, you wrote the best Wonder Woman stories I’ve read in 30+ years of comics-reading. To be honest, the only problem with those stories is that her sexploitative costume didn’t fit the character AT ALL, and that problem is clearly not your fault. Heck, you even had her wearing classier diplomatic robes and battlesuits quite often, fashion choices that greatly benefitted WW.

    Ah, well. Maybe someday that will be allowed to change, and Wonder Woman will be a better character for it.

  95. hammerheart_7

    Oh, and now I’m REALLY curious about the story you built around the costume change.

Leave a Reply