@sinisteri:

I would contest that a 'superhero' character defined by her gender and questionable gender politics for decades; pandering to and appeasing a minute demographic that isn't even the mediums core readership, is not a great way to built lasting endurance that enables said character to "stand the test of time."

@gokuwarrior: So you hate one villain just because other people hate the villains you like very mature and logical way of thinking.

i hate it because he is stereotypical and yet his fans act like if he is gold for wonder woman bashing her other villans,he has no depth and as i said it's easy to see he is sterotypical.

don´t bother goku. you´ll be here forever. The fact is wonder woman isn´t selling well and still be used as awfully pre 52 wonder woman. she has no respect outside her own book at all. Look at her depiction in Justice League for instance. No one really takes this new wonder woman seriously.

the only thing that can trully save wonder woman is a good film. Thats it. Till that day whether her run is genius or not, her story will just not have sufficient exposure to deal with heavy hitters like Superman and Batman. Thus until that day she will not be given the respect deserved by the DCU. Zeus´s daughter or not. I suggest just forget this stupid ass debate.

@jphulk26:that seems to be the case.

@netshyster:

You may contest it, but I have over 6 decades of history and the general public impression on my side. Wonder Woman's core readership? Don't underestimate the true core that has existed over the decades which have always kept her going through thick and thin. Her core readership hasn't been impressed by her recent depiction of being grateful to a mentor/Ares who historically motivated the forces that enslaved and assaulted her mother and sisters.

Wonder Woman by nature will always be defined by her gender. It is part of why people chose to read a female hero over a male hero when they open the book. No one is expecting to read about Superman or Batman(also based on genders there) when they pick up a book about a female.

Woah woah woah don't presume you know what my views are on New 52 Superman. It's true I don't like his depiction in his self titled series but I've been one Superman fan who's actually defended the New 52 interpretation of Superman and at times the New 52 itself. It's not perfect but it's not all bad. You're making a massive generalisation of me and Superman fans in general, one I thoroughly reject on a plausible basis too. AND I love Azzarello's Wonder Woman series, it's my favourite DC series and my favourite on my pull list.

As for this thread, it's basically a chance for disgruntled Wonder Woman fans to say "Oh you're not a true Wonder Woman fan because you don't like the stuff I think defines Wonder Woman" which I do but I also like Azzarello's stuff. The thread has been laughably pathetic from people giving childish and juvenile reasons for disliking what Azzarello is doing just because it doesn't fit with their personal preferences.

@lvenger:

Okay my apologies for misinterpreting your points, I got that notion from your arguments with Scott L's work, but when I said I multiply your opinion by 1000 it was because I respect it. I've seen a few complaints about Scott and Superman not being the same, like his attitude,etc, and it reminded me of these WW threads in some ways, so as you said it was meant to be a massive generalization in that regard. Nothing more. But I can see where your post is coming from, especially in the context of this thread, i was being lazy when I posted. But I didn't, in any way, mean to imply you, or any other Superman fan, act, or think, in the manner of some of the people who engage in these WW wars.

@drgnx: Ah so you were basing your post on that? Fair enough. That is a justifiable reference since I'm not at all impressed with Lobdell's writing in the slightest. But generally, I'm sort of OK with the New 52 as a whole. Particularly the good books that have actually come out of it such as Wonder Woman despite the whining on here.

@sinisteri:

"There is a strong, basic vision behind Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman that stands the test of time."

That was the original statement that I was contesting and I stand by it. Wonder Woman has not stood the test of time, not in the same way Batman and Superman have.

"Wonder Woman by nature will always be defined by her gender."

Yeah, and it's a sad Irony. Upheld as a symbol of gender equality in comics, (and in general) the character has spent the many decades since her inception being completely defined by it.

"No one is expecting to read about Superman or Batman(also based on genders there) when they pick up a book about a female."

The appeal of Superman and Batman doesn't rest on something as trivial and inconsequential as their gender. The appeal is always the characters, their stories and villains. The characters are not "based" on their genders; they just happen to be male.

What can I say, gender is inconsequential. What makes you so sure that gender is inconsequential in Batman and Superman stories? Maybe its inconsequential because you are a man and don´t notice how masculine the stories can be. There´s nothing bad about that, but certainly in a society where men are always the heroes in literature, it is harder the rampant undertones of masculanism that very much inform who superman and batman are. I say that as a fan of both characters, but Batman, Playboy millionaire, already puts emphasis on his sexuality and gender. Superman saving Lois, his personal damsel in distress again is informed by his gender and sexuality. They represent the status quo, in which heroes are middle to upper-class, straight, white men, and its so engrained in how we perceive the world that we don´t stop to think and challenge this clear inequality in media representation that to you is inconsequential. In fact what it is is racist, sexist, elitist, and homophobic and shows our society has normalized and internalized this view as if it is acceptable. Wonder Woman challenging that status quo is as important as it was in the 40s because to be quite frank things have only changed by degree since then. When we have true equality, then gender, race and sexuality will be inconsequential; but until then Wonder Woman remains as relevant if not more relevant than ever, so as to remind us though we claim to be more liberal in thinking we are far from achieving our potential and what we deserve.

As for the appeal of wonder woman being her gender rather than her character, stories and villains, again I call b.s on that point. I would not care how feminist a character Wonder Woman was if her stories, character and villians didn´t appeal to me. On contrary I love her character not for being a woman, but for being a great hero. I love her story, not because its a woman´s story but because I love the story. Same with her villains. I think your problem is in understanding that a story can be heightened by having a female protagonist, or a black protagonist. Yes gender ought to be inconsequential, but that does not equate to good stories can´t deal with issues surrounding gender or race. That´s like saying Malcolm X´s story or the story of Nelson Mandela isn´t interesting because it deals with racial issues and the race of someone is inconsequential. I see what you´re trying to say, but the two things are separate. Your twisting things to justify a point. Your saying a story centered around the main character being a woman, and her issues is of less value than a story centered around a man and his problems. Superman faces the problems of a man, Wonder Woman faces those of a woman, as does Clarice Starling, or the chick from Aliens. Nothing is taken away from the stories by those films addressing the protagonist being a woman, in fact the story is brought to greater heights and has greater impact precisely because of the fact they´re women.

@lvenger:

Lol, it is all good, really, I shouldn't have dragged you in here :)

Since I'm clarifying statements, many of the people in these WW threads do actually conduct themselves quite well.

@jphulk26:

Thank you.

Wonder Woman has been around even when most heroes were replaced by westerns and she is still here today yet somehow this is not surviving the test of time. Perhaps, test of time is not a familiar concept to someone who denies that evidence.

Also amazing how many people keep saying they don't read or care that WW is female. Must be why comics with female leads are flying off the shelf and rocking box offices.

I wonder why @netshyster hasn´t replied? :)

@jphulk26:

I too think being a female makes her merchandise sales an uphill battle. It is hard to engage her actual appeal otherwise, because sales of a product is the closest measure we have. It is possible that she has more appeal than Superman and Batman combined, but sales don't support that.

@jphulk26:

"What can I say, gender is inconsequential. What makes you so sure that gender is inconsequential in Batman and Superman stories?

Let me ask you some questions. Are Batman's and Superman's origin stories embedded with sub-textual gender politics? When was the last time The Dark Knight or the Man of Steel pondered on their existence as males and how to improve their relationship with womankind in 'woman's world'?

It's all of this foolishness that repels me from the character. The utopian Themyscira populated and built by women. Paralleled by its (comparatively) barbaric and dystopian counterpart, 'Man's World.' Diana herself conceived from an immaculate conception. The perfect and righteous Amazons betrayed and savaged by Heracles and his army. Victims of man's arrogance and violent nature blah blah blah. The thematic implications are obvious but are more importantly, elitist and sexist in themselves.

Is it any wonder that feminists cling to this character like leeches?

The character is totally counter-productive to her own cause. her presence as a woman is so painfully overstated and emphasised that it just draws attention to the fact that women are poorly represented in comics and have minimal import in relation to men. Effortlessly killing any perceived attempt at the gender equality her presence was supposed to elicit in the first place. To me she's always been pretty much the female 'token' character. Calling attention to herself just so some DC execs can say: "See? We care care about women too!"

She just never comes across as genuine to me.

"I think your problem is in understanding that a story can be heightened by having a female protagonist, or a black protagonist. Yes gender ought to be inconsequential, but that does not equate to good stories can´t deal with issues surrounding gender or race."

Nope. My problem with Wonder Woman is lack of authenticity like I alluded to above. The 'token' character flying the flag for women in the comics industry in the most predictable and shallow manner possible by attempting to appeal to the "female struggle." It's cheap and apologist and I'm not surprised the character was created by a man. It's the equivalent of creating a black superhero and automatically burdening the character and his origins with racial tension and conflict because he's black.

It's disingenuous and insulting.

"Your saying a story centered around the main character being a woman, and her issues is of less value than a story centered around a man and his problems. Superman faces the problems of a man"

No. Superman faces the problems of a HERO (as a superhero should)andany problems he has as a man is a secondary condition of his being a man, his gender is not of primary significance whatsoever. Gender doesn't play a role in it. Wonder Woman's primary import as a superhero is how well she represents women as opposed to how good of a hero she actually is. It's why her origin is a gender debate.

Real women's issues in day to day life especially from a superheroes perspective wouldn't I bet, be centered around the trivial debate of which sex is better than the other. How does that factor realistically into a superheroes life anyway, when their constantly fighting to protect the whole of humanity against earth-shattering threats?

I'm all for female issues and representation in comics, just make sure it's actually authentic and in context with their being superheroes. Real female perspective in superhero comics would be everything that's already happening with male heroes without all of the unnecessary show-boating and pandering to their gender.

"Wonder Woman faces those of a woman"

This is the problem. She should be facing the problems of a female superhero, not carrying the ideological burden of all women.

"Yes gender ought to be inconsequential, but that does not equate to good stories can´t deal with issues surrounding gender or race. That´s like saying Malcolm X´s story or the story of Nelson Mandela isn´t interesting because it deals with racial issues and the race of someone is inconsequential."

What I'm saying is the gender of Wonder Woman is inconsequential to her existing as a superhero. Not inconsequential as a thematic topic in a story. I'm not undermining her gender, I'm questioning the degree of its import to her role and character.

"Maybe its inconsequential because you are a man and don´t notice how masculine the stories can be. There´s nothing bad about that, but certainly in a society where men are always the heroes in literature, it is harder the rampant undertones of masculanism that very much inform who superman and batman are."

Well yes, I would expect masculinity to inform who Batman and Superman are considering they're both males. That's to be expected isn't it? You say it as if its some sort of personal affront to you or all women that Bats and supes are men and exhibit masculinity. Is masculinity dangerous somehow? perhaps undesirable in too large a quantity, is that why you describe it as "rampant"?

"I say that as a fan of both characters, but Batman, Playboy millionaire, already puts emphasis on his sexuality and gender. Superman saving Lois, his personal damsel in distress again is informed by his gender and sexuality."

Don't you think your viewpoint is a little off base here? Superman saving Lois lane because she's his "damsel in distress"? Firstly, It implies Superman is getting some sort of personal gratification from seeing her put in danger - he isn't. When Clark saves Lois it isn't an act of male ego stroking, the alpha male asserting his dominance and superiority over his female mate; he saves her because he's Superman, a hero and protector of the innocent and defenceless. And of course there's the small matter of him being in love with her too.

"They represent the status quo, in which heroes are middle to upper-class, straight, white men, and its so engrained in how we perceive the world that we don´t stop to think and challenge this clear inequality in media representation that to you is inconsequential.

Never once said I found fair media representation for all demographics inconsequential, what I do remember saying was inconsequential was Batman and Superman's gender in relation to their character relevance.

As for the appeal of wonder woman being her gender rather than her character, stories and villains, again I call b.s on that point. I would not care how feminist a character Wonder Woman was if her stories, character and villians didn´t appeal to me.

Speak for yourself. Perhaps you wouldn't care how feminist WW is but I've had to duck for cover on plenty of forum pages because the word 'misogynist' was being thrown at me frequently for showing my liking for Brian Azzarello's current run. You see, Azz removed or altered most of the elements of the character and her mythos that appealed to feminist sensibilities, so obviously Azz is a woman hater and so am I by association.

@netshyster:

Let me ask you some questions. Are Batman's and Superman's origin stories embedded with sub-textual gender politics? When was the last time The Dark Knight or the Man of Steel pondered on their existence as males and how to improve their relationship with womankind in 'woman's world'?

Um what? Are you saying because Wonder Woman is from an all-female society she is constantly talking about or being the mouth-piece of how to better relate to men in a mans world? Because I´m not sure what this statement means.

Batman and Superman have always been embedded in subtext. what is a hero? what are they fighting for? What against? Usually things very in-line with the status quo, and what our society deems as Justice. Now whether you agree with that system or not, it is directly in conflict with the principles of many types of people, but we are tolerant because we look at the value of the story itself. I mean what is truth, justice and the american way, what is cleaning up the streets of crime. These have very blatant subtexts that if people wanted could be seen as highly offensive. Maybe the best way to clean up crime is fight poverty? who says truth and Justice have anything to do with simple AMERICAN values. All Superheroes who are interesting at all raise a question and challenge us while entertaining us. As for gender not being a core component of who Batman and Superman are; again not true, its expressed in nearly everything they do and the manner in which they do it.

Wonder Woman throughout her history has faced what a HERO has to do. She has decided to leave her isolationist society behind so as to fight for the benefit of all humanity. That is what defines her as a character. Whether it was the Nazi´s, Ares or White Martians, she chooses to leave her place in Paradise and do something harder, she chooses to leave behind the prejudice of her people toward men for what they did thousands of years ago and give man or humanity another chance. She chooses to disobey her mother and go from a child and become a woman. None of these are decisions that reflect upon one gender, these are decisions relevant to all genders, races, sexualities, ages etc.

It's all of this foolishness that repels me from the character. The utopian Themyscira populated and built by women. Paralleled by its (comparatively) barbaric and dystopian counterpart, 'Man's World.' Diana herself conceived from an immaculate conception. The perfect and righteous Amazons betrayed and savaged by Heracles and his army. Victims of man's arrogance and violent nature blah blah blah. The thematic implications are obvious but are more importantly, elitist and sexist in themselves.

It´s a story man don´t take it personally. Plus, nowhere in Wonder Woman´s mythos has it claimed the modern world is perfect. Themyscira is a story telling device there to present an alternative. But that does not just mean that the Modern World is being critically examined by the story, the story is also challenging the merits of Amazonian society, a society of all women, an isolationist society, a society that claims to be a utopia. Stories often use utopia as a way to examine and criticize elements of the real world, and, to examine the possibilities of other societies with alternate histories that took them on other courses from ourselves. Your mistake is assuming that The Amazons have gone unchallenged in this examination. Read The Circle Gail Simone or a number of other runs where Amazons are put under the microscope as well.

Our world is not perfect, sometimes we need satirical devices within fictional worlds to be mirror that reflects our society to ourselves.

"Wonder Woman faces those of a woman"

This is the problem. She should be facing the problems of a female superhero, not carrying the ideological burden of all women.

I honestly don´t know what you mean. Wonder Woman carries an ideological burden because she was raised in different society. Just like the Klingons or Vulcans do in Star Trek. When they are aboard the ship they are always having run-ins with humans because they come from another world with a set of values they believe in. It makes sense and gives depth to Wonder Woman´s character that she is trying to understand a world where women are not treated equally, and are considered weaker than men, but she on the other hand comes from a society where women are the dominant and only sex and she can punch through walls when most men can´t bend a silver spoon.

Don't you think your viewpoint is a little off base here? Superman saving Lois lane because she's his "damsel in distress"? Firstly, It implies Superman is getting some sort of personal gratification from seeing her put in danger - he isn't. When Clark saves Lois it isn't an act of male ego stroking, the alpha male asserting his dominance and superiority over his female mate; he saves her because he's Superman, a hero and protector of the innocent and defenceless. And of course there's the small matter of him being in love with her too.

Same can be said of when Wonder Woman saves Steve Trevor or countless other men. I never see her take personal gratification in it. She tries to bring peace to a world because she believes in it, not because she thinks women are better than men.

The point I was making is about the woman defenselessly being put in that position all the time in which male strength, superiority, and capability is constantly reinforced in films, comics, TV shows etc. When in fact this is not representative of the real world. Many women are in the army, billionaires and middle-class men in general are underrepresented in the armed forces or medical aid in warring or famine ridden countries, an white people are just as likely as to be found as ethnic minorities in jobs where they put their life on the line to save people. Yet if comics and films were to be believed SUPERHEROES, i.e. the people that try and make the world a better place and fight for good in this world are at least 50% billionaires, (Green Arrow; Batman, Iron Man Green Hornet), 99% Male (need I say more) and 300% White. This is reinforced everyday by comics. All I was saying is its refreshing to see a Woman capable of handling herself and playing on the same level as the boys.

So yes when Superman saves Lois consistently you cannot take that outside of the context of the medium in general.

Never once said I found fair media representation for all demographics inconsequential, what I do remember saying was inconsequential was Batman and Superman's gender in relation to their character relevance.

As stated in my last post, I was saying you assume Wonder Woman´s story is informed mainly or almost entirely by gender politics. I do not think so, I think it´s as much informed by gender politics and Batman and Superman, the only difference is you agree with the view of gender politics presented in Batman and Superman, but not the one presented in Wonder Woman.
Wonder Woman comics have rarely talked about gender as one good the other bad. Not at all. Wonder Woman´s Amazons did leave mans world due to abuses faced by women thousands of years ago, and Wonder Woman mythos can be used as a clever way to examine the evolution of how "gender" is perceived. But it also has primarily been a Superhero story. Wonder Woman vs badguys, like any other superhero. Also I think you are missing that Wonder Woman betraying her mother and entering the tournament and wanting to see mans world was about her rejecting The Amazons fear of the outside world. She wants to find understanding between her people and the outside world. (This issue tends to be dealt with in her origin and nowhere else) as I said most wonder woman stories just have her kicking badguys asses.

Speak for yourself. Perhaps you wouldn't care how feminist WW is but I've had to duck for cover on plenty of forum pages because the word 'misogynist' was being thrown at me frequently for showing my liking for Brian Azzarello's current run. You see, Azz removed or altered most of the elements of the character and her mythos that appealed to feminist sensibilities, so obviously Azz is a woman hater and so am I by association.

Whoever said you were misogynistic for liking a comic strip story was being stupid. Azzerrello´s run is not misogynistic (at least not on purpose or directly) For me it comes from just a misunderstanding of the character. I´ve said if he just called his story something else I would not care. I may even read it. But as for people who read it being misogynistic, that is ridiculous.

I like pre-new 52 Wonder Woman, not because it was feminist. It was because I thought the story and character was kick-ass. I don´t like the changes, because to me they don´t make sense and to be honest, I miss Wonder Woman, her villains and her supporting cast. I don´t mind people doing different takes on the characters, but just changing it completely is too much for me. You have no reason to feel bad your a new reader, so you have no attachment.

I only hate when new readers pretend like they don´t understand why people who have attachment to the Wonder Woman character and the integrity of her mythos are pissed. As I´ve said a billion times I would feel exactly the same if they dissected and mutiltated superman in the same way.

Co-signed

If Batman can be a little boy grown up to avenge his parents' deaths and Superman can be a Boy Scout who reached adulthood upholding beliefs instilled by his parents and being a stellar example of an adopted individual protecting the world to which he was sent, then why is it hard to accept Diana/Wonder Woman would grow up with a strong feminist view after being raised on an island with only females and a desire to share a message of peace and unity-- her warrior nature has normally been tamed by her spiritual beliefs. Someone from an all female island would logically refer to things off island as Man's world, at least initially. Part of the dynamic with WW is how her experience off the island affects her and what influences she brings back to the island from the outside world.

To expect this same woman to turn her back on her mother and sisters to be mentored and live up to the expectations of a male god with no allegiance to female gods is illogical. Also illogical is her heavy reliance on powerful males.

A recent post almost made it sound like it was the Amazons fault that they were enslaved by Hercules and his men or that women have not suffered as if history is wrong. Feels like there is a sentiment that a woman shouldn't be a woman or written as such.

Bats and Supes are men portrayed as men- heroes are stereotypical men so no way around that. Who picks up a book about a woman and faults her for being depicted as a woman?

First Born has family issues, but I fail to see the contrast with this WW because she doesn't seem to mention or show any fondness/alliegance to her mother/sisters so the contrast is lost. Unless, WW love of the male gods is contrasted against FB hatred of all gods.

Very little has been noted as to why he is appealing that would separate him from other, more historic mythological characters.

Good point. I´d like an answer to that it would be interesting. Maybe the reason FB is so ineffectual is because Diana has no character, no history or trauma that her character really addresses, no philosophy her character espouses, no mythic origin to contrast with her villains, so its hard to see what kind of villain really stands opposed to this version of Diana.

At least thats how I see it.

Before she had all that. Before the warrior priestess, before the trauma of disobeying her mother, leaving her people, her conflict with the ideals and expectations of her mother, she had the philosophy of wanting or representing how we could make the world more at peace with itself and she had how she was the first female champion of the gods of olympus, blessed by great powers as form of contrast to her villains like Cheetah who were cursed with to gain powers for instance.

so far he is stereotypical.

Um what? Are you saying because Wonder Woman is from an all-female society she is constantly talking about or being the mouth-piece of how to better relate to men in a mans world? Because I´m not sure what this statement means.

The statement is meant to highlight the key differences between the construction of Superman/Batman to Wonder Woman as superheroes. Where Superman and Batman have origins and thematic conflicts relating to broad and unifying subject matter, Wonder Woman's entire construct has been hyper-focused on GENDER in comparison. Why? because SHE IS A GIMMICK, an exploitative marketing tool used to attract female readers and supporters through pandering to feminist ideology. Her appeal as a 'superhero' (which isn't much) relies primarily on her presentation as a female status and power icon, fighting the good fight against an oppressive male patriarchy at worst; and at best, standing on the same platform with the boys equally.

This is why her thematic focus is so specific. It's a tailor made conflict focused on gender equality to deliberately play up the importance of women in a literary medium almost entirely dominated by men. Simply put, what better way is there to appease an audience of women and make them feel instantly 'represented' then by giving them a character who embodies their (presumed) frustrations and openly 'represents' them in a superficial way. I'm not saying you haveto outright be or subscribe to feminism to like the character, but it would be disingenuous to claim that a large portion of her appeal doesn't - in any way - extend from the pro-feminist ideals she peddles, and her image as a female power symbol. She's one of a small few of notable female superheroes in the medium, and that has to count for something with a demographic so poorly represented.

And no. Please don't turn around and claim that Superman or Batman are male power symbols because they aren't; or I should say at least that men, don't view them that way at all. That perspective is only held by women who feel ostracised from a community that doesn't really cater to them satisfactorily. And if every hero they come across is a big, strong, burly man engaging in alot of man stuff all of the time, the less thoughtful among them will wrongfully misconstrue the whole medium as patently sexist and misogynist when that just isn't the case.

The real problem here is not discrimination and hate but a simple lack of feminine presence. Comics are a the domain of men, likewise are Video-games. With that established is it so surprising to find both camps unnerving and unwelcoming to most women? (not all of course) Comics books are saturated with male heroes, make perspectives and male sexuality and whatever else because the creator-ship and readership is mostly male - it's not their fault.

"Batman and Superman have always been embedded in subtext. what is a hero? what are they fighting for? What against? Usually things very in-line with the status quo, and what our society deems as Justice. Now whether you agree with that system or not, it is directly in conflict with the principles of many types of people, but we are tolerant because we look at the value of the story itself.

The questions themselves are perfectly relevant to the hero's journey, the understanding of himself and his mission, so I don't understand what your meaning is in the mention of a "status quo" in relation to the questions. The questions are necessary, essential and the answers the heroes come to are always agreeable, it's why they are heroes; they always choose to fight injustice and corruption in all of its manifestations, and those are principles I don't believe many people of good and moral substance will be "directly in conflict with".

I mean what is truth, justice and the american way, what is cleaning up the streets of crime. These have very blatant subtexts that if people wanted could be seen as highly offensive.

The subtext here is as you say blatant and I find it hard to believe that anybody who holds themselves to high moral values will disagree with its intentions or find them offensive. Its meaning is 'good' regardless of whether the language is a little foreign, ambiguous or vague to some.

"who says truth and Justice have anything to do with simple AMERICAN values."

'Truth, Justice and the American way.'

I've liked that phrase since I first heard it and still do, but of course you're correct. America and its values have no exclusive relationship with truth and justice. (just look at America today if you're in doubt) The values and mindsets which manifest goodness in the world are not found to be intrinsically tied to any one nation of people in particular; but dwelling in all nations and peoples the world over. The phrase shouldn't really be taken too seriously, but instead taken with a pinch of salt. Its classic patriotic idealism and American pridefulness displaying itself.

As for gender not being a core component of who Batman and Superman are; again not true, its expressed in nearly everything they do and the manner in which they do it."

Let's hope you're not confusing just being a man to having your whole character construct and thematic relevance impinging on that fact.

"Wonder Woman throughout her history has faced what a HERO has to do. She has decided to leave her isolationist society behind so as to fight for the benefit of all humanity. That is what defines her as a character. Whether it was the Nazi´s, Ares or White Martians, she chooses to leave her place in Paradise and do something harder, she chooses to leave behind the prejudice of her people toward men for what they did thousands of years ago and give man or humanity another chance. She chooses to disobey her mother and go from a child and become a woman. None of these are decisions that reflect upon one gender, these are decisions relevant to all genders, races, sexualities, ages etc."

The Italicized portion is the most important part of the paragraph. This is what Wonder Woman is actually about, this is the core of her story and character, everything else is secondary. Man's World and Themyscira are two metaphors; two competing and conflicting ideologies that represent the male and female mindset or dichotomy, and Diana is simply the mediator between the two. She leaves Paradise Island as a diplomat, a political envoy delivering a message of peace and partnership to what her people sincerely believe to be a nation lost in barbarism, ignorance and misconduct. Her identity as a superhero is an accident; a by-product of her actions.

Though her origin touches on other subject matter - as it would - her story is still build around gender conflict and questioning.

I've lazily chosen to stop half way but maybe I will pick up later. I'm not a big fan of back and forth's and all of the obligations that come with them. That's why I take so long to reply, if I choose to at all.