What do Avengers, Black Panther and Wonder Woman have in common?  The Abuse of Women 

Print More

Just like Wonder Woman and Black Panther before it, Avengers: Infinity War is showing substantial muscle at the box office crossing the $1 billion mark in record time. But there is another, more problematic, use of force present in each of these comic adaptations – the consistent abuse of women.

In the fantasy realm of comics and film, superheroes capture our imagination and embody our notions of what it means to be good.  Yet time after time, whether they be lead or bit players, female characters have been the subject of intimate partner and family violence within the DC Comics and Marvel worlds.

Wonder Woman was a blockbuster extraordinaire that girls and women – including me – had been waiting for their entire lives.  But underneath the bad-ass costume and amazing stunts, Diana Prince is just like too many women.  Globally, one in three women have experienced physical, sexual or psychological violence in the course of their everyday lives – most often at the hands of a male partner or family member.

In the film’s epic battle, Wonder Woman faces off against her nemesis – her own brother – mimicking the violence experienced by women at the hands of family members.  According to UNFPA, at least 5,000 women die per year as a result of honor killings and nearly two million are forced to undergo female genital mutilation, often at the behest of family.

Like the millions of women who came forward during the #MeToo movement, Wonder Woman is also subject to sexual harassment. Verbal abuse is cloaked as humor; nearly every male character in the film has some commentary on Diana’s physical appearance or her mere presence.

She is objectified, and mansplaining is used to maintain power and control over her.  Nearly half of women experience this form of abuse, which may be more harmful than overt psychological aggression. “Emotional abuse is worse. You can become insane when you are constantly humiliated and told that you are worthless, that you are nothing” stated a participant in the WHO multi-country study on violence. Despite being hailed for its feminism, gender-based violence pervades Wonder Woman sending a strikingly sexist message:  This is the treatment that even the most wonderful of women deserve.

Black Panther was similarly widely anticipated and unique in its intersectionality; positive images of black women are admittedly far too rare.  Wakandan women are portrayed as warriors: fierce, intelligent and beautiful.

Yet there is only one African-American female character in the film and as scholar Jonathan Gayles pointed out, few people can name her.  She is Linda, the girlfriend of Killmonger, who is murdered by him in an act of unfettered violence.  Even in the Afro-centric vision of Black Panther, where Wakandan women are treated with respect, this African-American woman is discarded.

The pattern continues in “Avengers: Infinity War.”   Spoiler alert: The film’s villain, Thanos, kills his daughter Gamora.  Sadly, parents are most often responsible for child murder; 56.5% of child homicides can be attributed to parents.  For those who survive abuse, the outcomes are nearly as troublesome.  Women who experience childhood trauma and family violence are more likely to experience abuse at the hands of a partner over the course of their lives.

Some might say that these films are fantasy, or simply a reflection of reality – and that’s true.  But particularly in the superhero genre they also represent the world as we hope it will be:  one where good triumphs over evil.

The little girls and boys looking for role models in these stories have them – and they include troublesome narratives of family and partner abuse.  They set the stage for what girls and women can expect from parents, siblings and partners; they also demonstrate to boys what being a heroic man looks like, and how to treat women – including the perpetration of violence against them.

Nearly 40% percent of rapes occur among college-aged women, who along with adolescents make up a large target audience for superhero flicks.  What is the message then when after sharing a battle victory and romantic dance, Steve Trevor walks Diana Prince to her room for the night?  As he starts to close the door, Diana makes eye contact.  Assuming her consent Steve enters the room, closing the door behind him. Viewers assume that a sexual encounter comes next; but there is no explicit consent.  The idea that consent is at best ignored, and at worst misses a key opportunity to model how boys and men can engage in stopping forced sex.

If Diana had invited Steve to her room, the message would have been about female sexual pleasure and power.  Instead her power is taken from her.  Rather than smashing the patriarchy, these films embed patriarchal power even more deeply in the minds of young viewers.

As a little girl I emulated Lynda Carter and cried when my Wonder Woman Underoos were stained with peanut butter.  Those formative impressions have impact today – my office is scattered with Wonder Woman notepads and coffee mugs, and I still strike a power pose before big meetings.

I am a lifelong and unabashed Wonder Woman fan; I am not a film maker, media critic or Marvel SuperFan.  But I have seen enough superhero movies to be a realist. I know these are action films and there will be violence.  I just never expected that so many films, including those heralded for girl power, would include so many kinds of abuse against women, especially at the hands of loved ones. Some viewers, like those involved in Gamergate’s threats against women who enter a perceived male realm, might like to keep it that way.

One thing is certain about the future of superhero films.  There will be more.  A Black Panther sequel has been confirmed, as has the next installment of the Avengers seriesWonder Woman 2 is set for release in June 2019.  Gal Gadot, the actress playing the superheroine, has already leveraged her star power to ensure that Brett Ratner — a director facing allegations of sexual assault –won’t be a part of the film.  Now, others involved with the development and production of these films need to do their part to change the violence against women narrative.

The rest of us will be waiting, and watching, for the sequel.

Dabney P. Evans, PhD, MPH is an Associate Professor of Public Health at Emory University and a Ford Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.

 

  • Wim Mijlof

    Is there also a movie about the psychological abuse of men these day’s most often at the hands of women? Like they use men as a walking ATM? Or men who can’t see their kids because of sexism? If yes, then I’ll take these feministic and sexistic movies a bit more serious! ?

    • Kate Zhane

      “Is there also a movie about the psychological abuse of men these day’s most often at the hands of women?”

      Sure there are, there’s an entire genre of them, they are called “Romantic Comedies” though I am still uncertain why they are called that given that they are neither romantic of funny.

      • Wim Mijlof

        Oh, you’re totally right. Time to make a women version of this ‘funny’ genre indeed, in name of ‘equality’; two and a half lady! ?

        • Kate Zhane

          There’s actually this great video on youtube about it called, ‘the female power fantasy’, which explores the concept. Well worth watching.

  • Kate Zhane

    “Yet time after time, whether they be lead or bit players, female characters have been the subject of intimate partner and family violence within the DC Comics and Marvel worlds.”

    Name a time in ANY of the DC or Marvel movies where any female character has been subject to intimate partner violence. Name a single instance of that occurring.

    “But underneath the bad-ass costume and amazing stunts, Diana Prince is just like too many women. Globally, one in three women have experienced physical, sexual or psychological violence in the course of their everyday lives”

    You mean a superhero got in to a fight, wow, that must be the first time any superhero EVER has got in to a fight in any medium since the inception of the genre. Oh wait, no sorry, I have been informed that not only is it a common place thing, some would even argue that it is the MAIN point of the genre.

    Huh, looks like you might just be full of it.

    “What is the message then when after sharing a battle victory and romantic dance, Steve Trevor walks Diana Prince to her room for the night? As he starts to close the door, Diana makes eye contact. Assuming her consent Steve enters the room, closing the door behind him. Viewers assume that a sexual encounter comes next;”

    Except that never happens, like at all. Be honest, did you really watch the movie, or did you just make stuff up as you went along.

    “Yet there is only one African-American female character in the film and as scholar Jonathan Gayles pointed out, few people can name her. ”

    Why would anyone be able to name her? In a movie full of African people, being Afircan American isn’t anything special. There’s also no African French, or African Australians, so what?

    ” I know these are action films and there will be violence. I just never expected that so many films, including those heralded for girl power, would include so many kinds of abuse against women,”

    Hey will ya look at that, it’s Galbrush paradox, long time no see. Nah just kidding, I see you all the time Galbrush, usually in junk articles like this, where someone interjects rubbish context in to media material that doesn’t actually contain it.

    “Some viewers, like those involved in Gamergate’s threats against women who enter a perceived male realm, might like to keep it that way.”

    Well then today shall be a surprising change of pace for you, because I’m a woman telling you that you are wrong. Stop trying to protect fictional characters from the consequences of plot development, it’s nonsense like that which is why people are reluctant to write, publish, or generally produce material about female characters.

    Because people like you are EXACTLY what is wrong with narrative media industries, you demand irrational protections for female characters on the grounds that somehow the things male protagonists go thru is wrong when those same thing happen to female protagonists.

    • thom1111

      Time to make a movie about Wonder Woman sitting in an empty warehouse while all the excitement is happening outside. The movie will be about 5 minutes long and the title will be “SEE!! We Kept Wonder Woman From Being Abused! Send A Thank You Letter To Dabney Evans For This!”

    • Kate Zhane

      “Also, I do not use “sock puppet” accounts. I have been honest about the necessity for me to create multiple accounts ”

      Feminist to English Translation: “Yes, I am using sock puppet accounts, a lot”

      “I also do not consider my arguments as debunked by your responses to me. ”

      Doesn’t matter what you consider, your position has been objectively refuted. Every point you made has subsequently been proven wrong.

      “I chose not to argue with you since I foresaw that doing so would distract me from my primary aim, which was to post messages of protest across many different internet platforms”

      No, you’ve chosen not to answer because you have no answer & your “aim” was simply to run around misinforming people of the content of a book, for what I can only consider to be nefarious reasons, given the effort you have gone to to misinform people.

      “Firstly, the character of Alcmaeon *is* a rapist, according to the dialogue written by Christopher J Priest for Wonder Woman, in the “Legends of the DC Universe” #32 comic (“The 18th Letter” Part 3).”

      “On Themyscira there is a mystic named Magala who helped prepare me to meet you–by giving me special bathing oils to protect me from the genetically engineered hallucinogenic anodyne you use on women.”

      Which he used to control Fury as his body guard. It had nothing to do with any kind of sex. Same with the contact lenses, they are the means by which caused a war, no evidence he uses them to rape women.

      That is something you’ve interjected, by which point you must also conclude that the martian manhunter is a rapist, because he has the power to mind control people.

      “I notice that you are no longer contesting my suggestion that Christopher J Priest is a misogynist, and that his treatment of Wonder Woman in 2018’s Justice League #42 resulted from a resentment of the recent advances in women’s rights not to be harassed and abused.”

      There are some statements so asinine they don’t require refuting, they refute themselves, this position of yours is one of them.

      “Perhaps you have read some of my other comments, in which I highlighted a strange reply by Mr Priest on his website, where he appeared to casually play the role of an apologist for sexual exploitation and child rape?”

      It does nothing of the sort. It actually does the exact OPPOSITE of what you think it does. It’s a statement pointing out that if we continue to pretend that such sexual predators are moustache twirling cartoon villains then one can look directly at such a sexual predator in the real world and conclude that the lack of a moustache or any moustache twirling must therefore mean he is not a sexual predator

      That our overly simplified fictional depictions which don’t allow for honesty, trivialises the crime & he’s right, it does.

      “Can you begin to see why I suspect that Mr Priest holds a bitter resentment towards women, and why I believe that his sadistic treatment of the Wonder Woman character in Justice League #42 was a twisted reaction to the events of the previous year, such as the #MeToo and Time’s Up movements? ”

      No, but I can see you doing your damndest to interject nonsense that does not exist, in to a text where it is not present.

      Diana got shot in an issue of a comic book because that’s a consequence of being in a free fire warzone, ditto for Cyborg who was seriously injured in the same issue.

      “After all, Mr Priest has a history of writing a female character like Wonder Woman as being perversely enamoured by an abusive murderer. And he recently scripted Jessica Cruz’s Green Lantern to kiss Batman, even though Bruce Wayne is engaged to Catwoman in another comic (perhaps because Mr Priest views Jessica Cruz as nothing more than another detestably hypocritical and hormones-enslaved broad, who will fall for the first “bad boy” she sets her eyes upon?)”

      Hahahahahahahahahahaha, that’s not sexism, or hatred of women, we actually DO go for the bad boy. Seriously, women have gone for the bad boy for as long as humans have existed. There’s a reason why bodice ripping dime store romance novels are a thing & it’s not because women aren’t attracted to the bad boy, it’s because we are attracted to the bad boy.

      “Also, remember that it is the graphic nature of the superheroine’s injury that I especially object to. ”

      Except it is. You’ve taken an instance of a super hero being injured & then jumped from “wonder woman was injured hence Christopher Priest is a misogynist.”

      You’ve then tried to justify this by quoting a single 18 year old story in which a villain wants to sleep with Diana, but doesn’t in any way force himself on her.

      ” I did *not* suggest that female comic book characters should never face peril in the course of their stories (and you *know* that I did not say such a thing).”

      No, just female characters apparently. Chuck Dixon wrties a comic in which Batman is actually brutalised & his spine snapped in two, and the character sidelined for months, hey no problem their.

      Wonder Woman gets shot by a ricochet in a free fire war zone & suddenly you are running around disqus with a dozen different sock puppet accounts, yelling about how this is misogyny, which it clearly is not.

      So yeah, Galbrush Paradox in action.

      “Mr Priest was not forced to write such a disturbing scene!”

      There was nothing disturbing about it, comic characters are injured all the time, most significantly more graphically than a bullet shot.

      “He could have scripted Wonder Woman as facing a threatening scenario without attempting to viciously undermine and defile the core attributes of the character:”

      Feminist to English Translation: “How dare you hurt a female character.”

      “that she is extremely strong, fast and resilient, like Superman.”

      Well no, Superman is bullet proof, Diana is simply bullet resistant. As for being fast, she may be fast when facing an oncoming hail of bullets, but she wasn’t facing an oncoming hail of bullets, she was hit by a ricochet she didn’t know was coming. Being fast is not the same thing as being infallible.

      Just like Superman wasn’t infallible when he was beaten to death by Doomsday.

      “Regarding Cyborg’s injury in Justice League #41, I must confess to suspecting Mr Priest of deliberately including that plot point in a sly attempt to render his misogynistic attack on Wonder Woman immune from criticism.”

      LOL no. He did it because that’s his job, his job is to write a compelling story about interesting characters & that includes the occasional plot consequence, such as being injured. That’s not a flaw of narrative fiction, it’s a feature.

      “(and that is why I have not talked about Cyborg’s injury until now). I still have little to say about what Mr Priest did with Cyborg.”

      No, you didn’t mention it, because you didn’t notice it, because it was outside of you same group preference.

      “Secondly and lastly, my complaint is specifically about Christopher J Priest’s long history of sexist and misogynistic comic book scripts”

      Except there is no history, let alone a long history. You’ve taken two things that do not in any way demonstrate a hatred of women & have declared that because these two things exist, neither of which contain a hatred of women, that he has a long history of sexist and misogynistic comic book scripts.

      Because if that’s your evidence, then I would have a much easier time proving that Stan Lee has a long history of sexist, misandrist comic book scripts. I mean just look at all the books Stan Lee has Spider-Man beating up white men, he even covers Spidey from heads to toe to hide the fact he’s white & male. Clearly Stan Lee hates white men.

      Tell me, do you know what the word Apophenia means

  • Cedar Cat

    I did think the sex was gratuitous and not of the Amazon character. Seemed like a device to provide romance where none was needed.

  • BastetWavesHello

    If you want to see a genuine example of horrifically misogynistic sadism perpetrated against the Wonder Woman character, then you must look no further than DC’s recent Justice League #42 comic (written by Christopher J Priest and illustrated by Pete Woods). Mr Priest also wrote an earlier storyline called “The 18th Letter”, in which he scripted Diana as showing genuine sexual attraction towards a mass-murdering rapist. I must add that in DC’s other recent comic books, the Wonder Woman character has been superbly depicted as a feminist role-model; the work of Mr Priest and Mr Woods was an especially miserable aberration.

    https://www.flickeringmyth.com/2018/04/preview-justice-league-42/

    However, I cannot agree with your assessment of Patty Jenkins’ movie; it does not send the message that even the most wonderful of women deserve to be on the receiving end of gender-based violence. The film’s honest depiction of the state of women’s rights in 1918 does not suggest that the filmmaker intended to hold this up as an example of her preferred culture. In actuality, the treatment of women in the “world of men” is contrasted with the utopian society of the Amazons, located on the island of Themyscira. Although the Amazons exist as a warrior culture with no men present (for narrative reasons), don’t we think that the way women are treated on Themyscira is more reflective of Ms Jenkins’ own politics than anything else that happens in her movie?

    Also, didn’t you notice that whenever a man tries to disrespect Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman, she makes a point of showing that she won’t allow him to do that? She refuses to be silenced by the Imperial War Cabinet, and the male politicians appear flustered and impotent in the face of her defiance. She defends herself against an abusive man in the pub, and she is never successfully dominated by a single male character in the entire film (she even reduces a male god into a smoking crater when he tries to murder her). And she makes the following, exceedingly clear statement to Steve Trevor: “What I do is not up to you.”

    The Wonder Woman movie contained such a strong theme of female empowerment! The film showed us examples of abusive behaviour towards women, and Diana demonstrated how we can choose to reject such behaviour. Wonder Woman says “No!” to misogyny and senseless war: that is the message.

    Patty Jenkins and the Warner Bros. script-writers even managed to pointedly invert several sexist tropes, such as the infamous “male gaze” and the comic book trope known by the term “women in refrigerators”. In one remarkable scene, Steve Trevor’s body is assessed by Diana while he is naked and vulnerable. In another scene the same Steve Trevor (who is Wonder Woman’s love interest), dies to advance the character development of the *female* protagonist.

    Wonder Woman is presented by Patty Jenkins and Gal Gadot as a strong, independent woman who refuses to take s*** from anyone, but who also loves a man like Steve Trevor. At no time did I think that the superheroine was coerced into sex by Chris Pine’s character, simply because she did not verbally consent to intercourse with him. We don’t even know if they had sex, since whatever happened was off-camera! But moreover, it is normal and natural to navigate some romantic entanglements using non-verbal cues.

    Wonder Women is really great movie with an empowering message of sex-positive, body-positive feminism. I completely and utterly disagree with your perspective on this film, but I otherwise share your concerns about cinematic violence against women as a form of entertainment. 🙂

  • BastetWavesHello

    My message was mistakenly deleted for some reason. I wrote a long and thoughtful reply to Dabney Evans’ article which I will post again now.

    If you want to see a genuine example of horrifically misogynistic sadism perpetrated against the Wonder Woman character, then you must look no further than DC’s recent Justice League #42 comic (written by Christopher J Priest and illustrated by Pete Woods). Mr Priest also wrote an earlier storyline called “The 18th Letter”, in which he scripted Diana as showing genuine sexual attraction towards a mass-murdering rapist. I must add that in DC’s other recent comic books, the Wonder Woman character has been superbly depicted as a feminist role-model; the work of Mr Priest and Mr Woods was an especially miserable aberration.

    https://www.flickeringmyth.com/2018/04/preview-justice-league-42/

    However, I cannot agree with your assessment of Patty Jenkins’ movie; it does not send the message that even the most wonderful of women deserve to be on the receiving end of gender-based violence. The film’s honest depiction of the state of women’s rights in 1918 does not suggest that the filmmaker intended to hold this up as an example of her preferred culture. In actuality, the treatment of women in the “world of men” is contrasted with the utopian society of the Amazons, located on the island of Themyscira. Although the Amazons exist as a warrior culture with no men present (for narrative reasons), don’t we think that the way women are treated on Themyscira is more reflective of Ms Jenkins’ own politics than anything else that happens in her movie?

    Also, didn’t you notice that whenever a man tries to disrespect Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman, she makes a point of showing that she won’t allow him to do that? She refuses to be silenced by the Imperial War Cabinet, and the male politicians appear flustered and impotent in the face of her defiance. She defends herself against an abusive man in the pub, and she is never successfully dominated by a single male character in the entire film (she even reduces a male god into a smoking crater when he tries to murder her). And she makes the following, exceedingly clear statement to Steve Trevor: “What I do is not up to you.”

    The Wonder Woman movie contained such a strong theme of female empowerment! The film showed us examples of abusive behaviour towards women, and Diana demonstrated how we can choose to reject such behaviour. Wonder Woman says “No!” to misogyny and senseless war: that is the message.

    Patty Jenkins and the Warner Bros. script-writers even managed to pointedly invert several sexist tropes, such as the infamous “male gaze” and the comic book trope known by the term “women in refrigerators”. In one remarkable scene, Steve Trevor’s body is assessed by Diana while he is naked and vulnerable. In another scene the same Steve Trevor (who is Wonder Woman’s love interest), dies to advance the character development of the *female* protagonist.

    Wonder Woman is presented by Patty Jenkins and Gal Gadot as a strong, independent woman who refuses to take s*** from anyone, but who also loves a man like Steve Trevor. At no time did I think that the superheroine was coerced into sex by Chris Pine’s character, simply because she did not verbally consent to intercourse with him. We don’t even know if they had sex, since whatever happened was off-camera! But moreover, it is normal and natural to navigate some romantic entanglements using non-verbal cues.

    Wonder Woman is a really great movie with an empowering message of sex-positive, body-positive feminism. I completely and utterly disagree with your perspective on this film, but I otherwise share your concerns about cinematic violence against women as a form of entertainment. 🙂

    • Kate Zhane

      “If you want to see a genuine example of horrifically misogynistic sadism perpetrated against the Wonder Woman character, then you must look no further than DC’s recent Justice League #42 comic (written by Christopher J Priest and illustrated by Pete Woods). Mr Priest also wrote an earlier storyline called “The 18th Letter”, in which he scripted Diana as showing genuine sexual attraction towards a mass-murdering rapist.”

      Oh give it a rest, this is like you 4th sock puppet account givereginaherowncomic from which you’ve preached this exact line of nonsense over and over again. It was equal parts tedious & wrong the first time it was debunked, it remains so now.

      There was no sadism perpetrated against Wonder Woman, she caught a ricocheting bullet during an adventure where she was in a live fire zone, in which she was an active, willing combatant, being shot is a consequence of that action.

      In that same issue, Cyborg, a black man also gets injured, so unless your argument is that Priest, a black male writer must be an anti-black, anti-male misandrist racist, your argument just does not stand.

      And no, Priests previous story, the 18th letter does not contain a mass murdering rapist, it contains a mass murdering villain, as has been pointed out to you before, the villain is in no way a rapist, what with him raping no one & not showing any interest in raping anyone and all.

      Your position is as wrong as Dabney Evans’ own position is. You demand plot immunity by gender for a fictional character & then complain when you don’t get it, interjecting nonsense in to your argument that is not present when you can’t get your own way.

      It is never going to happen, because no one is ever going to buckle down to your Galbrush paradox wanting lunacy. It’s never going to happen. Negative consequences of plot are ALWAYS going to happen to characters, regardless of said characters sex.

      • BastetWavesHello

        Kate, I do not use “sock puppet” accounts. I have been honest about the necessity for me to create multiple accounts (because many of my unique comments have been mistakenly censored, again and again). I have followed the advice of an official Disqus help page regarding what to do in the event of a wrongful ban.

        “If you suspect that you have been wrongly banned, try the following: use a different account” (helpDOTdisqusDOTcomSLASHcommentingSLASHwho-deletedremoved-my-comment-or-blocked-my-account)

        I also do not consider my arguments as debunked by your responses to me. I chose not to argue with you since I foresaw that doing so would distract me from my primary aim, which was to post messages of protest across many different internet platforms. However I am happy to reply to you now. I actually agree with much of your other long comment in this thread, by the way! Perhaps we have more in common than you recognised?

        Firstly, the character of Alcmaeon *is* a rapist, according to the dialogue written by Christopher J Priest for Wonder Woman, in the “Legends of the DC Universe” #32 comic (“The 18th Letter” Part 3).

        “On Themyscira there is a mystic named Magala who helped prepare me to meet you–by giving me special bathing oils to protect me from the genetically engineered hallucinogenic anodyne you use on women.

        Phillipus, Captain of my Mother’s guard, provided eye drops that filter out the subliminal commands the micro-laser imagers in your contact lenses project several times per second.” – Wonder Woman’s speech to Alcmaeon.

        You can verify this information for yourself by searching AmazonArchivesDOTcom for the appropriate issue, and viewing the available images. You will notice that Mr Priest scripted Wonder Woman as admitting to an un-coerced sexual attraction towards a mass-murderer who drugs and hypnotises women in order to more easily bed them (i.e. the villain *is* a mass-murdering rapist).

        I notice that you are no longer contesting my suggestion that Christopher J Priest is a misogynist, and that his treatment of Wonder Woman in 2018’s Justice League #42 resulted from a resentment of the recent advances in women’s rights not to be harassed and abused. Perhaps you have read some of my other comments, in which I highlighted a strange reply by Mr Priest on his LamercieParkDOTcom website, where he appeared to casually play the role of an apologist for sexual exploitation and child rape?

        “And we (not just blaming DC) are afraid to tell these kinds of stories unless we make them antiseptic morality tales– the mustache twirling pedo who dopes the innocent girl. Child or teen sexual exploitation is far more complicated than that, with the victim often playing some role in it or gaining some gratification from it that silences them.” – Christopher J Priest (from his blog post, “Slade And Terra”)

        Of course, the quotation above is taken out of context. But even when it is viewed in the context of his full response, the quote of Mr Priest still seems to infer that sexually abused children (!) are “often” (his words), responsible in some way for their exploitation by predatory adults. And it is worth mentioning that the conversation on his blog was specifically about a fictional teenage girl who was sexually exploited, so why did he even mention children at all? (i.e. very young girls, since the discussion was originally about girls and women)?

        It is my belief that Mr Priest is stuck in the mindset wherein all sexually abused women and girls are imagined to have been “asking for it”, and especially if their abusers are hyper-masculine men. Now clearly there *is* some truth to the stereotypical idea that some women are drawn to “bad boys”. But it does not follow on from that open secret of hetero female sexuality that women literally want to be raped, sexually abused or sexually exploited (because all of those things are defined by their unpleasant and non-consensual elements). Children certainly do not want to be sexually exploited, and they do not “often” find “gratification” in being sexually abused! Ugh! What sort of person would casually drop a suggestion of that type into a conversation?

        Can you begin to see why I suspect that Mr Priest holds a bitter resentment towards women, and why I believe that his sadistic treatment of the Wonder Woman character in Justice League #42 was a twisted reaction to the events of the previous year, such as the #MeToo and Time’s Up movements? Wonder Woman has become emblematic of female empowerment and gender equality, since her big movie was in the cinemas during the same year as those aforementioned steps forward in women’s rights. And the Wonder Woman movie was obviously written and directed from a feminist perspective. I believe that Mr Priest wrote a feminist superheroine as being bloodily maimed in response to the whole “Time’s Up” thing (and I believe that he deliberately set out to make her look disempowered and useless when compared with Superman, while disguising his misogyny as being simply part of the story, or even part of his political commentary).

        It is my contention that Christopher J Priest imagines that women like Rose McGowan somehow “asked for it”, and were happy to sleep their way to the top of Hollywood when it benefitted them, only remembering to complain about Harvey Weinstein’s behaviour years after the alleged events in question. After all, Mr Priest has a history of writing a female character like Wonder Woman as being perversely enamoured by an abusive murderer. And he recently scripted Jessica Cruz’s Green Lantern to kiss Batman, even though Bruce Wayne is engaged to Catwoman in another comic (perhaps because Mr Priest views Jessica Cruz as nothing more than another detestably hypocritical and hormones-enslaved broad, who will fall for the first “bad boy” she sets her eyes upon?)

        Also, remember that it is the graphic nature of the superheroine’s injury that I especially object to. I did *not* suggest that female comic book characters should never face peril in the course of their stories (and you *know* that I did not say such a thing). Mr Priest was not forced to write such a disturbing scene! He could have scripted Wonder Woman as facing a threatening scenario without attempting to viciously undermine and defile the core attributes of the character: that she is extremely strong, fast and resilient, like Superman.

        Regarding Cyborg’s injury in Justice League #41, I must confess to suspecting Mr Priest of deliberately including that plot point in a sly attempt to render his misogynistic attack on Wonder Woman immune from criticism (and that is why I have not talked about Cyborg’s injury until now). I still have little to say about what Mr Priest did with Cyborg. First of all, Mr Priest is not forced to horrifically maim any of the Justice League members, whether they are African-American men or mystical Amazonian women. Secondly and lastly, my complaint is specifically about Christopher J Priest’s long history of sexist and misogynistic comic book scripts, and about how that history can inform our understanding of his motivation to conduct a bloody and sadistic assault on a beloved icon of feminism.

      • BastetWavesHello

        Kate, this reply was also mistakenly deleted for some reason. 😮 Also, I do not use “sock puppet” accounts. I have been honest about the necessity for me to create multiple accounts (because many of my unique comments have been mistakenly censored, again and again). I have followed the advice of an official Disqus help page regarding what to do in the event of a wrongful ban.

        “If you suspect that you have been wrongly banned, try the following: use a different account” (helpDOTdisqusDOTcomSLASHcommentingSLASHwho-deletedremoved-my-comment-or-blocked-my-account)

        I also do not consider my arguments as debunked by your responses to me. I chose not to argue with you since I foresaw that doing so would distract me from my primary aim, which was to post messages of protest across many different internet platforms. However I am happy to reply to you now. I actually agree with much of your other long comment in this thread, by the way! Perhaps we have more in common than you recognised?

        Firstly, the character of Alcmaeon *is* a rapist, according to the dialogue written by Christopher J Priest for Wonder Woman, in the “Legends of the DC Universe” #32 comic (“The 18th Letter” Part 3).

        “On Themyscira there is a mystic named Magala who helped prepare me to meet you–by giving me special bathing oils to protect me from the genetically engineered hallucinogenic anodyne you use on women.

        Phillipus, Captain of my Mother’s guard, provided eye drops that filter out the subliminal commands the micro-laser imagers in your contact lenses project several times per second.” – Wonder Woman’s speech to Alcmaeon.

        You can verify this information for yourself by searching AmazonArchivesDOTcom for the appropriate issue, and viewing the available images. You will notice that Mr Priest scripted Wonder Woman as admitting to an un-coerced sexual attraction towards a mass-murderer who drugs and hypnotises women in order to more easily bed them (i.e. the villain *is* a mass-murdering rapist).

        I notice that you are no longer contesting my suggestion that Christopher J Priest is a misogynist, and that his treatment of Wonder Woman in 2018’s Justice League #42 resulted from a resentment of the recent advances in women’s rights not to be harassed and abused. Perhaps you have read some of my other comments, in which I highlighted a strange reply by Mr Priest on his LamercieParkDOTcom website, where he appeared to casually play the role of an apologist for sexual exploitation and child rape?

        “And we (not just blaming DC) are afraid to tell these kinds of stories unless we make them antiseptic morality tales– the mustache twirling pedo who dopes the innocent girl. Child or teen sexual exploitation is far more complicated than that, with the victim often playing some role in it or gaining some gratification from it that silences them.” – Christopher J Priest (from his blog post, “Slade And Terra”)

        Of course, the quotation above is taken out of context. But even when it is viewed in the context of his full response, the quote of Mr Priest still seems to infer that sexually abused children (!) are “often” (his words), responsible in some way for their exploitation by predatory adults. And it is worth mentioning that the conversation on his blog was specifically about a fictional teenage girl who was sexually exploited, so why did he even mention children at all? (i.e. very young girls, since the discussion was originally about girls and women)?

        It is my belief that Mr Priest is stuck in the mindset wherein all sexually abused women and girls are imagined to have been “asking for it”, and especially if their abusers are hyper-masculine men. Now clearly there *is* some truth to the stereotypical idea that some women are drawn to “bad boys”. But it does not follow on from that open secret of hetero female sexuality that women literally want to be raped, sexually abused or sexually exploited (because all of those things are defined by their unpleasant and non-consensual elements). Children certainly do not want to be sexually exploited, and they do not “often” find “gratification” in being sexually abused! Ugh! What sort of person would casually drop a suggestion of that type into a conversation?

        Can you begin to see why I suspect that Mr Priest holds a bitter resentment towards women, and why I believe that his sadistic treatment of the Wonder Woman character in Justice League #42 was a twisted reaction to the events of the previous year, such as the #MeToo and Time’s Up movements? Wonder Woman has become emblematic of female empowerment and gender equality, since her big movie was in the cinemas during the same year as those aforementioned steps forward in women’s rights. And the Wonder Woman movie was obviously written and directed from a feminist perspective. I believe that Mr Priest wrote a feminist superheroine as being bloodily maimed in response to the whole “Time’s Up” thing (and I believe that he deliberately set out to make her look disempowered and useless when compared with Superman, while disguising his misogyny as being simply part of the story, or even part of his political commentary).

        It is my contention that Christopher J Priest imagines that women like Rose McGowan somehow “asked for it”, and were happy to sleep their way to the top of Hollywood when it benefitted them, only remembering to complain about Harvey Weinstein’s behaviour years after the alleged events in question. After all, Mr Priest has a history of writing a female character like Wonder Woman as being perversely enamoured by an abusive murderer. And he recently scripted Jessica Cruz’s Green Lantern to kiss Batman, even though Bruce Wayne is engaged to Catwoman in another comic (perhaps because Mr Priest views Jessica Cruz as nothing more than another detestably hypocritical and hormones-enslaved broad, who will fall for the first “bad boy” she sets her eyes upon?)

        Also, remember that it is the graphic nature of the superheroine’s injury that I especially object to. I did *not* suggest that female comic book characters should never face peril in the course of their stories (and you *know* that I did not say such a thing). Mr Priest was not forced to write such a disturbing scene! He could have scripted Wonder Woman as facing a threatening scenario without attempting to viciously undermine and defile the core attributes of the character: that she is extremely strong, fast and resilient, like Superman.

        Regarding Cyborg’s injury in Justice League #41, I must confess to suspecting Mr Priest of deliberately including that plot point in a sly attempt to render his misogynistic attack on Wonder Woman immune from criticism (and that is why I have not talked about Cyborg’s injury until now). I still have little to say about what Mr Priest did with Cyborg. First of all, Mr Priest is not forced to horrifically maim any of the Justice League members, whether they are African-American men or mystical Amazonian women. Secondly and lastly, my complaint is specifically about Christopher J Priest’s long history of sexist and misogynistic comic book scripts, and about how that history can inform our understanding of his motivation to conduct a bloody and sadistic assault on a beloved icon of feminism.

      • Kate Zhane

        “Also, I do not use “sock puppet” accounts. I have been honest about the necessity for me to create multiple accounts ”

        Feminist to English Translation: “Yes, I am using sock puppet accounts, a lot”

        “I also do not consider my arguments as debunked by your responses to me. ”

        Doesn’t matter what you consider, your position has been objectively refuted. Every point you made has subsequently been proven wrong.

        “I chose not to argue with you since I foresaw that doing so would distract me from my primary aim, which was to post messages of protest across many different internet platforms”

        No, you’ve chosen not to answer because you have no answer & your “aim” was simply to run around misinforming people of the content of a book, for what I can only consider to be nefarious reasons, given the effort you have gone to to misinform people.

        “Firstly, the character of Alcmaeon *is* a rapist, according to the dialogue written by Christopher J Priest for Wonder Woman, in the “Legends of the DC Universe” #32 comic (“The 18th Letter” Part 3).”

        “On Themyscira there is a mystic named Magala who helped prepare me to meet you–by giving me special bathing oils to protect me from the genetically engineered hallucinogenic anodyne you use on women.”

        Which he used to control Fury as his body guard. It had nothing to do with any kind of sex. Same with the contact lenses, they are the means by which caused a war, no evidence he uses them to rape women.

        That is something you’ve interjected, by which point you must also conclude that the martian manhunter is a rapist, because he has the power to mind control people.

        “I notice that you are no longer contesting my suggestion that Christopher J Priest is a misogynist, and that his treatment of Wonder Woman in 2018’s Justice League #42 resulted from a resentment of the recent advances in women’s rights not to be harassed and abused.”

        There are some statements so asinine they don’t require refuting, they refute themselves, this position of yours is one of them.

        “Perhaps you have read some of my other comments, in which I highlighted a strange reply by Mr Priest on his website, where he appeared to casually play the role of an apologist for sexual exploitation and child rape?”

        It does nothing of the sort. It actually does the exact OPPOSITE of what you think it does. It’s a statement pointing out that if we continue to pretend that such sexual predators are moustache twirling cartoon villains then one can look directly at such a sexual predator in the real world and conclude that the lack of a moustache or any moustache twirling must therefore mean he is not a sexual predator

        That our overly simplified fictional depictions which don’t allow for honesty, trivialises the crime & he’s right, it does.

        “Can you begin to see why I suspect that Mr Priest holds a bitter resentment towards women, and why I believe that his sadistic treatment of the Wonder Woman character in Justice League #42 was a twisted reaction to the events of the previous year, such as the #MeToo and Time’s Up movements? ”

        No, but I can see you doing your damndest to interject nonsense that does not exist, in to a text where it is not present.

        Diana got shot in an issue of a comic book because that’s a consequence of being in a free fire warzone, ditto for Cyborg who was seriously injured in the same issue.

        “After all, Mr Priest has a history of writing a female character like Wonder Woman as being perversely enamoured by an abusive murderer. And he recently scripted Jessica Cruz’s Green Lantern to kiss Batman, even though Bruce Wayne is engaged to Catwoman in another comic (perhaps because Mr Priest views Jessica Cruz as nothing more than another detestably hypocritical and hormones-enslaved broad, who will fall for the first “bad boy” she sets her eyes upon?)”

        Hahahahahahahahahahaha, that’s not sexism, or hatred of women, we actually DO go for the bad boy. Seriously, women have gone for the bad boy for as long as humans have existed. There’s a reason why bodice ripping dime store romance novels are a thing & it’s not because women aren’t attracted to the bad boy, it’s because we are attracted to the bad boy.

        “Also, remember that it is the graphic nature of the superheroine’s injury that I especially object to. ”

        Except it is. You’ve taken an instance of a super hero being injured & then jumped from “wonder woman was injured hence Christopher Priest is a misogynist.”

        You’ve then tried to justify this by quoting a single 18 year old story in which a villain wants to sleep with Diana, but doesn’t in any way force himself on her.

        ” I did *not* suggest that female comic book characters should never face peril in the course of their stories (and you *know* that I did not say such a thing).”

        No, just female characters apparently. Chuck Dixon wrties a comic in which Batman is actually brutalised & his spine snapped in two, and the character sidelined for months, hey no problem their.

        Wonder Woman gets shot by a ricochet in a free fire war zone & suddenly you are running around disqus with a dozen different sock puppet accounts, yelling about how this is misogyny, which it clearly is not.

        So yeah, Galbrush Paradox in action.

        “Mr Priest was not forced to write such a disturbing scene!”

        There was nothing disturbing about it, comic characters are injured all the time, most significantly more graphically than a bullet shot.

        “He could have scripted Wonder Woman as facing a threatening scenario without attempting to viciously undermine and defile the core attributes of the character:”

        Feminist to English Translation: “How dare you hurt a female character.”

        “that she is extremely strong, fast and resilient, like Superman.”

        Well no, Superman is bullet proof, Diana is simply bullet resistant. As for being fast, she may be fast when facing an oncoming hail of bullets, but she wasn’t facing an oncoming hail of bullets, she was hit by a ricochet she didn’t know was coming. Being fast is not the same thing as being infallible.

        Just like Superman wasn’t infallible when he was beaten to death by Doomsday.

        “Regarding Cyborg’s injury in Justice League #41, I must confess to suspecting Mr Priest of deliberately including that plot point in a sly attempt to render his misogynistic attack on Wonder Woman immune from criticism.”

        LOL no. He did it because that’s his job, his job is to write a compelling story about interesting characters & that includes the occasional plot consequence, such as being injured. That’s not a flaw of narrative fiction, it’s a feature.

        “(and that is why I have not talked about Cyborg’s injury until now). I still have little to say about what Mr Priest did with Cyborg.”

        No, you didn’t mention it, because you didn’t notice it, because it was outside of you same group preference.

        “Secondly and lastly, my complaint is specifically about Christopher J Priest’s long history of sexist and misogynistic comic book scripts”

        Except there is no history, let alone a long history. You’ve taken two things that do not in any way demonstrate a hatred of women & have declared that because these two things exist, neither of which contain a hatred of women, that he has a long history of sexist and misogynistic comic book scripts.

        Because if that’s your evidence, then I would have a much easier time proving that Stan Lee has a long history of sexist, misandrist comic book scripts. I mean just look at all the books Stan Lee has Spider-Man beating up white men, he even covers Spidey from heads to toe to hide the fact he’s white & male. Clearly Stan Lee hates white men.

        Tell me, do you know what the word Apophenia means

      • BastetWavesHello

        Kate, for the third time this message has been incorrectly deleted. :o) Also, I do not use “sock puppet” accounts. I have been honest about the necessity for me to create multiple accounts (because many of my unique comments have been mistakenly censored, again and again). I have followed the advice of an official Disqus help page regarding what to do in the event of a wrongful ban.

        “If you suspect that you have been wrongly banned, try the following: use a different account” (helpDOTdisqusDOTcomSLASHcommentingSLASHwho-deletedremoved-my-comment-or-blocked-my-account)

        I also do not consider my arguments as debunked by your responses to me. I chose not to argue with you since I foresaw that doing so would distract me from my primary aim, which was to post messages of protest across many different internet platforms. However I am happy to reply to you now. I actually agree with much of your other long comment in this thread, by the way! Perhaps we have more in common than you recognised?

        Firstly, the character of Alcmaeon *is* a rapist, according to the dialogue written by Christopher J Priest for Wonder Woman, in the “Legends of the DC Universe” #32 comic (“The 18th Letter” Part 3).

        “On Themyscira there is a mystic named Magala who helped prepare me to meet you–by giving me special bathing oils to protect me from the genetically engineered hallucinogenic anodyne you use on women.

        Phillipus, Captain of my Mother’s guard, provided eye drops that filter out the subliminal commands the micro-laser imagers in your contact lenses project several times per second.” – Wonder Woman’s speech to Alcmaeon.

        You can verify this information for yourself by searching AmazonArchivesDOTcom for the appropriate issue, and viewing the available images. You will notice that Mr Priest scripted Wonder Woman as admitting to an un-coerced sexual attraction towards a mass-murderer who drugs and hypnotises women in order to more easily bed them (i.e. the villain *is* a mass-murdering rapist).

        I notice that you are no longer contesting my suggestion that Christopher J Priest is a misogynist, and that his treatment of Wonder Woman in 2018’s Justice League #42 resulted from a resentment of the recent advances in women’s rights not to be harassed and abused. Perhaps you have read some of my other comments, in which I highlighted a strange reply by Mr Priest on his LamercieParkDOTcom website, where he appeared to casually play the role of an apologist for sexual exploitation and child rape?

        “And we (not just blaming DC) are afraid to tell these kinds of stories unless we make them antiseptic morality tales– the mustache twirling pedo who dopes the innocent girl. Child or teen sexual exploitation is far more complicated than that, with the victim often playing some role in it or gaining some gratification from it that silences them.” – Christopher J Priest (from his blog post, “Slade And Terra”)

        Of course, the quotation above is taken out of context. But even when it is viewed in the context of his full response, the quote of Mr Priest still seems to infer that sexually abused children (!) are “often” (his words), responsible in some way for their exploitation by predatory adults. And it is worth mentioning that the conversation on his blog was specifically about a fictional teenage girl who was sexually exploited, so why did he even mention children at all? (i.e. very young girls, since the discussion was originally about girls and women)?

        It is my belief that Mr Priest is stuck in the mindset wherein all sexually abused women and girls are imagined to have been “asking for it”, and especially if their abusers are hyper-masculine men. Now clearly there *is* some truth to the stereotypical idea that some women are drawn to “bad boys”. But it does not follow on from that open secret of hetero female sexuality that women literally want to be raped, sexually abused or sexually exploited (because all of those things are defined by their unpleasant and non-consensual elements). Children certainly do not want to be sexually exploited, and they do not “often” find “gratification” in being sexually abused! Ugh! What sort of person would casually drop a suggestion of that type into a conversation?

        Can you begin to see why I suspect that Mr Priest holds a bitter resentment towards women, and why I believe that his sadistic treatment of the Wonder Woman character in Justice League #42 was a twisted reaction to the events of the previous year, such as the #MeToo and Time’s Up movements? Wonder Woman has become emblematic of female empowerment and gender equality, since her big movie was in the cinemas during the same year as those aforementioned steps forward in women’s rights. And the Wonder Woman movie was obviously written and directed from a feminist perspective. I believe that Mr Priest wrote a feminist superheroine as being bloodily maimed in response to the whole “Time’s Up” thing (and I believe that he deliberately set out to make her look disempowered and useless when compared with Superman, while disguising his misogyny as being simply part of the story, or even part of his political commentary).

        It is my contention that Christopher J Priest imagines that women like Rose McGowan somehow “asked for it”, and were happy to sleep their way to the top of Hollywood when it benefitted them, only remembering to complain about Harvey Weinstein’s behaviour years after the alleged events in question. After all, Mr Priest has a history of writing a female character like Wonder Woman as being perversely enamoured by an abusive murderer. And he recently scripted Jessica Cruz’s Green Lantern to kiss Batman, even though Bruce Wayne is engaged to Catwoman in another comic (perhaps because Mr Priest views Jessica Cruz as nothing more than another detestably hypocritical and hormones-enslaved broad, who will fall for the first “bad boy” she sets her eyes upon?)

        Also, remember that it is the graphic nature of the superheroine’s injury that I especially object to. I did *not* suggest that female comic book characters should never face peril in the course of their stories (and you *know* that I did not say such a thing). Mr Priest was not forced to write such a disturbing scene! He could have scripted Wonder Woman as facing a threatening scenario without attempting to viciously undermine and defile the core attributes of the character: that she is extremely strong, fast and resilient, like Superman.

        Regarding Cyborg’s injury in Justice League #41, I must confess to suspecting Mr Priest of deliberately including that plot point in a sly attempt to render his misogynistic attack on Wonder Woman immune from criticism (and that is why I have not talked about Cyborg’s injury until now). I still have little to say about what Mr Priest did with Cyborg. First of all, Mr Priest is not forced to horrifically maim any of the Justice League members, whether they are African-American men or mystical Amazonian women. Secondly and lastly, my complaint is specifically about Christopher J Priest’s long history of sexist and misogynistic comic book scripts, and about how that history can inform our understanding of his motivation to conduct a bloody and sadistic assault on a beloved icon of feminism.

        • Kate Zhane

          “Also, I do not use “sock puppet” accounts. I have been honest about the necessity for me to create multiple accounts ”

          Feminist to English Translation: “Yes, I am using sock puppet accounts, a lot”

          “I also do not consider my arguments as debunked by your responses to me. ”

          Doesn’t matter what you consider, your position has been objectively refuted. Every point you made has subsequently been proven wrong.

          “I chose not to argue with you since I foresaw that doing so would distract me from my primary aim, which was to post messages of protest across many different internet platforms”

          No, you’ve chosen not to answer because you have no answer & your “aim” was simply to run around misinforming people of the content of a book, for what I can only consider to be nefarious reasons, given the effort you have gone to to misinform people.

          “Firstly, the character of Alcmaeon *is* a rapist, according to the dialogue written by Christopher J Priest for Wonder Woman, in the “Legends of the DC Universe” #32 comic (“The 18th Letter” Part 3).”

          “On Themyscira there is a mystic named Magala who helped prepare me to meet you–by giving me special bathing oils to protect me from the genetically engineered hallucinogenic anodyne you use on women.”

          Which he used to control Fury as his body guard. It had nothing to do with any kind of sex. Same with the contact lenses, they are the means by which caused a war, no evidence he uses them to rape women.

          That is something you’ve interjected, by which point you must also conclude that the martian manhunter is a rapist, because he has the power to mind control people.

          “I notice that you are no longer contesting my suggestion that Christopher J Priest is a misogynist, and that his treatment of Wonder Woman in 2018’s Justice League #42 resulted from a resentment of the recent advances in women’s rights not to be harassed and abused.”

          There are some statements so asinine they don’t require refuting, they refute themselves, this position of yours is one of them.

          “Perhaps you have read some of my other comments, in which I highlighted a strange reply by Mr Priest on his website, where he appeared to casually play the role of an apologist for sexual exploitation and child rape?”

          It does nothing of the sort. It actually does the exact OPPOSITE of what you think it does. It’s a statement pointing out that if we continue to pretend that such sexual predators are moustache twirling cartoon villains then one can look directly at such a sexual predator in the real world and conclude that the lack of a moustache or any moustache twirling must therefore mean he is not a sexual predator

          That our overly simplified fictional depictions which don’t allow for honesty, trivialises the crime & he’s right, it does.

          “Can you begin to see why I suspect that Mr Priest holds a bitter resentment towards women, and why I believe that his sadistic treatment of the Wonder Woman character in Justice League #42 was a twisted reaction to the events of the previous year, such as the #MeToo and Time’s Up movements? ”

          No, but I can see you doing your damndest to interject nonsense that does not exist, in to a text where it is not present.

          Diana got shot in an issue of a comic book because that’s a consequence of being in a free fire warzone, ditto for Cyborg who was seriously injured in the same issue.

          “After all, Mr Priest has a history of writing a female character like Wonder Woman as being perversely enamoured by an abusive murderer. And he recently scripted Jessica Cruz’s Green Lantern to kiss Batman, even though Bruce Wayne is engaged to Catwoman in another comic (perhaps because Mr Priest views Jessica Cruz as nothing more than another detestably hypocritical and hormones-enslaved broad, who will fall for the first “bad boy” she sets her eyes upon?)”

          Hahahahahahahahahahaha, that’s not sexism, or hatred of women, we actually DO go for the bad boy. Seriously, women have gone for the bad boy for as long as humans have existed. There’s a reason why bodice ripping dime store romance novels are a thing & it’s not because women aren’t attracted to the bad boy, it’s because we are attracted to the bad boy.

          “Also, remember that it is the graphic nature of the superheroine’s injury that I especially object to. ”

          Except it is. You’ve taken an instance of a super hero being injured & then jumped from “wonder woman was injured hence Christopher Priest is a misogynist.”

          You’ve then tried to justify this by quoting a single 18 year old story in which a villain wants to sleep with Diana, but doesn’t in any way force himself on her.

          ” I did *not* suggest that female comic book characters should never face peril in the course of their stories (and you *know* that I did not say such a thing).”

          No, just female characters apparently. Chuck Dixon wrties a comic in which Batman is actually brutalised & his spine snapped in two, and the character sidelined for months, hey no problem their.

          Wonder Woman gets shot by a ricochet in a free fire war zone & suddenly you are running around disqus with a dozen different sock puppet accounts, yelling about how this is misogyny, which it clearly is not.

          So yeah, Galbrush Paradox in action.

          “Mr Priest was not forced to write such a disturbing scene!”

          There was nothing disturbing about it, comic characters are injured all the time, most significantly more graphically than a bullet shot.

          “He could have scripted Wonder Woman as facing a threatening scenario without attempting to viciously undermine and defile the core attributes of the character:”

          Feminist to English Translation: “How dare you hurt a female character.”

          “that she is extremely strong, fast and resilient, like Superman.”

          Well no, Superman is bullet proof, Diana is simply bullet resistant. As for being fast, she may be fast when facing an oncoming hail of bullets, but she wasn’t facing an oncoming hail of bullets, she was hit by a ricochet she didn’t know was coming. Being fast is not the same thing as being infallible.

          Just like Superman wasn’t infallible when he was beaten to death by Doomsday.

          “Regarding Cyborg’s injury in Justice League #41, I must confess to suspecting Mr Priest of deliberately including that plot point in a sly attempt to render his misogynistic attack on Wonder Woman immune from criticism.”

          LOL no. He did it because that’s his job, his job is to write a compelling story about interesting characters & that includes the occasional plot consequence, such as being injured. That’s not a flaw of narrative fiction, it’s a feature.

          “(and that is why I have not talked about Cyborg’s injury until now). I still have little to say about what Mr Priest did with Cyborg.”

          No, you didn’t mention it, because you didn’t notice it, because it was outside of you same group preference.

          “Secondly and lastly, my complaint is specifically about Christopher J Priest’s long history of sexist and misogynistic comic book scripts”

          Except there is no history, let alone a long history. You’ve taken two things that do not in any way demonstrate a hatred of women & have declared that because these two things exist, neither of which contain a hatred of women, that he has a long history of sexist and misogynistic comic book scripts.

          Because if that’s your evidence, then I would have a much easier time proving that Stan Lee has a long history of sexist, misandrist comic book scripts. I mean just look at all the books Stan Lee has Spider-Man beating up white men, he even covers Spidey from heads to toe to hide the fact he’s white & male. Clearly Stan Lee hates white men.

          Tell me, do you know what the word Apophenia means

      • BastetWavesHello

        Kate, for the fourth time now one of my posts in this thread has been inappropriately deleted. B-) Also, I do not use “sock puppet” accounts. I have been honest about the necessity for me to create multiple accounts (because many of my unique comments have been mistakenly censored, again and again). I have followed the advice of an official Disqus help page regarding what to do in the event of a wrongful ban.

        “If you suspect that you have been wrongly banned, try the following: use a different account” (helpDOTdisqusDOTcomSLASHcommentingSLASHwho-deletedremoved-my-comment-or-blocked-my-account)

        I also do not consider my arguments as debunked by your responses to me. I chose not to continue a discussion with you since I foresaw that doing so would distract me from my primary aim, which was to post messages of protest across many different internet platforms. However I am happy to reply to you now. I actually agree with much of your other long comment in this thread, by the way! Perhaps we have more in common than you recognised?

        Firstly, the character of Alcmaeon *is* a rapist, according to the dialogue written by Christopher J Priest for Wonder Woman, in the “Legends of the DC Universe” #32 comic (“The 18th Letter” Part 3).

        “On Themyscira there is a mystic named Magala who helped prepare me to meet you–by giving me special bathing oils to protect me from the genetically engineered hallucinogenic anodyne you use on women.

        Phillipus, Captain of my Mother’s guard, provided eye drops that filter out the subliminal commands the micro-laser imagers in your contact lenses project several times per second.” – Wonder Woman’s speech to Alcmaeon.

        You can verify this information for yourself by searching AmazonArchivesDOTcom for the appropriate issue, and viewing the available images. You will notice that Mr Priest scripted Wonder Woman as admitting to an un-coerced sexual attraction towards a mass-murderer who drugs and hypnotises women in order to more easily bed them (i.e. the villain *is* a mass-murdering rapist).

        I notice that you are no longer contesting my suggestion that Christopher J Priest is a misogynist, and that his treatment of Wonder Woman in 2018’s Justice League #42 resulted from a resentment of the recent advances in women’s rights not to be harassed and abused. Perhaps you have read some of my other comments, in which I highlighted a strange reply by Mr Priest on his LamercieParkDOTcom website, where he appeared to casually play the role of an apologist for sexual exploitation and child rape?

        “And we (not just blaming DC) are afraid to tell these kinds of stories unless we make them antiseptic morality tales– the mustache twirling pedo who dopes the innocent girl. Child or teen sexual exploitation is far more complicated than that, with the victim often playing some role in it or gaining some gratification from it that silences them.” – Christopher J Priest (from his blog post, “Slade And Terra”)

        Of course, the quotation above is taken out of context. But even when it is viewed in the context of his full response, the quote of Mr Priest still seems to infer that sexually abused children (!) are “often” (his words), responsible in some way for their exploitation by predatory adults. And it is worth mentioning that the conversation on his blog was specifically about a fictional teenage girl who was sexually exploited, so why did he even mention children at all? (i.e. very young girls, since the discussion was originally about girls and women)?

        It is my belief that Mr Priest is stuck in the mindset wherein all sexually abused women and girls are imagined to have been “asking for it”, and especially if their abusers are hyper-masculine men. Now clearly there *is* some truth to the stereotypical idea that some women are drawn to “bad boys”. But it does not follow on from that open secret of hetero female sexuality that women literally want to be raped, sexually abused or sexually exploited (because all of those things are defined by their unpleasant and non-consensual elements). Children certainly do not want to be sexually exploited, and they do not “often” find “gratification” in being sexually abused! Ugh! What sort of person would casually drop a suggestion of that type into a conversation?

        Can you begin to see why I suspect that Mr Priest holds a bitter resentment towards women, and why I believe that his sadistic treatment of the Wonder Woman character in Justice League #42 was a twisted reaction to the events of the previous year, such as the #MeToo and Time’s Up movements? Wonder Woman has become emblematic of female empowerment and gender equality, since her big movie was in the cinemas during the same year as those aforementioned steps forward in women’s rights. And the Wonder Woman movie was obviously written and directed from a feminist perspective. I believe that Mr Priest wrote a feminist superheroine as being bloodily maimed in response to the whole “Time’s Up” thing (and I believe that he deliberately set out to make her look disempowered and useless when compared with Superman, while disguising his misogyny as being simply part of the story, or even part of his political commentary).

        It is my contention that Christopher J Priest imagines that women like Rose McGowan somehow “asked for it”, and were happy to sleep their way to the top of Hollywood when it benefitted them, only remembering to complain about Harvey Weinstein’s behaviour years after the alleged events in question. After all, Mr Priest has a history of writing a female character like Wonder Woman as being perversely enamoured by an abusive murderer. And he recently scripted Jessica Cruz’s Green Lantern to kiss Batman, even though Bruce Wayne is engaged to Catwoman in another comic (perhaps because Mr Priest views Jessica Cruz as nothing more than another detestably hypocritical and hormones-enslaved broad, who will fall for the first “bad boy” she sets her eyes upon?)

        Also, remember that it is the graphic nature of the superheroine’s injury that I especially object to. I did *not* suggest that female comic book characters should never face peril in the course of their stories (and you *know* that I did not say such a thing). Mr Priest was not forced to write such a disturbing scene! He could have scripted Wonder Woman as facing a threatening scenario without attempting to viciously undermine and defile the core attributes of the character: that she is extremely strong, fast and resilient, like Superman.

        Regarding Cyborg’s injury in Justice League #41, I must confess to suspecting Mr Priest of deliberately including that plot point in a sly attempt to render his misogynistic attack on Wonder Woman immune from criticism (and that is why I have not talked about Cyborg’s injury until now). I still have little to say about what Mr Priest did with Cyborg. First of all, Mr Priest is not forced to horrifically maim any of the Justice League members, whether they are African-American men or mystical Amazonian women. Secondly and lastly, my complaint is specifically about Christopher J Priest’s long history of sexist and misogynistic comic book scripts, and about how that history can inform our understanding of his motivation to conduct a bloody and sadistic assault on a beloved icon of feminism.

        • Kate Zhane

          “Kate, for the fourth time now one of my posts in this thread has been inappropriately deleted”

          It’s not, that’s just the excuse you use whenever people ask you a question you can’t answer, or which makes your position look as weak as it really is.

          It’s the same technique you have employed across disqus whenever you got caught out.

          YOU are deleting your messages, so then you can repost them, without the rebuttal, in the hopes that eventually people will get sick of replying to you & you’ll finally get the last word, since you can’t get the last word any other way.

          Also, stop using your sock puppet accounts to upvote your own comments, that’s even more intellectually dishonest.

          • BastetWavesHello

            That is simply not true Kate. I can assure you that I am *not* deleting my own comments. I assumed that you had been trying to get my messages taken down yourself, but perhaps I was wrong about that. If you are not to blame for some of my replies being deleted then I am sorry for rashly jumping to the wrong conclusion (and I really mean it). Obviously you disapprove of my tactics in protesting against what I perceive to be a sadistic and misogynistic comic book, but we do not have to be enemies. You have a right to express your opinion and I am happy to simply agree to disagree about the Justice League thing.

            Anyway it *is* true that my comments have been repeatedly censored over and over again, which has necessitated my use of multiple accounts (a practice not only permitted by Disqus, but even suggested on one of its help pages).

            Each time that I have used more than one account it has been in an effort to stop my messages from being inappropriately removed from public view. It is not much fun when somebody tries to stop you from having a voice. I am determined to make sure that I am not unfairly silenced. It is possible that my online comments have been targeted as a response to my political activism (I have worked to expose certain inconvenient truths about sickening establishment corruption). Of course it would be quite ridiculous and laughable if somebody was following me around (and I don’t mean you), trying to remove what basically amounts to fanmail about DC Comics and Wonder Woman, but some people will go to extreme lengths in their desperate attempts to intimidate truth-tellers.

          • Kate Zhane

            “That is simply not true Kate.”

            It is. Disqus does not work the way you are trying to present it as working. Firstly Disqus (the company) does not curate comments, at all. Individual websites using the plug in do, so this idea that whereever you go, you are having your messages deleted is garbage.

            Now I see you have moved on to mass flagging not just my comments to you, but also your own comment, with your sock puppet accounts to make it look like your comment has been flagged.

            I’m not sure if you are aware of this, but there is actually a way to see who flagged your comment as spam & what do you know, it’s you.

            But it’s easy enough for you to prove your comments are being removed. Go to your account & take a screen shot of all the “removed” tags on comments. If your comments have really been removed they should still remain in your list, but with a tag next to them.

            Super easy to demonstrate that they have been removed.

            “Obviously you disapprove of my tactics in protesting against what I perceive to be a sadistic and misogynistic comic book, but we do not have to be enemies.”

            We are enemies, your actions fundamentally make us enemies. You have personally generated no less than 9 different accounts to create an astro-turfing campaign, to try to get someone fired over garbage you personally interjected in to a comic book, garbage that exists only in your own mind.

            That is a despicable act.

            “Anyway it *is* true that my comments have been repeatedly censored over and over again, which has necessitated my use of multiple accounts (a practice not only permitted by Disqus, but even suggested on one of its help pages).”

            No it doesn’t. It does not suggest creating 9 different accounts to spam with.

            “Each time that I have used more than one account it has been in an effort to stop my messages from being inappropriately removed from public view”

            Rubbish, you use multiple accounts so it looks like people agree with you, to make it look like your opinion is a common place one and to upvote your own comments.

            That’s called Astro-Turfing.

            “It is possible that my online comments have been targeted as a response to my political activism (I have worked to expose certain inconvenient truths about sickening establishment corruption).”

            That’s not how disqus works. Stop pretending you are being silenced, you are deleting your own comments. But hey, feel free to prove me wrong, show me the removed statuses on all those messages. We both know you won’t, because they don’t exist.

          • BastetWavesHello

            Kate, I am not deleting my own comments. On my profile there is a little red message box next to the censored comments, which reads “Detected as spam”. I will not post a screenshot for privacy reasons.

            I suspected that *you* were flagging my posts as “spam” in order to remove them so I eventually retaliated in kind, (but only after my comments had been taken down multiple times). I was angry with you because I thought that you were responsible for the censorship. But as I already stated, perhaps I was wrong to suspect you of abusing Disqus’ “flag comment” system (and if so, I am genuinely sorry about that).

            You are right; I did repeatedly up-vote two of my comments in this thread using old accounts which I have abandoned for regular use (because they were being targeted for automated deletion of new posts). The reason why I up-voted the two posts is because I wanted to learn whether doing so would make it more difficult for trolls to use Disqus’ automated “spam” filter. I had guessed that posts with several up-votes might be considered as higher-quality posts by the Disqus filter’s algorithms, but I don’t know for certain whether my guess was correct.

            The Disqus commenting system is part of the big corporate monopolies on the internet. For example, the Blackstone Group private equity giant has invested in Disqus’ parent company, Zeta Global. I understand the basics about the way Disqus works, and I think the reason why it is so impersonal and detached from the end user, with little recourse for a person who has been wrongly censored, is precisely because the corporate interests that own Disqus prefer things to be that way. A person can be actively censored for political dissent by being added to an opaque “spam” filter’s blacklist, and if the person complains then the unfortunate episode can be blamed on a supposed error in the system. The political dissident is told to create a new account because there is not really anybody to appeal to, in order to be unbanned, except the individual site moderators (as you correctly explained), who will tend to be unknown from the perspective of a commenter who posts messages across multiple websites.

            Avoiding Disqus censorship is a time-consuming process for the wrongly-banned political dissident, and our would-be corporate overlords would like the dissident to give up out of frustration, or lack of free time. And in the case that the dissident is extremely willful and persistent, the would-be overlords would like the nature of the internet news cycle to limit the number of people who read the dissident’s comments during the period in which she is forced to repeatedly create new accounts.

            I am telling the truth. If you don’t believe me then there is not much I can do about that. I am not your enemy. I don’t really want to be Christopher J Priest’s enemy either, and my online protest against his writing in the Justice League #42 comic has been primary intended as a deterrent. I specifically stated in my emails to Time Warner, Warner Bros. and DC Comics representatives etc. that I would rather Mr Priest to be allowed to finish his Deathstroke run, and then to not have his contract renewed for a short period of time. I also specifically asked that Mr Priest be re-employed by DC Comics at a future date. Of course I cannot mandate that Time Warner agrees to my demands, but I tried very hard to be fair to Mr Priest and his fans, while still asking for Time Warner to send a clear message to other DC writers and artists that misogynistic sadism perpetrated against female comic book characters will no longer be acceptable.

          • Kate Zhane

            “Kate, I am not deleting my own comments. On my profile there is a little red message box next to the censored comments, which reads “Detected as spam”. I will not post a screenshot for privacy reasons.”

            Which is not what it looks like when a message has been removed. Also there is no privacy concern, the data looks exactly like it does here, except it has a removed tag next to it.

            What you actually mean is that you are deleting your comments, which means you can’t show comments with the removed tag, because they don’t exist.

            “I suspected that *you* were flagging my posts as “spam” in order to remove them so I eventually retaliated in kind, (but only after my comments had been taken down multiple times). I was angry with you because I thought that you were responsible for the censorship.”

            No there is no censorship, you used your sock puppet accounts to flag, my messages because you couldn’t formulate a reply, because the only person removing your messages is you.

            The messages getting caught as spam now are you reposting the messages you’ve deleted over and over again, which is in fact spam.

            “You are right; I did repeatedly up-vote two of my comments in this thread using old accounts which I have abandoned for regular use (because they were being targeted for automated deletion of new posts).”

            No you did it to upvote your own comment, just like you make multiple comments with multiple accounts, to make it look like your position has support, this is called astro-turfing & it’s a despicable thing to do, stop doing it.

            “The Disqus commenting system is part of the big corporate monopolies on the internet”

            Stop. I’m not chasing you on your newest obfuscation, you need to provide evidence that your comments are being removed, which we both know you won’t do because you can’t, because they haven’t been removed. You are deleting them yourself. Stop deleting your own messages & pretending someone else did it, when you get caught out being wrong

          • SulisNeverWentAway

            I am not deleting my own messages, Kate. You are accusing me of doing the things which you are doing yourself.

            You are the one doing the obfuscating, or “projecting” as your recent behaviour would be described by a psychologist. Originally our discussion was about Wonder Woman and my impression that Christopher J Priest was motivated by sadistic misogyny to write a specific Justice League comic book. However, now the only thing you want to talk about is whether or not I am telling the truth about my messages being censored. Why is that? :-/

      • BastetWavesHello

        Kate, I am posting this comment again because as you can see, for the fifth or sixth time one of my replies here has been removed from public view. I do not have a personal vendetta against you. 🙂

        I do not use “sock puppet” accounts. I have been honest about the necessity for me to create multiple accounts (because many of my unique comments have been mistakenly censored, again and again). I have followed the advice of an official Disqus help page regarding what to do in the event of a wrongful ban.

        “If you suspect that you have been wrongly banned, try the following: use a different account” (helpDOTdisqusDOTcomSLASHcommentingSLASHwho-deletedremoved-my-comment-or-blocked-my-account)

        I also do not consider my arguments as debunked by your responses to me. I chose not to continue a discussion with you since I foresaw that doing so would distract me from my primary aim, which was to post messages of protest across many different internet platforms. However I am happy to reply to you now. I actually agree with much of your other long comment in this thread, by the way! Perhaps we have more in common than you recognised?

        Firstly, the character of Alcmaeon *is* a rapist, according to the dialogue written by Christopher J Priest for Wonder Woman, in the “Legends of the DC Universe” #32 comic (“The 18th Letter” Part 3).

        “On Themyscira there is a mystic named Magala who helped prepare me to meet you–by giving me special bathing oils to protect me from the genetically engineered hallucinogenic anodyne you use on women.

        Phillipus, Captain of my Mother’s guard, provided eye drops that filter out the subliminal commands the micro-laser imagers in your contact lenses project several times per second.” – Wonder Woman’s speech to Alcmaeon.

        You can verify this information for yourself by searching AmazonArchivesDOTcom for the appropriate issue, and viewing the available images. You will notice that Mr Priest scripted Wonder Woman as admitting to an un-coerced sexual attraction towards a mass-murderer who drugs and hypnotises women in order to more easily bed them (i.e. the villain *is* a mass-murdering rapist).

        I notice that you are no longer contesting my suggestion that Christopher J Priest is a misogynist, and that his treatment of Wonder Woman in 2018’s Justice League #42 resulted from a resentment of the recent advances in women’s rights not to be harassed and abused. Perhaps you have read some of my other comments, in which I highlighted a strange reply by Mr Priest on his LamercieParkDOTcom website, where he appeared to casually play the role of an apologist for sexual exploitation and child rape?

        “And we (not just blaming DC) are afraid to tell these kinds of stories unless we make them antiseptic morality tales– the mustache twirling pedo who dopes the innocent girl. Child or teen sexual exploitation is far more complicated than that, with the victim often playing some role in it or gaining some gratification from it that silences them.” – Christopher J Priest (from his blog post, “Slade And Terra”)

        Of course, the quotation above is taken out of context. But even when it is viewed in the context of his full response, the quote of Mr Priest still seems to infer that sexually abused children (!) are “often” (his words), responsible in some way for their exploitation by predatory adults. And it is worth mentioning that the conversation on his blog was specifically about a fictional teenage girl who was sexually exploited, so why did he even mention children at all? (i.e. very young girls, since the discussion was originally about girls and women)?

        It is my belief that Mr Priest is stuck in the mindset wherein all sexually abused women and girls are imagined to have been “asking for it”, and especially if their abusers are hyper-masculine men. Now clearly there *is* some truth to the stereotypical idea that some women are drawn to “bad boys”. But it does not follow on from that open secret of hetero female sexuality that women literally want to be raped, sexually abused or sexually exploited (because all of those things are defined by their unpleasant and non-consensual elements). Children certainly do not want to be sexually exploited, and they do not “often” find “gratification” in being sexually abused! Ugh! What sort of person would casually drop a suggestion of that type into a conversation?

        Can you begin to see why I suspect that Mr Priest holds a bitter resentment towards women, and why I believe that his sadistic treatment of the Wonder Woman character in Justice League #42 was a twisted reaction to the events of the previous year, such as the #MeToo and Time’s Up movements? Wonder Woman has become emblematic of female empowerment and gender equality, since her big movie was in the cinemas during the same year as those aforementioned steps forward in women’s rights. And the Wonder Woman movie was obviously written and directed from a feminist perspective. I believe that Mr Priest wrote a feminist superheroine as being bloodily maimed in response to the whole “Time’s Up” thing (and I believe that he deliberately set out to make her look disempowered and useless when compared with Superman, while disguising his misogyny as being simply part of the story, or even part of his political commentary).

        It is my contention that Christopher J Priest imagines that women like Rose McGowan somehow “asked for it”, and were happy to sleep their way to the top of Hollywood when it benefitted them, only remembering to complain about Harvey Weinstein’s behaviour years after the alleged events in question. After all, Mr Priest has a history of writing a female character like Wonder Woman as being perversely enamoured by an abusive murderer. And he recently scripted Jessica Cruz’s Green Lantern to kiss Batman, even though Bruce Wayne is engaged to Catwoman in another comic (perhaps because Mr Priest views Jessica Cruz as nothing more than another detestably hypocritical and hormones-enslaved broad, who will fall for the first “bad boy” she sets her eyes upon?)

        Also, remember that it is the graphic nature of the superheroine’s injury that I especially object to. I did *not* suggest that female comic book characters should never face peril in the course of their stories (and you *know* that I did not say such a thing). Mr Priest was not forced to write such a disturbing scene! He could have scripted Wonder Woman as facing a threatening scenario without attempting to viciously undermine and defile the core attributes of the character: that she is extremely strong, fast and resilient, like Superman.

        Regarding Cyborg’s injury in Justice League #41, I must confess to suspecting Mr Priest of deliberately including that plot point in a sly attempt to render his misogynistic attack on Wonder Woman immune from criticism (and that is why I have not talked about Cyborg’s injury until now). I still have little to say about what Mr Priest did with Cyborg. First of all, Mr Priest is not forced to horrifically maim any of the Justice League members, whether they are African-American men or mystical Amazonian women. Secondly and lastly, my complaint is specifically about Christopher J Priest’s long history of sexist and misogynistic comic book scripts, and about how that history can inform our understanding of his motivation to conduct a bloody and sadistic assault on a beloved icon of feminism.

      • BastetWavesHello

        Yet again I am reposting this very same comment because, as you can see, for the sixth or seventh time one of my replies here has been removed from public view. 😐

        I do not use “sock puppet” accounts. I have been honest about the necessity for me to create multiple accounts (because many of my unique comments have been mistakenly censored, again and again). I have followed the advice of an official Disqus help page regarding what to do in the event of a wrongful ban.

        “If you suspect that you have been wrongly banned, try the following: use a different account” (helpDOTdisqusDOTcomSLASHcommentingSLASHwho-deletedremoved-my-comment-or-blocked-my-account)

        I also do not consider my arguments as debunked by your responses to me. I chose not to continue a discussion with you since I foresaw that doing so would distract me from my primary aim, which was to post messages of protest across many different internet platforms. However I am happy to reply to you now. I actually agree with much of your other long comment in this thread, by the way! Perhaps we have more in common than you recognised?

        Firstly, the character of Alcmaeon *is* a rapist, according to the dialogue written by Christopher J Priest for Wonder Woman, in the “Legends of the DC Universe” #32 comic (“The 18th Letter” Part 3).

        “On Themyscira there is a mystic named Magala who helped prepare me to meet you–by giving me special bathing oils to protect me from the genetically engineered hallucinogenic anodyne you use on women.

        Phillipus, Captain of my Mother’s guard, provided eye drops that filter out the subliminal commands the micro-laser imagers in your contact lenses project several times per second.” – Wonder Woman’s speech to Alcmaeon.

        You can verify this information for yourself by searching AmazonArchivesDOTcom for the appropriate issue, and viewing the available images. You will notice that Mr Priest scripted Wonder Woman as admitting to an un-coerced sexual attraction towards a mass-murderer who drugs and hypnotises women in order to more easily bed them (i.e. the villain *is* a mass-murdering rapist).

        I notice that you are no longer contesting my suggestion that Christopher J Priest is a misogynist, and that his treatment of Wonder Woman in 2018’s Justice League #42 resulted from a resentment of the recent advances in women’s rights not to be harassed and abused. Perhaps you have read some of my other comments, in which I highlighted a strange reply by Mr Priest on his LamercieParkDOTcom website, where he appeared to casually play the role of an apologist for sexual exploitation and child rape?

        “And we (not just blaming DC) are afraid to tell these kinds of stories unless we make them antiseptic morality tales– the mustache twirling pedo who dopes the innocent girl. Child or teen sexual exploitation is far more complicated than that, with the victim often playing some role in it or gaining some gratification from it that silences them.” – Christopher J Priest (from his blog post, “Slade And Terra”)

        Of course, the quotation above is taken out of context. But even when it is viewed in the context of his full response, the quote of Mr Priest still seems to infer that sexually abused children (!) are “often” (his words), responsible in some way for their exploitation by predatory adults. And it is worth mentioning that the conversation on his blog was specifically about a fictional teenage girl who was sexually exploited, so why did he even mention children at all? (i.e. very young girls, since the discussion was originally about girls and women)?

        It is my belief that Mr Priest is stuck in the mindset wherein all sexually abused women and girls are imagined to have been “asking for it”, and especially if their abusers are hyper-masculine men. Now clearly there *is* some truth to the stereotypical idea that some women are drawn to “bad boys”. But it does not follow on from that open secret of hetero female sexuality that women literally want to be raped, sexually abused or sexually exploited (because all of those things are defined by their unpleasant and non-consensual elements). Children certainly do not want to be sexually exploited, and they do not “often” find “gratification” in being sexually abused! Ugh! What sort of person would casually drop a suggestion of that type into a conversation?

        Can you begin to see why I suspect that Mr Priest holds a bitter resentment towards women, and why I believe that his sadistic treatment of the Wonder Woman character in Justice League #42 was a twisted reaction to the events of the previous year, such as the #MeToo and Time’s Up movements? Wonder Woman has become emblematic of female empowerment and gender equality, since her big movie was in the cinemas during the same year as those aforementioned steps forward in women’s rights. And the Wonder Woman movie was obviously written and directed from a feminist perspective. I believe that Mr Priest wrote a feminist superheroine as being bloodily maimed in response to the whole “Time’s Up” thing (and I believe that he deliberately set out to make her look disempowered and useless when compared with Superman, while disguising his misogyny as being simply part of the story, or even part of his political commentary).

        It is my contention that Christopher J Priest imagines that women like Rose McGowan somehow “asked for it”, and were happy to sleep their way to the top of Hollywood when it benefitted them, only remembering to complain about Harvey Weinstein’s behaviour years after the alleged events in question. After all, Mr Priest has a history of writing a female character like Wonder Woman as being perversely enamoured by an abusive murderer. And he recently scripted Jessica Cruz’s Green Lantern to kiss Batman, even though Bruce Wayne is engaged to Catwoman in another comic (perhaps because Mr Priest views Jessica Cruz as nothing more than another detestably hypocritical and hormones-enslaved broad, who will fall for the first “bad boy” she sets her eyes upon?)

        Also, remember that it is the graphic nature of the superheroine’s injury that I especially object to. I did *not* suggest that female comic book characters should never face peril in the course of their stories (and you *know* that I did not say such a thing). Mr Priest was not forced to write such a disturbing scene! He could have scripted Wonder Woman as facing a threatening scenario without attempting to viciously undermine and defile the core attributes of the character: that she is extremely strong, fast and resilient, like Superman.

        Regarding Cyborg’s injury in Justice League #41, I must confess to suspecting Mr Priest of deliberately including that plot point in a sly attempt to render his misogynistic attack on Wonder Woman immune from criticism (and that is why I have not talked about Cyborg’s injury until now). I still have little to say about what Mr Priest did with Cyborg. First of all, Mr Priest is not forced to horrifically maim any of the Justice League members, whether they are African-American men or mystical Amazonian women. Secondly and lastly, my complaint is specifically about Christopher J Priest’s long history of sexist and misogynistic comic book scripts, and about how that history can inform our understanding of his motivation to conduct a bloody and sadistic assault on a beloved icon of feminism.

      • BastetWavesHello

        Again and again I am reposting this almost identical comment because, as you can see, for the sixth or seventh time one of my replies here has been removed from public view. :-/

        I do not use “sock puppet” accounts. I have been honest about the necessity for me to create multiple accounts (because lots of my unique comments have been mistakenly censored, many times). I have followed the advice of an official Disqus help page regarding what to do in the event of a wrongful ban.

        “If you suspect that you have been wrongly banned, try the following: use a different account” (helpDOTdisqusDOTcomSLASHcommentingSLASHwho-deletedremoved-my-comment-or-blocked-my-account)

        I also do not consider my arguments as debunked by your responses to me. I chose not to continue a discussion with you since I foresaw that doing so would distract me from my primary aim, which was to post messages of protest across many different internet platforms. However I am happy to reply to you now. I actually agree with much of your other long comment in this thread, by the way! Perhaps we have more in common than you recognised?

        Firstly, the character of Alcmaeon *is* a rapist, according to the dialogue written by Christopher J Priest for Wonder Woman, in the “Legends of the DC Universe” #32 comic (“The 18th Letter” Part 3).

        “On Themyscira there is a mystic named Magala who helped prepare me to meet you–by giving me special bathing oils to protect me from the genetically engineered hallucinogenic anodyne you use on women.

        Phillipus, Captain of my Mother’s guard, provided eye drops that filter out the subliminal commands the micro-laser imagers in your contact lenses project several times per second.” – Wonder Woman’s speech to Alcmaeon.

        You can verify this information for yourself by searching AmazonArchivesDOTcom for the appropriate issue, and viewing the available images. You will notice that Mr Priest scripted Wonder Woman as admitting to an un-coerced sexual attraction towards a mass-murderer who drugs and hypnotises women in order to more easily bed them (i.e. the villain *is* a mass-murdering rapist).

        I notice that you are no longer contesting my suggestion that Christopher J Priest is a misogynist, and that his treatment of Wonder Woman in 2018’s Justice League #42 resulted from a resentment of the recent advances in women’s rights not to be harassed and abused. Perhaps you have read some of my other comments, in which I highlighted a strange reply by Mr Priest on his LamercieParkDOTcom website, where he appeared to casually play the role of an apologist for sexual exploitation and child rape?

        “And we (not just blaming DC) are afraid to tell these kinds of stories unless we make them antiseptic morality tales– the mustache twirling pedo who dopes the innocent girl. Child or teen sexual exploitation is far more complicated than that, with the victim often playing some role in it or gaining some gratification from it that silences them.” – Christopher J Priest (from his blog post, “Slade And Terra”)

        Of course, the quotation above is taken out of context. But even when it is viewed in the context of his full response, the quote of Mr Priest still seems to infer that sexually abused children (!) are “often” (his words), responsible in some way for their exploitation by predatory adults. And it is worth mentioning that the conversation on his blog was specifically about a fictional teenage girl who was sexually exploited, so why did he even mention children at all? (i.e. very young girls, since the discussion was originally about girls and women)?

        It is my belief that Mr Priest is stuck in the mindset wherein all sexually abused women and girls are imagined to have been “asking for it”, and especially if their abusers are hyper-masculine men. Now clearly there *is* some truth to the stereotypical idea that some women are drawn to “bad boys”. But it does not follow on from that open secret of hetero female sexuality that women literally want to be raped, sexually abused or sexually exploited (because all of those things are defined by their unpleasant and non-consensual elements). Children certainly do not want to be sexually exploited, and they do not “often” find “gratification” in being sexually abused! Ugh! What sort of person would casually drop a suggestion of that type into a conversation?

        Can you begin to see why I suspect that Mr Priest holds a bitter resentment towards women, and why I believe that his sadistic treatment of the Wonder Woman character in Justice League #42 was a twisted reaction to the events of the previous year, such as the #MeToo and Time’s Up movements? Wonder Woman has become emblematic of female empowerment and gender equality, since her big movie was in the cinemas during the same year as those aforementioned steps forward in women’s rights. And the Wonder Woman movie was obviously written and directed from a feminist perspective. I believe that Mr Priest wrote a feminist superheroine as being bloodily maimed in response to the whole “Time’s Up” thing (and I believe that he deliberately set out to make her look disempowered and useless when compared with Superman, while disguising his misogyny as being simply part of the story, or even part of his political commentary).

        It is my contention that Christopher J Priest imagines that women like Rose McGowan somehow “asked for it”, and were happy to sleep their way to the top of Hollywood when it benefitted them, only remembering to complain about Harvey Weinstein’s behaviour years after the alleged events in question. After all, Mr Priest has a history of writing a female character like Wonder Woman as being perversely enamoured by an abusive murderer. And he recently scripted Jessica Cruz’s Green Lantern to kiss Batman, even though Bruce Wayne is engaged to Catwoman in another comic (perhaps because Mr Priest views Jessica Cruz as nothing more than another detestably hypocritical and hormones-enslaved broad, who will fall for the first “bad boy” she sets her eyes upon?)

        Also, remember that it is the graphic nature of the superheroine’s injury that I especially object to. I did *not* suggest that female comic book characters should never face peril in the course of their stories (and you *know* that I did not say such a thing). Mr Priest was not forced to write such a disturbing scene! He could have scripted Wonder Woman as facing a threatening scenario without attempting to viciously undermine and defile the core attributes of the character: that she is extremely strong, fast and resilient, like Superman.

        Regarding Cyborg’s injury in Justice League #41, I must confess to suspecting Mr Priest of deliberately including that plot point in a sly attempt to render his misogynistic attack on Wonder Woman immune from criticism (and that is why I have not talked about Cyborg’s injury until now). I still have little to say about what Mr Priest did with Cyborg. First of all, Mr Priest is not forced to horrifically maim any of the Justice League members, whether they are African-American men or mystical Amazonian women. Secondly and lastly, my complaint is specifically about Christopher J Priest’s long history of sexist and misogynistic comic book scripts, and about how that history can inform our understanding of his motivation to conduct a bloody and sadistic assault on a beloved icon of feminism.

        • Kate Zhane

          Stop. You are just deleting your own comments.

          If they were being removed your account would be full of the removed tag & you’d be able to demonstrate that, as you’ve already been told. But you haven’t because you can’t, because your messages aren’t being deleted by anyone but you.

          • BastetWavesHello

            No I am not deleting my own comments. I do see the red “Detected as spam” tag next to the censored comments, as I have further explained in a reply to you below.

            If my messages are not being targeted for removal by you, using the “flag comment” feature in an abusive way, then perhaps it is the UK state’s intelligence and/or security services attempting to censor me (or an organisation of a similar type, perhaps working within the private sector). I say this because I have written extensively in the past about the UK establishment’s cover-up of well-connected paedophiles and/or child rapists such as the “long-time deputy director of MI6”, Sir Peter Hayman, Sir Jimmy Savile the Papal Knight, Sir Cyril Smith MP (the alleged Freemason), and Worshipful Master Keith Harding of the “GCHQ” “spies lodge” in Cheltenham.

          • Kate Zhane

            “No I am not deleting my own comments. I do see the red “Detected as spam” tag next to the censored comments, as I have further explained in a reply to you below.”

            And as I’ve already told you, that is not what a removed message looks like. Now if your messages keep on being removed, then you should know what it looks like because you should have tonnes of them in your feed, given how often you think it’s occurred.

            “If my messages are not being targeted for removal by you, using the “flag comment” feature in an abusive way, then perhaps it is the UK state’s intelligence and/or security services attempting to censor me (or an organisation of a similar type, perhaps working within the private sector). I say this because I have written extensively in the past about the UK establishment’s cover-up of well-connected paedophiles and/or child rapists such as the “long-time deputy director of MI6”, Sir Peter Hayman, Sir Jimmy Savile the Papal Knight, Sir Cyril Smith MP (the alleged Freemason), and Worshipful Master Keith Harding of the “GCHQ” “spies lodge” in Cheltenham.”

            LOL no, there is no conspiracy out there keeping you down, you are just deleting your own messages.

          • BastetWavesHello

            I am not deleting my own comments. I want people to read my comments! 🙂 It seems that you are blatantly lying about what deleted comments look like, because I am telling the truth. You should apply for a job with JTRIG! Or perhaps you are not familiar with this type of message box related to the “spam filter”?

            And don’t doubt the determination of certain immoral people to cling onto their ill-gotten gains, at almost any cost to basic human decency. If the UK’s law enforcement, intelligence and security services would cover up Jimmy Savile raping children in NHS hospitals up and down the country, don’t you think that they (and other corrupt establishment organs like them) are more than capable of trying to intimidate somebody like me by attempting to censor my online messages about comic book characters? It is not only my posts about DC Comics which have been on the receiving end of attempted censorship, by the way!

          • Kate Zhane

            “I am not deleting my own comments. I want people to read my comments! 🙂 It seems that you are blatantly lying about what deleted comments look like, because I am telling the truth.”

            LOL, no you aren’t telling the truth & the fact that you are unaware of what a removed message status looks like in your feed demonstrates that.

            This is what a removed message looks like & you don’t have any of those in your account, because none of your messages have been removed. Because YOU are the one deleting your comments & you are deleting them & reposting them because you know you can’t compete in the free market of ideas.

            Then you keep on deleting then reposting the same thing over and over again, until eventually you hit the spam filter & your comments must be manually confirmed by the moderator (there is no automatic spam deletion).

            So unless you can show me the removed status of all these messages you had deleted, then no you 100% deleting your own messages & everyone will know it.

            So present your receipts.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d5dd6882ca266c22cefc2724f1c95aa833599de4846d81f955929b3d936586cc.jpg

          • SulisNeverWentAway

            Kate, why have you changed the subject of our discussion from my perception that Christopher J Priest wrote a misogynistic Justice League comic book, to whether or not I am telling the truth about deleted comments? :-/

            It seems to me as if you are deflecting attention away from something. It also seems to me as if you are doing what is known in psychology as “projecting” (i.e. you are accusing me of what you are actually doing yourself).

            Who is it that “can’t compete in the free market of ideas”?

          • Kate Zhane

            “Kate, why have you changed the subject of our discussion from my perception that Christopher J Priest wrote a misogynistic Justice League comic book, to whether or not I am telling the truth about deleted comments?”

            No, we’ve covered both topics, you are deleting your comments & nothing in Mr Priests recent Justice League title would in any way suggest a hatred of women.

            As for the rest, it looks like you’ve decided to move on to playing at DARVO, so you are just done.

          • SulisNeverWentAway

            I know that we are both being childishly stubborn at this point, but come on Kate! You are the person who initially changed the subject to your claim that I have been deleting my own posts (which is not true).

            What did you think of the “royal wedding”, by the way? I’m a committed anti-monarchist, but even so, I rather enjoyed it. 🙂

          • Kate Zhane

            LOL no, we’ve covered both already.

            There is nothing in those issues of Justice League that in any way demonstrate any kind of hatred to or of women, same as the injury received by Cyborg is not evidence of Mr Priests hatred of black men.

            And you are being a horrible human being running around with your many sock puppet accounts, trying to astro-turf the man, to try to get him fired.

            See, both topics, being addressed.

      • BastetWavesHello

        Over and over again I am reposting this almost identical comment because, as you can see, for the umpteenth time one of my replies here has been removed from public view. :-*

        I do not use “sock puppet” accounts. I have been honest about the necessity for me to create multiple accounts (because lots of my unique comments have been mistakenly censored, many times). I have followed the advice of an official Disqus help page regarding what to do in the event of a wrongful ban.

        “If you suspect that you have been wrongly banned, try the following: use a different account” (helpDOTdisqusDOTcomSLASHcommentingSLASHwho-deletedremoved-my-comment-or-blocked-my-account)

        I also do not consider my arguments as debunked by your responses to me. I chose not to continue a discussion with you since I foresaw that doing so would distract me from my primary aim, which was to post messages of protest across many different internet platforms. However I am happy to reply to you now. I actually agree with much of your other long comment in this thread, by the way! Perhaps we have more in common than you recognised?

        Firstly, the character of Alcmaeon *is* a rapist, according to the dialogue written by Christopher J Priest for Wonder Woman, in the “Legends of the DC Universe” #32 comic (“The 18th Letter” Part 3).

        “On Themyscira there is a mystic named Magala who helped prepare me to meet you–by giving me special bathing oils to protect me from the genetically engineered hallucinogenic anodyne you use on women.

        Phillipus, Captain of my Mother’s guard, provided eye drops that filter out the subliminal commands the micro-laser imagers in your contact lenses project several times per second.” – Wonder Woman’s speech to Alcmaeon.

        You can verify this information for yourself by searching AmazonArchivesDOTcom for the appropriate issue, and viewing the available images. You will notice that Mr Priest scripted Wonder Woman as admitting to an un-coerced sexual attraction towards a mass-murderer who drugs and hypnotises women in order to more easily bed them (i.e. the villain *is* a mass-murdering rapist).

        I notice that you are no longer contesting my suggestion that Christopher J Priest is a misogynist, and that his treatment of Wonder Woman in 2018’s Justice League #42 resulted from a resentment of the recent advances in women’s rights not to be harassed and abused. Perhaps you have read some of my other comments, in which I highlighted a strange reply by Mr Priest on his LamercieParkDOTcom website, where he appeared to casually play the role of an apologist for sexual exploitation and child rape?

        “And we (not just blaming DC) are afraid to tell these kinds of stories unless we make them antiseptic morality tales– the mustache twirling pedo who dopes the innocent girl. Child or teen sexual exploitation is far more complicated than that, with the victim often playing some role in it or gaining some gratification from it that silences them.” – Christopher J Priest (from his blog post, “Slade And Terra”)

        Of course, the quotation above is taken out of context. But even when it is viewed in the context of his full response, the quote of Mr Priest still seems to infer that sexually abused children (!) are “often” (his words), responsible in some way for their exploitation by predatory adults. And it is worth mentioning that the conversation on his blog was specifically about a fictional teenage girl who was sexually exploited, so why did he even mention children at all? (i.e. very young girls, since the discussion was originally about girls and women)?

        It is my belief that Mr Priest is stuck in the mindset wherein all sexually abused women and girls are imagined to have been “asking for it”, and especially if their abusers are hyper-masculine men. Now clearly there *is* some truth to the stereotypical idea that some women are drawn to “bad boys”. But it does not follow on from that open secret of hetero female sexuality that women literally want to be raped, sexually abused or sexually exploited (because all of those things are defined by their unpleasant and non-consensual elements). Children certainly do not want to be sexually exploited, and they do not “often” find “gratification” in being sexually abused! Ugh! What sort of person would casually drop a suggestion of that type into a conversation?

        Can you begin to see why I suspect that Mr Priest holds a bitter resentment towards women, and why I believe that his sadistic treatment of the Wonder Woman character in Justice League #42 was a twisted reaction to the events of the previous year, such as the #MeToo and Time’s Up movements? Wonder Woman has become emblematic of female empowerment and gender equality, since her big movie was in the cinemas during the same year as those aforementioned steps forward in women’s rights. And the Wonder Woman movie was obviously written and directed from a feminist perspective. I believe that Mr Priest wrote a feminist superheroine as being bloodily maimed in response to the whole “Time’s Up” thing (and I believe that he deliberately set out to make her look disempowered and useless when compared with Superman, while disguising his misogyny as being simply part of the story, or even part of his political commentary).

        It is my contention that Christopher J Priest imagines that women like Rose McGowan somehow “asked for it”, and were happy to sleep their way to the top of Hollywood when it benefitted them, only remembering to complain about Harvey Weinstein’s behaviour years after the alleged events in question. After all, Mr Priest has a history of writing a female character like Wonder Woman as being perversely enamoured by an abusive murderer. And he recently scripted Jessica Cruz’s Green Lantern to kiss Batman, even though Bruce Wayne is engaged to Catwoman in another comic (perhaps because Mr Priest views Jessica Cruz as nothing more than another detestably hypocritical and hormones-enslaved broad, who will fall for the first “bad boy” she sets her eyes upon?)

        Also, remember that it is the graphic nature of the superheroine’s injury that I especially object to. I did *not* suggest that female comic book characters should never face peril in the course of their stories (and you *know* that I did not say such a thing). Mr Priest was not forced to write such a disturbing scene! He could have scripted Wonder Woman as facing a threatening scenario without attempting to viciously undermine and defile the core attributes of the character: that she is extremely strong, fast and resilient, like Superman.

        Regarding Cyborg’s injury in Justice League #41, I must confess to suspecting Mr Priest of deliberately including that plot point in a sly attempt to render his misogynistic attack on Wonder Woman immune from criticism (and that is why I have not talked about Cyborg’s injury until now). I still have little to say about what Mr Priest did with Cyborg. First of all, Mr Priest is not forced to horrifically maim any of the Justice League members, whether they are African-American men or mystical Amazonian women. Secondly and lastly, my complaint is specifically about Christopher J Priest’s long history of sexist and misogynistic comic book scripts, and about how that history can inform our understanding of his motivation to conduct a bloody and sadistic assault on a beloved icon of feminism.

      • SulisNeverWentAway

        I have lost count of how many times my legitimate replies to your comment have been inappropriately hidden from public view. Also, none of the Disqus accounts can be fairly described as “sock puppets”. I have not tried to disguise the fact that it has been necessary for me to create multiple new accounts. My previous accounts, which I no longer use to post messages, seemed to have been placed on some sort of blacklist (new messages posted by those accounts were being automatically flagged as “spam” and removed). Luckily there is an official Disqus help page which explains what to do if a person believes that she has been wrongfully banned, and I will post a quotation from that webpage (slightly edited for clarity).

        “If you suspect that you have been wrongly banned, try the following: use a different account” (helpDOTdisqusDOTcomSLASHcommentingSLASHwho-deletedremoved-my-comment-or-blocked-my-account)

        In my opinion you have not successfully debunked any of my arguments, although you say that you have. Recently, my plan was to spread protest messages across multiple internet platforms, and I decided not to enter into a long discussion with you on a single website, because I recognised that doing so would only serve to distract me. However, I am happy to discuss these issues with you now. By the way, I actually agree with most of your other long comment (the one which begins like this: “Name a time in ANY of the DC or Marvel movies…” Maybe you and I have more in common that you previously noticed?

        Firstly, Alcmaeon’s character *is* a rapist, according to Christopher J Priest’s speech bubble dialogue for Wonder Woman, from the “Legends of the DC Universe” #32 comic (“The 18th Letter” Part 3).

        “On Themyscira there is a mystic named Magala who helped prepare me to meet you–by giving me special bathing oils to protect me from the genetically engineered hallucinogenic anodyne you use on women.

        Phillipus, Captain of my Mother’s guard, provided eye drops that filter out the subliminal commands the micro-laser imagers in your contact lenses project several times per second.” – A speech made by Wonder Woman to Alcmaeon.

        It will not be difficult for any interested parties to verify this information for themselves, by navigating the worldwide web to “AmazonArchivesDOTcom”, and then entering the term “Legends of the DC Universe #32” into the search box. Upon viewing the available images they will see that Mr Priest wrote Wonder Woman as declaring an un-coerced sexual attraction towards a mass-murderer who hypnotises and drugs women, presumably for the purposes of more easily bedding them. So in other words, the villain of that story *is* a mass-murdering rapist. But it would be bad enough if the villain was simply a mass-murderer, considering that Mr Priest still wrote a story in which Wonder Woman is not only attracted to such a despicable character, but she even decides to offer him a goodbye kiss!

        It is interesting to me that you are no longer contesting my view that Christopher J Priest is a misogynist, and that his decision to script a celebrated feminist superheroine as being disempowered (and bloodily maimed), in 2018’s “Justice League #42” comic was borne out of a resentment towards recent advances in the rights of women not to be harassed and/or sexually abused. Did you notice certain other comments which I have posted on the internet, in which I drew attention to the odd statement of Mr Priest on his “LamercieParkDOTcom” website, where he seemed to casually play the role of an apologist for the rape and sexual exploitation of children by adults?

        “And we (not just blaming DC) are afraid to tell these kinds of stories unless we make them antiseptic morality tales– the mustache twirling pedo who dopes the innocent girl. Child or teen sexual exploitation is far more complicated than that, with the victim often playing some role in it or gaining some gratification from it that silences them.” – Christopher J Priest (posted by him on his LamercieParkDOTcom website, on the blog post called “Slade And Terra”)

        The quote above has been copied and pasted out of context. But even when it is seen in the context of his full reply to a DC Comics fan on his website, Mr Priest still appears to suggest that sexually abused children (!) are “often” (his words), culpable in some way for their exploitation by predatory paedophiles. I found myself wondering why he even mentioned children at all, considering that the conversation on his website was about a fictional teenage girl, who had been sexually exploited by a popular anti-hero, in another storyline which he did not write. And it is fair to assume that Mr Priest had female children in mind when he made his weird statement, since the original discussion was specifically about young girls and women.

        I believe that Mr Priest is stuck in the mindset of a rape apologist, wherein women and girls who were sexually abused are imagined to have been “asking for it” (because rape apologists like to convince themselves that all women have a secret desire to be violently overpowered by hyper-masculine men). Now don’t get me wrong; there *is* some truth to the stereotypical idea that some women find “bad boys” to be very attractive, despite their faults. But it certainly does not follow on from that open secret of hetero female sexuality that all women literally want to be raped, sexually abused or sexually exploited (because those things are defined by their unwanted and non-consensual elements). And children definitely do *not* want to be sexually exploited, and they do *not* “often” find “gratification” in being sexually abused! What sort of person would casually drop a suggestion of that type into a conversation? Ugh!

        So do you now understand why I suspect Mr Priest of holding onto a bitter resentment towards women, and do you now see why I believe that his sadistic treatment of the Wonder Woman character in 2018’s “Justice League #42” comic was his warped rebuttal to the events of the previous year, such as the #TimesUp and #MeToo movements? Wonder Woman has become one of the foremost emblems for gender equality and female empowerment, since her big movie was released in 2017, just as those aforementioned steps forward in women’s rights also occurred in the year 2017. And the Wonder Woman movie was obviously directed by a prominent and outspoken feminist (and it was also written from an unashamedly feminist perspective). I again make the case that Mr Priest scripted a beloved feminist hero as being sadistically maimed in response to the whole #MeToo thing (and I believe that he purposely tried to make that strong female character look useless and disempowered in comparison to Superman, while veiling his misogyny in an allegedly meaningful political commentary).

        It is my contention that Christopher J Priest imagines that Hollywood stars like Rose McGowan somehow “asked for it”, and that they were happy to sleep their way into acting roles when doing so benefitted them, only speaking out against Harvey Weinstein’s allegedly abusive behaviour years later, in the cynical hope of achieving monetary gain. As I have already explained, Mr Priest has a history of describing a female character like Wonder Woman as being curiously drawn towards a mass-murdering rapist. And let’s not forget that he recently scripted Jessica Cruz’s Green Lantern to kiss Batman, despite the fact that Bruce Wayne became engaged to Catwoman in a different comic. Does Mr Priest view Jessica Cruz as nothing more than another shamefully hypocritical and hormones-enslaved floozy, who will desperately pine after the first “bad boy” that comes along?

        Another thing that I will say again is that it is the graphic nature of the superheroine’s injury which I especially object to. Not once did I suggest that female characters in comic books should never face peril during the course of their adventures (and you *know* very well that I did not say such a thing). Mr Priest had a choice about whether or not to script such a disturbing scene! He could have written Wonder Woman as facing a threatening situation without trying to viciously defile and undermine some of the core attributes of her character: that she is extremely resilient, fast and strong, like Superman.

        With respect to Cyborg’s injury within the pages of “Justice League #41”, I must confess to suspecting Mr Priest of slyly including that plot point in a failed attempt to render his misogynistic attack on Wonder Woman immune from criticism (and that is why I did not talk about Cyborg’s injury until now). I still have little to say about what Mr Priest did with Cyborg, because Mr Priest was not obliged to horrifically maim any of the Justice League members, regardless of whether they are Amazonian warrior women or African-American man/machine hybrids. Please note that my complaint is specifically about Christopher J Priest’s long history of misogynistic and sexist comic book storylines, and about how that history can inform our understanding of his motives in conducting a sadistic and bloody assault against a beloved icon of feminism.

    • Kate Zhane

      “Also, I do not use “sock puppet” accounts. I have been honest about the necessity for me to create multiple accounts ”

      Feminist to English Translation: “Yes, I am using sock puppet accounts, a lot”

      “I also do not consider my arguments as debunked by your responses to me. ”

      Doesn’t matter what you consider, your position has been objectively refuted. Every point you made has subsequently been proven wrong.

      “I chose not to argue with you since I foresaw that doing so would distract me from my primary aim, which was to post messages of protest across many different internet platforms”

      No, you’ve chosen not to answer because you have no answer & your “aim” was simply to run around misinforming people of the content of a book, for what I can only consider to be nefarious reasons, given the effort you have gone to to misinform people.

      “Firstly, the character of Alcmaeon *is* a rapist, according to the dialogue written by Christopher J Priest for Wonder Woman, in the “Legends of the DC Universe” #32 comic (“The 18th Letter” Part 3).”

      “On Themyscira there is a mystic named Magala who helped prepare me to meet you–by giving me special bathing oils to protect me from the genetically engineered hallucinogenic anodyne you use on women.”

      Which he used to control Fury as his body guard. It had nothing to do with any kind of sex. Same with the contact lenses, they are the means by which caused a war, no evidence he uses them to rape women.

      That is something you’ve interjected, by which point you must also conclude that the martian manhunter is a rapist, because he has the power to mind control people.

      “I notice that you are no longer contesting my suggestion that Christopher J Priest is a misogynist, and that his treatment of Wonder Woman in 2018’s Justice League #42 resulted from a resentment of the recent advances in women’s rights not to be harassed and abused.”

      There are some statements so asinine they don’t require refuting, they refute themselves, this position of yours is one of them.

      “Perhaps you have read some of my other comments, in which I highlighted a strange reply by Mr Priest on his website, where he appeared to casually play the role of an apologist for sexual exploitation and child rape?”

      It does nothing of the sort. It actually does the exact OPPOSITE of what you think it does. It’s a statement pointing out that if we continue to pretend that such sexual predators are moustache twirling cartoon villains then one can look directly at such a sexual predator in the real world and conclude that the lack of a moustache or any moustache twirling must therefore mean he is not a sexual predator

      That our overly simplified fictional depictions which don’t allow for honesty, trivialises the crime & he’s right, it does.

      “Can you begin to see why I suspect that Mr Priest holds a bitter resentment towards women, and why I believe that his sadistic treatment of the Wonder Woman character in Justice League #42 was a twisted reaction to the events of the previous year, such as the #MeToo and Time’s Up movements? ”

      No, but I can see you doing your damndest to interject nonsense that does not exist, in to a text where it is not present.

      Diana got shot in an issue of a comic book because that’s a consequence of being in a free fire warzone, ditto for Cyborg who was seriously injured in the same issue.

      “After all, Mr Priest has a history of writing a female character like Wonder Woman as being perversely enamoured by an abusive murderer. And he recently scripted Jessica Cruz’s Green Lantern to kiss Batman, even though Bruce Wayne is engaged to Catwoman in another comic (perhaps because Mr Priest views Jessica Cruz as nothing more than another detestably hypocritical and hormones-enslaved broad, who will fall for the first “bad boy” she sets her eyes upon?)”

      Hahahahahahahahahahaha, that’s not sexism, or hatred of women, we actually DO go for the bad boy. Seriously, women have gone for the bad boy for as long as humans have existed. There’s a reason why bodice ripping dime store romance novels are a thing & it’s not because women aren’t attracted to the bad boy, it’s because we are attracted to the bad boy.

      “Also, remember that it is the graphic nature of the superheroine’s injury that I especially object to. ”

      Except it is. You’ve taken an instance of a super hero being injured & then jumped from “wonder woman was injured hence Christopher Priest is a misogynist.”

      You’ve then tried to justify this by quoting a single 18 year old story in which a villain wants to sleep with Diana, but doesn’t in any way force himself on her.

      ” I did *not* suggest that female comic book characters should never face peril in the course of their stories (and you *know* that I did not say such a thing).”

      No, just female characters apparently. Chuck Dixon wrties a comic in which Batman is actually brutalised & his spine snapped in two, and the character sidelined for months, hey no problem their.

      Wonder Woman gets shot by a ricochet in a free fire war zone & suddenly you are running around disqus with a dozen different sock puppet accounts, yelling about how this is misogyny, which it clearly is not.

      So yeah, Galbrush Paradox in action.

      “Mr Priest was not forced to write such a disturbing scene!”

      There was nothing disturbing about it, comic characters are injured all the time, most significantly more graphically than a bullet shot.

      “He could have scripted Wonder Woman as facing a threatening scenario without attempting to viciously undermine and defile the core attributes of the character:”

      Feminist to English Translation: “How dare you hurt a female character.”

      “that she is extremely strong, fast and resilient, like Superman.”

      Well no, Superman is bullet proof, Diana is simply bullet resistant. As for being fast, she may be fast when facing an oncoming hail of bullets, but she wasn’t facing an oncoming hail of bullets, she was hit by a ricochet she didn’t know was coming. Being fast is not the same thing as being infallible.

      Just like Superman wasn’t infallible when he was beaten to death by Doomsday.

      “Regarding Cyborg’s injury in Justice League #41, I must confess to suspecting Mr Priest of deliberately including that plot point in a sly attempt to render his misogynistic attack on Wonder Woman immune from criticism.”

      LOL no. He did it because that’s his job, his job is to write a compelling story about interesting characters & that includes the occasional plot consequence, such as being injured. That’s not a flaw of narrative fiction, it’s a feature.

      “(and that is why I have not talked about Cyborg’s injury until now). I still have little to say about what Mr Priest did with Cyborg.”

      No, you didn’t mention it, because you didn’t notice it, because it was outside of you same group preference.

      “Secondly and lastly, my complaint is specifically about Christopher J Priest’s long history of sexist and misogynistic comic book scripts”

      Except there is no history, let alone a long history. You’ve taken two things that do not in any way demonstrate a hatred of women & have declared that because these two things exist, neither of which contain a hatred of women, that he has a long history of sexist and misogynistic comic book scripts.

      Because if that’s your evidence, then I would have a much easier time proving that Stan Lee has a long history of sexist, misandrist comic book scripts. I mean just look at all the books Stan Lee has Spider-Man beating up white men, he even covers Spidey from heads to toe to hide the fact he’s white & male. Clearly Stan Lee hates white men.

      Tell me, do you know what the word Apophenia means

  • Zanzia

    It’s been four years and you’re still lying about Gamergate. You and people like you (lying journalists) are exactly the reason Gamergate ever existed, you don’t just get to blatantly and bold faced lie about a group of people – calling them horrible things like sexist and racist and not expect backlash or to be called out as the disgusting bigoted liars that you are.

    You’re disgusting.

  • N-der

    While she claims she always was a fan of Wonder Woman she seems to not grasp the plot that every super hero goes through:
    Super hero has power that nobody else has, decides to use it for good, but there is some evil power coming in with even stronger power and fights the super hero. At first the super hero is portrayed as clearly inferior to the evil power (or abused as one might say) bu tin some twist manages to overcome that inferiority and wins (or abuses one might say) the evil power!

  • Vuk Mujovic

    *turns into a lobster*
    So, what you are saying is that female characters overcoming adversity and struggling to beat their misfortune in stories is a bad thing?

    While it is acceptable for someone not dwelling on the matter and having a different perspective to not know anything about storytelling and how it impacts individuals and groups, it is very strange for someone who is a human, and reportedly a human female at that, not to know the half of the global population they themselves belong to.

    Women are, believe it or not, also people. Them being represented as struggling, beaten, assaulted, and oppressed is not putting them on lower grounds than anyone else, but quite the contrary. All women who want to be the makers of their own destiny must realize the same thing men who make their own destiny realized, and that is that most people don’t like them, nobody cares how they feel, and wicked people will work directly against their interests. And that is a good thing, that means that you are your own person and that you are free. Life is an existence of pain and struggle, if you are not feeling that, you are not alive.

  • Erpioxp #ImNotFinishedWithYou

    This so sad, can we hit the women?

  • CK

    The left has serious mental issues. Please, seek help.

  • disqus_G1WvJXyNhw

    This person is an associated professor, I am scared. Showing violence is not justifying violence, and each of the actions she quotes is HEAVILY portrayed in a negative light.
    But anything for the click clicks, amirite?

  • Mason Belmont

    Another article by a delusional ideologue = Garbage article.

  • johnathankanna

    So I take it that this author believes that no violence should ever befall women in movies then? Is that the answer? The only violence should be men attacking men? Or perhaps there should be no violence at all? Or would the author be happier if only the women are beating up the men the entire film?

    The author does a lot of complaining. Fine. I would like to hear what the author thinks a good Wonder Woman or Black Panther movie should look like. That is where a dialogue can then start. If the author had the power, what would the author put on screen?

    I hope the author replies.

  • Kieran

    This article holds no credibility. You say that these films present disturbing violence against women but did you ever think that maybe the film was trying to say that’s a bad thing? You say it presents negative role models for boys yet you fail to mention how Ares, Killmonger and Thanos were all villains in the films and portrayed as so. None of these films are making light of violence. It’s shown to be a traumatic and horrible thing in all of the films, Ares is not just attacking Diana but the whole world and she steps up and stops him, how can you not think that’s not positive? Killmonger is seen to have a very traumatic childhood and the depths of his mind to be dark. Again, not normalising it. Thanos is literally crying while killing gamora, very clearly not positive. You’ve simply said that two people fight and then present a violence statistic but give no context. If your point is that women should suffer no hardships in action films wouldn’t that be extremely regressive? Women and Men should have an equal role to play right? These films do an excellent job at doing that. The women on these films aren’t talked down to like you say, they show initiative. Diana actually steps up and tell a lot of the Male characters what’s what taking the charge. The same with BP and IW.