Robot 6

Wonder Woman leaps onto Ms. magazine’s 40th anniversary cover

From Michael Allred and Laura Allred's Ms. magazine cover

In 1972, Wonder Woman famously graced the cover of the premiere issue of Ms. under the words “Wonder Woman For President,” and now, four decades later, she returns in an illustration by Michael Allred and Laura Allred for the magazine’s 40th anniversary. The cover’s subject was teased last week on Twitter with three hints: “This woman was born during World War II,” “This woman has her own line of MAC cosmetics” and, just in case that wasn’t enough, “She has been featured on her own television series.”

This marks Wonder Woman’s fourth time on the cover of Ms. (you can see all of her appearances below). The magazine is even offering the Allreds’ illustration as a poster, if you subscribe.

News From Our Partners

Comments

45 Comments

Great. They have to associate Wonder Women with the ludicrous “war on women” that some wacky Democrats are accusing Republicans of.

Oh, those wacky Democrats.

Yeah, why can’t they focus on serious issues like the “war on Christmas” that serious Republicans are concerned with?

Thom, Two words: Legitimate Rape Nuff’ Said

Technically it isn’t War on Women, it’s War on Women’s Rights that the GOP is waging on.

How does a “War on Women’s Rights” not constitute a “War on Women”? Legitimate question, because they really seem like the same thing to me.

Either way, I’m not sure what Thom is annoyed about Wonder Woman has been a feminist icon pretty much since her inception, and the phrase “War on Women” is anything but new, thus Wonder Woman has been associated with these types of things for ages.

I think its cool that Wonder Woman has been on the cover of Ms. so much, although I’d like to see what other fictional feminist icons they either have had on the cover or could have on the cover in the future. Wonder Woman just seems like the default go to gal for these things, but I’m sure there’s got to be others out there for the ladies who don’t identify with Diana as much as folks from older generations (my Mom for instance idolizes WW).

Well thats nice…now what does Wonder Woman have to do with it?

It’s quite appropriate that they have a fictional character battle the fictional war on women.

Wonder Woman was created as a Feminist Icon for girls to look up to–granted with a s&m twist, but that is pretty clear from the history of the character. Furthermore, women’s rights (let’s face it, reproductive rights) have been closely aligned with Democratic politics for some time. Founder of Ms. magazine is also a huge Wonder Woman fan, duh!

other than being the biggest american symbol of strong powerful womanhood?!

NobodyUNeedWorryAbout

September 26, 2012 at 9:53 am

Fictional war on women?!? Either you’re completely blind, Terri and Thom, in major denial, or you don’t care about women’s reproductive rights.

You see, here’s the problem with the accusers of a “war on women”. They fail to see it through the eyes of their opponents. Those who wish to restrict abortion aren’t these evil rich white men in a boardroom thinking of new ways to subjugate women, they’re all sorts of people, men and women, who see unborn babies as human life that supercedes the right to an abortion, except in extreme cases.

Whether you agree with that is one thing, but stop pretending this is some war on women, when most of the people engaged in it would consider it a “war for life”, if it could be called a war at all. Loaded words like “war” are used in these political arguments to villainze people and continue an “us vs them” mentality. I’d like to think intelligent people are above stooping down the same level as the politicians on either side.

A couple of idiots do not the entire pro-life argument make.

HoLangYi: But the official Republican party platform, passed at the recent convention, does not include “…except in extreme cases.” There are no exceptions listed.

How about stopping the war on illustration?

Yikes! That Wonder Woman looks about as alive as a malproportioned blow up doll. Photoshop tricks do not an illustrator make.

How could people have so many passionate things to say about such an uninspiring cover?

Nice, but it would’ve been really nice to have Wonder Woman drawn by, say, Amanda Conner.

“Great. They have to associate Wonder Women with the ludicrous “war on women” that some wacky Democrats are accusing Republicans of.”

I know! Since when was Wonder Woman a feminist!?

Sam Robards, Comic Fan

September 26, 2012 at 12:32 pm

Wonder Woman being associated with feminism is nothing new since Marston created her to be his ideal, liberated woman.

As for the issues surrounding this thread, I figured I’d chip in, too.

Access to contraceptives is not a “right.” They’re products, and if you can’t afford to buy it, then guess what you aren’t going to have? I, a taxpayer, shouldn’t pay for anyone else’s birth control. Nor should institutions’ First Amendment right to practice their religion be violated to provide access to said contraceptives.

I know firsthand that birth control (both pills and condoms) isn’t expensive. If you can’t afford $15 or so a month, then you have bigger problems than not having birth control.

Peace out!

Meanwhile, you hypocrites on the left have spent decades celebrating Teddy “The Ladykiller” Kennedy (most recently at DNC this year), the only politician with a confirmed kill in the war on women.

The right nominates Sarah Palin as VP, you all rip her (and her family, of course) to shreds; viciously, relentlessly, and without hesitation. Condi Rice, black woman/Republican, torn to pieces every day. Ann Romney, mother, whose only crime is that her husband was successful and running against the great liar Obama…torn to pieces every day. Hilary Clinton, massacred by the left when the media decided that Obama was their guy…even though none of you -not one- can offer one qualification for him to be president.

No denying that some on the right have embarassingly dated views and opinion about women’s rights, but don’t you dare try and say that there is some sort or war on women, when the left appallingly celebrated a goddamn murderer of someone’s little girl at their convention.

Also: Do any of you lefty dopes look back and remember Obama’s “soaring”, inspiring acceptance speech about how he’d lower the ocean levels and feel like idiots because you got played? Just curious, because, you know, he has failed…at everything except being the same arrogant, ignorant, unaccomplished Chicago thug he always was.

@Cat

Murder of a little girl celebrated at the DNC? Please, do provide proof. As much as I’d like to think that virgin sacrifice is a part of political theater (and it is), the Chair Leg of Truth demands facts. Do not offend it. It is wise and terrible.

It would seem that this Carl Stevensn character needs a refresher course on the definition of “murderer.”

Also on how to craft a coherent, fact-based argument.

What war on women? Last I’ve checked, they have most of the control over means of reproduction (before, during, and after), have goverment mandated quotas, internships, and scholarships in education and sports (boys don’t even though they are statistically failing further and further behind and attending college less and less), have more health and social services (there are more government bodies covering their health and domestic needs than there are for men), and now under Obamacare (something I’ve always been for) they get free preventative health care (men don’t). Not to mention all the societal and criminal double standards on everything from domestic violence to parent’s rights to child molestation to genital mutilation to rape accusations. Seems to me women have been winning for quite some time now.

And no, I’m not a Republican. I’m a registered socialist.

LOL – keep telling yourself that, Ultimo. Nice retort!

Tell me: How deeply moving to your soul was it to watch Teddy “Drinkin’ and Driving FTW!” Kennedy, killer of women, honored at the DNC? Where was your moral outrage then?

Or did you miss the part about how drunk drivers who kill people while driving drunk on a suspended license, as Teddy “Get Out Of Jail Free Card” Kenneyd did (hen with the help of the MA State Police covered up and got away with), are murderers?

For me, watching that human garbage honored really crystalized the hypocrisy of the left. They sell a “War on Women”, and trash Mitt Romney for becoming a millionaire, then honor a slimey career politician who murdered a girl and willingly covered it up, and who also grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth and never even glanced in the direction of an honest days work.

Carl Stevensn -

You’re proving my point for me. Nowhere in my post did I express “moral outrage.” Nowhere in my post did I suggest I was a Democrat. Nowhere in my post did I express affection for Teddy Kennedy… You chose to make make those assumptions and attribute them to me.

I simply pointed out that you offered a weak argument based on dubious facts–there is NO solid factual ground on which to call Kennedy a “murderer.” Deal with THAT statement instead of flinging feces at strawmen of your own creation.

Like I said, you need a crash course on how to craft an argument based on facts rather than on assumptions and hysteria.

Also: you are lying when you say that the left trashed Mitt Romney for becoming a millionaire. I’ve never seen such a thing. He’s been given grief about hiding his tax returns, for some dubious investments and trade practices… sure. But *for being a millionaire*?

That’s a lie and you know it.

Or maybe you don’t know it. But it’s still a lie.

I would be more understanding of the Conservative Apologists here if the Republican’s War on Women were only about abortion. It isn’t. It involves domestic violence laws, laws about rape, wage equality and several other issues and the GOP is against women’s rights in every one of those issues.

HoLangYi – The problem with seeing fetuses as human life and consequently granting them personhood is also a problem of praticality. Usually, in cases of attempted murder, you can separate the would-be murderer from the victim. In the case of a pregnant woman wanting to get rid of the fetus, what do you do? Keep her locked and under constant observation for months until the child is born? That is the only certain way to “save human life”. While I don’t picture Pro-Lifers as “evil rich white men in a boardroom”, I am sure that among their number you can count a large group of people that would wish women back in a more traditional role, and that starts by taking contraception away.

Sam Robards – I might be sympathetic to your position of not forcing anyone to pay for things they find objectionable. If only that were the extent of the Right’s opposition to reproductive rights, I’d be on their side.

JVan – I was being facetious. I’m on your side here.

I love when people talk about the “straw man”. They always think it makes them seem smart and witty, when they don’t know what it even means.

1. Ted Kennedy is a murderer. He murdered that poor girl by driving his car shitfaced and on a suspended license into a river, and leaving her there to drown. As the water filled her lungs and died a horrific death in the freezing depths, Teddy Kennedy checked into a motel and waited hours before calling his cronies in the State Police Department to cover for him. Back at the bottom of the river, his victim was being feasted upon by aquatic scavengers. You know this. I know it. At this point everyone knows it. Please, don’t embarass yourself further by pretending this isn’t true. Drunk drivers are murderers.

2. I never specifically pointed at you. I said “the lefties”, and by default, the media. I was more amused by you and curious to see how you would go about defending Teddy “Bloodstained” Kennedy, and you didn’t disappoint (See above). And you are lying about the media and Romney. The entire smear campaign against this guy is about throwing eggs at him for being rich and how he couldn’t possibly care about poor people (yet he handed 14 million to charity last year alone). My point was about the hypocrisy and self-delusion on the left. Nobody asked for Obama to provide a single qualification to be president, not one, before they annointed him The Great Savior Of Mankind. Again, you know this. I know this. Please, don’t embarass yourself further by pretending this isn’t true. If you doubt me, simply go to google, click news, and look at the photos and captions that pop up under both candidates. Obama is framed to be a saint, Romney a blood-sucking millionaire who succeeded, and therefore somehow “cheated”. The guy won the Nobel Peace Prize for being Obama…while Abu Graib is still open and he is assassinating people with drones. You can’t make the shit up.

Say “straw man” more, though. It’ll make you look smart. Really.

All right, let’s dial it back a bit.

Stop the Propaganda

September 26, 2012 at 2:33 pm

Oh yeah, sure, it’s a “War on Women” because some voters DARE voice the idea that all tax payers shouldn’t have to pay for infinite condoms and birth control pills for women, most of whom could afford a couple of bucks for a condom anyway.

On the other hand, YES there are a few genuinely screwed up Republicans in a few southern states proposing really weird laws about contraception… but those laws will of course go nowhere. Meanwhile anyone who dares not to vote for Obama (btw, I don’t support Romney either) gets branded as a misogynist.

Thanks a lot for fueling the over-simplified propaganda, Mike Allred. I am less likely to buy comics with your name on them now.

“On the other hand, YES there are a few genuinely screwed up Republicans in a few southern states proposing really weird laws about contraception… but those laws will of course go nowhere”

That is the true propaganda. Claiming that the GOP is only for economic austerity and that the social conservatives among them are a just few screwed up guys, completely harmless.

“The entire smear campaign against this guy is about throwing eggs at him for being rich and how he couldn’t possibly care about poor people”

It’s less about Romney being rich, and more about him buying into the same old radical “free market”, individualistic economics that the GOP is in love with. Romney actually is a moderate trying to be what he is not, just to appease the radicals that have taken control of the GOP. And, like anybody trying to be what he is not, he goes too far in some of the things he says, by trying to channel Ayn Rand or something.

“Obama to provide a single qualification to be president, not one, before they annointed him The Great Savior Of Mankind.”

Obama being raised to messiah status had a lot to do with people being fed-up with Bush and everything Bush represented, and fueling all that hope for change in Obama. Most leftists that I know are disappointed with the reality of Obama’s government, to various degrees, while still obviously prefering him than the alternative: Romney trying to be Bush II on steroids,

Carl Stevensn -

I know exactly what a strawman argument is, and that is exactly what you offered: You assembled a series of assumptions that had nothing to do with anything I said, attributed them to me and then attacked these assumptions as if demolishing them somehow discredited me. I don’t think this makes me smart or witty; I think it makes me someone who is telling the truth. (Which is the opposite of what you are doing.)

Here’s another lie of yours: You claim that you never specifically pointed at me, but at “the lefties”? Okay….

LOL – keep telling yourself that, Ultimo. Nice retort!

Tell me: How deeply moving to your soul was it to watch Teddy “Drinkin’ and Driving FTW!” Kennedy, killer of women, honored at the DNC? Where was your moral outrage then?

You DID type the quote reproduced above, right? That wasn’t put there by some random apparition I’m guessing?

I don’t see where you addressed “the lefties” there… however I do see where you mentioned MY name and identified ME as the person you were addressing.

I can see that you have a rather… flexible relationship with truth and reality. Which seems quite common in today’s GOP, so I should not be surprised…

Oh yes… Just to help you out, Carl: Assuming that Ted Kennedy drove his car into the river “shitfaced,” as you said… That does not make him a murderer. Did he play a part in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne? Of course. Did he -murder- her? Pretty unlikely.

Like I said at the beginning: You need a lesson on the proper definition of “murder,” and you have not said a single thing to prove that my assessment was correct.

My bad… I mean “that my original assessment was NOT correct”

You’re the only one embarrassing yourself here, my friend.

I love when people bring up that Romney gave 14 mil to charity. You know it was all to his church, right? A church he has a lot of pull in. And that he gets tax breaks for those donations. It wasn’t this truly deep way to help everyone.

Also, media-as-leftists is old and unprovable. The right as its own TV station, and the “leftist” media never points out that Republicans are, you know, outright lying. Some bias.

Play, my little violin – play, Ultimo.

You have a non-existent relationship with reality, my friend. Truth, integrity, and humanity, too. But I don’t expect any more from an Obama supporter. Tell me, since Obama only orders the drone currently terrorizing villagers in Pakistan, but doesn’t actually pilot them on the remotes, is he also “not technically a murderer” of women and children and this a war criminal, as Bush was?

You just defended a drunk driving killer of a woman. Semantics don’t matter, my straw little fellow – he did it.

And make no mistake about it – by defending him here in public? It is you who is deeply humiliating himself.

Talk about the straw man more. Internet guys love to do that.

Honestly, I pretty much wish that they’d have Wonder Woman as this kind of character, the one I feel would work best and last longer: Diana as the nuanced, fair-minded, balanced centrist. If Superman is the idealist liberal, and Batman is the pragmatic conservative, then Wonder Woman is the one who balances out the “trinity”. She should be more centrist.

Rene,

No one wants to take contraception away. They just want to take away free health care. This whole thing started over ovarian cysts. Some men need Viagra to help monitor blood pressure even though they can get boners without it. Why isn’t that free? Where’s the free insulin? Vitamins? Neosporin? Its a “socialist handout issue.” That’s the problem. It has nothing to do with the “war on women.” There’s no such thing. (Why isn’t “no free condoms” a war on women and not men?) Really, just think about it.

As for the actaul reproductive rights, women have them all. Its unfair. Two people are needed to make a baby. Why does only one get to decide the outcome for eighteen (maybe longer) years? Reproductive rights aeffect more than just the women, often to extremely detrimental degrees, but they have all the cards.

Carl Stevensn -

Again: When did I say i was an Obama supporter?

You keep on proving my point for me… Thanks a lot for that!

I wish Wonder Woman looked like this in the comics.

So what “rights” are at issue here besides abortion? Free contraception? What else?

It is amazing to see the clueless comments coming from the men.Until you get a vagina,shut the ‘EFF up.Men have no right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body.You dont have any right to tell me the same.Wonder Woman is an American womans rights Icon whether you like it or not.She empowers women.Superman is an American male Icon who must empower men.But we all have the free will to make our own decisions,but not decisions for others.Oh…by the way,Carl S.,you are a poor spokesman for the side you seem to take.Your better off keeping your ignorance to yourself,rather than posting and displaying it to the world.

John,

I am sure you’d consider me a socialist, though I’m in favor of an European-style mixed-economy. In any case, I think it’s highly desirable that government discourages people from breeding like rabbits, specially when they don’t have the resources to afford a baby and are not sure that they want a baby. It’s simply good policy all around. Even Ayn Rand types should like it, less “moochers” in the world, right? By the way, Rand believed abortion was a moral right. A pity you guys pick and choose when it comes to her.

And women ARE the ones most affected by the availability of contraceptives. Men can have professional and academic careers while fathering a baby per year. With women, it’s a lot harder. For a woman, lack of contraceptives means a choice between being a mother or being celibate. Before the pill, men could still be players, women couldn’t.

But really, you conservatives don’t want to admit what is the root of all this. It isn’t economical. It’s social/religious. A man who wants to sleep around is a player. A woman who wants to have access to contraceptives so she can sleep around is a slut, according to Rush Limbaugh. Conservatives don’t like it when women aren’t housekeeping mothers (nothing against housekeeping mothers, if that is what you want to be).

It is all rooted in a religion that dates from a time when having more pregnancies was logical for the survival of the tribe, when lots of babies died at birth or in their early years, and when extra hands were needed for farming or the army. We no longer live in such a world.

Rene,

Women can have professional careers and mother a baby once a year. If the company doesn’t allow it, they can get sued because it is illegal. Men on the other hand rarely have the option of taking a good chunk of time off to be with their new kid and to help the mother and himself become acclimated to their new roles as parents. Heck, even more and more families are choosing to have the mother be the bread winner while the father stays at home and raises the kids. Why? Because the woman has a professional degree and higher earning potential. Colleges are now at 60% women, 40% men in enrollment, and the numbers are continuing to grow and shrink, respectively. Women are becoming the professional force in the workplace and at home. The notion that women have less carere and life opportunities than men is outdated.

Rush Limbaugh lambasted Fluke as a whore who wanted the government to pay for her sex life. While I don’t agree with that notion, it falls squarely into the “socialist hand-out issue” areag. Less and less Republicans are not against women working and having fulfilling lives on their own terms, they’re just against handing out what they deem to be frivolous party favors. They also don’t think men should get free condoms (a contraceptive that you don’t seem to factor in). They want people to have complete financial control of their own lives, their own successes, and their own consequences. Women can and have always been able to sleep around. They just had to make sure there is a condom involved. Saying that they don’t have more choices between motherhood or celibacy is absurd. If both the man and woman had sex without one, they’re both idiots.

As for the abortion stance, conservatives don’t want women to have abortions because it’s the murder of a human being (not to keep women in check and at home), and that goes against their moral and religious convictions. That’s a notion from both women and men conservatives. If anything, it’s not a war on women, but a war on what they see as a scourge of terrible socialist secularism ravaging the land. It has nothing to do with that rather nebulous, nameless religion and lifestyle you mention. Where did that come from?

My opinion however is that, yes, abortion should be allowed, but with the consent of both parents. And if the father doesn’t want the kid, but the mother does, he should be allowed to sign a liability waiver, exonerating him from all responsibility. Bit, if the mother doesn’t want the kid, and the father does, she should be legally bound to carry it to term. It takes two people to make a baby. To remove one party from the discussion and decision is rather sexist,.

I find it so strange that conservatives want people to have “complete financial control of their lives”, but they don’t want people to have complete control over their own bodies. I can’t take their “cries for freedom” seriously when it’s half-baked freedom, or worse, “freedom” to be just like them. Maybe it’s “freedom” as in that George Orwell’s book.

And a scourge of “terrible socialism secularism”? Really. What, are you living in the Cold War still? Oh yes, you are, all the Conservatives still seem to believe the world is divided into christian capitalists and secular socialists. They don’t seem to realize that capitalism is, by definition, amoral, and it’s exactly what has been sapping the strength off their religion for decades.

And while I believe the father must have a say into it, I’m not sure it’s appropriate for the father to treat the mother as some sort of gestational machine if she really doesn’t want the baby. It’s the woman that has to go through nine months of bodily changes and labor. Once again, I ask, what is it you conservatives want? Legally bound to carry it to term? What does that mean, in practical terms? It’s some code for “put recalcitrant pregnant women into camps where they can be watched 24 hours a day so they don’t damage the child?”

I mean, if a woman really doesn’t want to have a child, there is nothing you or any other man can do to stop it, except keep her under guard for nine months.

Women and men both know what the intended outcome of sex is, to make babies. If neither of the them want to risk getting the woman pregnant, then both parties should insist on the use of contraceptives. And even when the contraceptives for women (the ones you tend to focus on) are available, only 2 in 5 women choose to take them, knowingly putting themselves at risk to becoming pregnant (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912152835.htm). Women know how to and how not to become pregnant, and they know the developmental changes to expect once it happens to them. Again, if a man or woman didn’t want to make a baby, then they shouldn’t have had unprotected sex in the first place. It’s simple as that.

But it seems you don’t really think so. Is it not fair for the man to want his child? How is it fair to deny a man that very, very basic benefit of life? It just is not. Then again, what about a woman who wants the child, but the man does not? Women control every step of child welfare. The courts are always on their side. How many stories have you’ve read where the courts do not enforce visitation rights, but enforce child support payments? How many stories have you’ve heard that a father never wanted to be involved with the kid, but the courts force him to pay, often rendering him penniless and in jail and deeper in debt? How many times have you heard where the father fights tooth and nail to see his kids and/or raise them himself, but the mother decided she wanted to abort or put them up for adoption? The answer is all the time. How is any of that fair? Men have a much harder time to have a legal say in their children’s lives, and, for all people involved, it often leads to terrible, detrimental outcomes (from psychological issues to strained relationships to school performance to standards of living, etc.). Nine months of body changes is heck of a lot shorter than eighteen or more years of mental and financial stress men tend to go through.

Since when did I mention I was a conservative? I was just clarifying the new Conservative stance for you. You seem to have an outdated idea of social Conservatism where they are still against women. They aren’t. Instead, ff you followed the news, you’d hear strongly from the right at how Obama is a socialist and how he is a non-American Muslim against good Christian American values like business and proper Christian marriages and keeping babies alive (unless the mother is in great risk of endangering her own health and safety). Those Cold War notions still exist, except they’re right in our country. Many believe that Obama’s socialist agenda is going to destroy America. They have nothing against people controlling their own lives. That’s why they’re against free contraceptives and welfare checks.

However, I’ve never said I was for any of this. I am surprised at their contradictions as much as you are. From their dependency on social agendas to their stance on gay marriage (and the biggest producer of gay porn is a Republican even!), it’s hilariously confounding. I also agree that their form of capitalism is amoral and against their idea of a Christian religion.

Leave a Comment

 


Browse the Robot 6 Archives