Wonder Woman

It seems that Olive Byrne was the one who objected to them knowing who their real father was; he seems to have been ok with them knowing.

But, when you read the book, I think you’ll see the extent to which ‘bit of a loon’ understates things….

Is the 1913 picture Inez Mulholland on a horse? That was reused from the beginning. (Understandably.) Even now the silk is tugging at the staff!

Oh Rich Puchalsky @3! I don’t doubt they were all very happy!

I just don’t know how a man has the time to live in two houses, with two sets of children from two different mothers and get all his work done – creating Wonder Woman AND the lie detector test is quite a career.

(And my puzzlement about the living arrangement is not gender-specific – I felt this way about the wife/mother/PTA volunteer/writer who had the affair with Petraeus – how did she find the time to do it all? I can’t even figure out when to get my hair cut… Clearly, in my vanilla life, my scheduling skills are quite lacking.)

And apparently, Olive Byrne was the loon who chose to keep the paternity of her children a secret from them until they could no longer chat with the man they had no idea was their father.

That said, I’m absolutely delighted to learn of Wonder Woman’s link to Margaret Sanger. It’s all very rich!

@Anarcissie “many children are not fully informed of their parentage or other hot issues precisely because they may inadvertently reveal the same to those who would judge them to be loons, the descendants of loons, or the associates of loons, and therefore people to be rebuked and scorned and severely punished for their loonness, as the world has a way of doing.”

Because having no father to claim was such a mark of “normalcy” back in the day, right? Keeping a father’s identity a secret from children (who live in the same house) is a terrible secret to keep. Just saying…

Come on Rich, can you tone it down a bit? There’s no need to be insulting. You just sound bitter. Make your point and give reasons for it, and we’ll all listen (well, I will anyway).

I think Rich is a bit put off because I didn’t write the post. It’s clearly a Holbo post. So there is, naturally, a certain frustration in not being able to hang a critique of the post from a stock caricature of Holbo. (I kid, I kid. Rich is a good guy, but a bit too up, in a down sort of way.)

Harry, thanks for this. I should have known you were a Marvel rather than a DC. Me too. Still have an aftermarket book I bought as a kid in the 60s for two cents–remember those; they took them off the shelf when they did not sell and ripped off half the first few pages– a copy of Amazing Adult Fantasy # 15. Had I that in the same remaining condition but the full book? Six figures easy. Oh well!

Rich — maybe this was too much like a Holbo post then. All I know about Marston is from LePore, and as I say he remains very enigmatic to me. I did not mean to imply that his looniness had anything to do with his unconventional lifestyle, or that his unconventional lifestyle was evidence of him being a loony or of him not having grown up. There’s just a lot else in the book that suggests both to me — specifically that he seems to have been someone with serial and related deep obsessions — the content of those obsessions being irrelevant. (And, yes, although I have known plenty of quite obsessive people, I do understand that my inability to see inside that personality type has more to do with me than with them). But, as I say, whereas I feel I have a pretty good idea what Byrne and Holloway (and actually Sanger) were like as people, he does not come off the page in the same way.

I know its a blog, but one reason I post less than I used to is getting tired of men (and it pretty much always is men) being rude to people (me, and others) in ways they would never dream of being in person. And even after being called out, you chose to be gratuitously insulting in your response. Get a grip.

Alan — I owned hundreds of the UK Marvels (not worth much — except probably my complete set of Captain Britain — I’m not kidding) — and a copy of FF #4. I gave them all to my sister’s best friend’s little brother when I turned 18. He was a lovely kid, and whatever he did with them I feel it was the best possible way of disposing of them…

Rich @ 9 “You really don’t see why their children would have been protected from inadvertently revealing that they basically had two moms in the 1930s and 1940s?”

I really don’t understand not revealing to children the identity of their father. EVEN in the 1930s and 1940s. Keeping that identity a secret from the children until after he died is a flawed way to “protect” children from whatever it is they’re supposed to be protected from. And in that they all lived in a house with two women, one man and a bunch of children allegedly “not related” to each other, I’m sure their “secret” was not much of a secret within their neighborhood – and I’ll bet the children picked up on that vibe.

I come from a long line of people who lied about their lives – it’s a horrible legacy to leave.

There’s also a great book that focuses on the artistic history of the character as DC tried to figure out what to do with her, especially in light of Marsden’s particular sensibilities about dominance and submission. It’s call “A Golden Thread: An unofficial critical History of Wonder Woman” by Philip Sandifer:

http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Thread-Unofficial-Critical-History/dp/1493566725

bob– read the book and you’ll see from the descriptions of their family life why it is puzzling. Or not, in which case you have been able to fill in all the gaps in a way that is extremely generous to him, thus eliminating the puzzle. I can’t fill in the gaps at all, which is why it is puzzling (if I fill them very ungenerously it seems they can’t have been happy with him — but the evidence is that they were, and I believe it). But I don’t understand enough about him or perhaps people in general to understand the texture which they (both of whom seem to have been quite remarkable) found satisfying. My main point was that LePore doesn’t give us that.

Is this another thread in which people with apriori knowledge about the content of a book discuss it with people who have a posteriori knowledge about it, determined to demonstrate that the person who read the book is wrong about what is in it, and, incidentally, is incapable of understanding the deep insights that the apriori knowers have to offer?

I can’t tell whether he was someone who never grew up, or a self-absorbed hypocrite, or a combination of both, or something else entirely

I did not mean to imply that his looniness had anything to do with his unconventional lifestyle, or that his unconventional lifestyle was evidence of him being a loony or of him not having grown up.

It is hard telling anymore what you did mean to imply, but you could help out by explaining why you speculate that Moulton had never “grown up,” what evidence led you to that. Whatever “immaturity” might mean in the case of a guy who looks wildly successful and well and widely loved to me.

Like I said, the misandrist grace-notes have become reflexive and are pretty much to expected around here anymore. They get rewarded.

“you could help out by explaining why you speculate that Moulton had never “grown up,” what evidence led you to that. Whatever “immaturity” might mean in the case of a guy who looks wildly successful and well and widely loved to me.”

Bob, I’m going to go out on a limb here and speculate that what led Harry to this conclusion was not speculation at all. I think he has read a biography by Jill LePore; likely, it contains information. On this basis, Harry drew conclusions.

As Harry says, this really does seem like a battle between a priori and a posteriori biography. Should you transcendentally deduce facts about William Marston from the allegedly synthetic a priori truth that Harry B is a complete idiot? Or should you, instead, read a book about William Marston, if you have a desire to know such things?

Dear reader, the choice is yours.

“a guy who looks wildly successful”–well (not from reading the book but many reviews) Marston seems to have had a not-successful career in academia, moving (after initial
success) from Professor to Lecturer to not employed. Still, he was (semi-directly) responsible for the long-standard legal test (Frye) for whether something counted as science or not (and the court ruled that Marston was in the not category).

you could ask. ‘Harry, why do you think Marston was immature?’

And I in 24 said ” but you could help out by explaining why you speculate that Moulton had never “grown up,” what evidence led you to that. ”

Holbo, why are you lying about a comment two spaces above yours? Do you really think or hope that people will believe you rather than their eyes?

My experience is that saying about any man whatsoever “He hasn’t completely grown up yet” is a very safe casual reflexive misandry that rarely gets any pushback at all from at least half the audience.

Glancing at the Wiki article on Moulton I find “Marston’s wife Elizabeth Holloway Marston is said to have suggested a connection between emotion and blood pressure to William, observing that, “[w]hen she got mad or excited, her blood pressure seemed to climb” (Lamb, 2001). Although Elizabeth is not listed as Marston’s collaborator in his early work, Lamb, Matte (1996), and others refer directly and indirectly to Elizabeth’s own work on her husband’s research. She also appears in a picture taken in his laboratory in the 1920s” and a dead link at the bottom: “Lamb, Marguerite. “Who Was Wonder Woman? Long-ago LAW alumna Elizabeth Marston was the muse who gave us a superheroine.” Boston University, Fall 2001.”

So we can’t give Moulton the credit for the lie detector or Wonder Woman after all? He no longer seems that interesting. Ain’t feminist scholarship amazing.

After this review, no way in hell. I’ll read the Berlatsky Corey linked instead.

DCA: “[Marston] was (semi-directly) responsible for the long-standard legal test (Frye) for whether something counted as science or not.”

Jill Lepore has, according to her Harvard Web page, an essay titled “On Evidence: Proving Frye as a Matter of Law, Science, and History” scheduled to appear in the current volume (124) of the Yale Law Journal.

Rich: “Except that harry b. has no evident understanding of how from his flaws may have come great art.”

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The fact that Harry mentioned he got a certain impression of Marston from the book, without saying what gave him the impression in the book, is no basis for you to infer that necessarily the impression must be wholly baseless. More probably, Harry just didn’t feel like writing a longer post.

Let’s take it from the top. If you are actually curious why Harry thinks Marston was sort of child-like or immature or hypocritical, just ask him. He has said he is willing to answer.

34: If you are actually curious why Harry thinks Marston was sort of child-like or immature or hypocritical, just ask him.

I did ask him in comment 24. And you continue to lie about it.

And call me McManus. You are not my friend.

I usually read Berlatsky at his blog. There’s an interesting post here. It gets at some of the problems I have with Main Street Muse’s comments — this is about being closeted more than it is about paternity secrets. Whatever you think about being closeted, the dangers were greater in the 1930s and 1940s than they are now, and I question apparent anachronisms like “I’ll bet the children picked up on that vibe.”

There’s a number of followup comments that I think are a good discussion.

39: You actually have the nerve to put a paraphrase “‘but what about X, you idiot?” in direct quotes as if I had used those exact words? Or that tone, for that matter. And then claim the politeness highground?

And “shifting blame” isn’t quite right, more accurate would be “forcing your interlocutor onto the defensive” is the move harry b tried toward Puchalsky at 9 and toward me at 22.2.

And many people around the world do not understand first-name fake familiarity and aggressive disarming “friendliness” as the default height of social manners. America has become an entire freaking nation of used car dealers.

I really don’t know what to make of this. Please explain, if you have any desire to convince me you are correct about this.

Liar. I have been the subject of your Socratic irony, and I know how you wield it.

“As I thought, Marston may be considered an inadequate breadwinner and provider without a stable career. And that somehow makes him immature?”

Sorry, that wasn’t my idea, Bob. I was just trying to attach some sense to your words. I took you to be arguing that he couldn’t be immature, as Harry hinted, because he was, apparently, a successful comics professional, etc. (A silly argument, it seems to me. But I couldn’t think what else you were saying.) But if that wasn’t your argument, then it wasn’t; you can explain it, or let it remain a mystery.

In answer to your query about top and bottom, my distinct impression was that he liked being top. But now that I think about it, that impression is based entirely on my reading of classic Wonder Woman comics. It’s always the women who are tied up. So I don’t know.

spec·u·late ˈspekyəˌlāt/ verb
verb: speculate; 3rd person present: speculates; past tense: speculated; past participle: speculated; gerund or present participle: speculating

1. form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.
“my colleagues speculate about my private life”
synonyms: conjecture, theorize, hypothesize, guess, surmise; More
think, wonder, muse
“they speculated about my private life”

2. invest in stocks, property, or other ventures in the hope of gain but with the risk of loss.

Marston remains enigmatic to me—I can’t tell whether he was someone who never grew up, or a self-absorbed hypocrite, or a combination of both, or something else entirely– …Brighouse, by his own admission, is guessing with inadequate information, even after reading the book.

Grace-note” “an extra note added as an embellishment and not essential to the harmony or melody.”

And I don’t think guessing that Marston might have been “a self-absorbed hypocrite” was all that essential to the thrust of the piece. It is a very small part.

So why?

And “reflexive” in my use by no means connotes “idiocy.” Much of our (not you?) everyday social interaction is ritualized and on the bare edge of consciousness and intentionality, especially in social settings we can command to be controlled and predictable.

You actually have the nerve to put a paraphrase “‘but what about X, you idiot?” in direct quotes as if I had used those exact words? Or that tone, for that matter. And then claim the politeness highground?

I think — I’ve mentioned this before — that other people have a better idea of how polite you are in comparison to other others than you yourself do.

Because they see you and other others alike from the outside, making the comparisons easier and less prone to systemic errors in converting your internal experience of your own behaviour to a format comparable with how you experience the behaviour of others.

Ok, if we could reset the conversation so it is not about Rich and mcmanus, that’d be great. They know what they are doing.

JH’s point about “tell me if you’ve heard this one before” was helpful to me in explaining (and excusing) why journalists say the same things over and over again in newspapers, as if they assume you have never read a newspaper before. That said, I’d like it if they would sometimes point out, when reporting a government initiative, that this is the third (or fourth) time that it has been rolled out, rather than making it seem like a new initiative every time — I find it a bit eerie hearing the same thing over and over (from the same journalists) as if they have forgotten the government said it 6 months ago (I’m thinking about UK journalists, not US ones).

I had no clue at all about this Wonder Woman backstory and find it quite fascinating. Also, a triviality, but Olive Byrne is indeed named Olive Byrne, and not Oliver Byrne as in the post.

But about Wonder Woman. My sibs and I consumed comic books voraciously. We read ’em all, even Archie and Veronica when there was nothing else, but we preferred the superheroes. For some reason I never took to Wonder Woman, maybe because as someone says upthread I always wondered about her wearing a bathing suit. The book sounds fascinating.

J Thomas. Did you mean to say ‘wow’ ! ? ; )

harry b: “They know what they are doing.”

I don’t speak for bob mcmanus, but I do know what I’m doing. You wrote an extremely rude original post, one which speculates without knowledge (by your own contention) that perhaps Marston never grew up, that perhaps he was a self-absorbed hypocrite, that it was a mystery why his partners lived with him or were happy with him. Of course you don’t know this, because to you their whole family is a new discovery, but to other people they are not a new discovery. Instead, they are meaningful both to queer and polyamorist subculture and to comics subculture. They are especially meaningful because Marston’s queer theories were essentially what it took to not only create the first really popular comic book superheroine, but what is *still* the most popular comic book superheroine.

Re-read my comment 3 and 9 if you want to re-experience my monstrous rudeness. Then reflect that harry b’s retort was “You just sound bitter” — the age-old cry of the person who has just discovered a subculture and is wondering why people find this silly stuff so meaningful and important when it isn’t important to them and they are clearly the source of all value.

Marston’s distinct vision for Wonder Woman is both what made her successful and probably what has made her difficult for DC and other writers to figure out what to do with. Wonder Woman as a feminist icon would be a worthy tradition, but DC has always been a bit shy about that. Even if they were bold enough to try that, it would probably take a gifted writer to be able to blend Marston’s vision of feminism with something more appropriately modern.

The other problem is that like Captain America she was distinctly a WWII-era hero, but unlike Cap no one ever really came up with a gimmick to transition her from WWII into modern eras. So she has all these vestiges like the patriotic costume that don’t really make any sense out of that context.

Lynne and MPAVictoria — people say “sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me”, but its not true, and if you knew somebody whom words couldn’t hurt you wouldn’t want them as a friend.

#55 harry b

I removed it JT, because you got wrong who was being rude to whom and about what, and I didn’t want further derailing.

Oh, OK. I couldn’t have gotten it wrong who was being rude to whom, though, both were being very very rude. Like when JohnH called mcmanus a name he asked not to be called. If you said my name is SugarTits and that’s what you’ll call me, I think it would be reasonable to think you were trying to offend.

I found Colin R’s comment quite enlightening, I have to say; partly because I remember warming to Captain America immediately once I learned the origins story. LePore associates WW weakening with women being driven out of the workplace following WWII. She also describes WW’s place in the Justice League: she won a reader’s poll, but then the Justice League was written by someone else (still during WWII), and WW was made the secretary and written out of all the action.
I have to say I hadn’t remembered the boyfriend at all which means either he was an insignificant part of the comics or I read even less of them than I thought I did.

There was simply no question of living in an overtly polygamous arrangement in the United States, at least for middle-class and poor people, before the last few decades. The people who did it would not only have been ostracized, they almost certainly would have been arrested. Small children can easily be bullied or tricked into giving information they should not. Therefore, knowledge of unorthodox arrangements had to be concealed from them, lest they be taken away from their parents, and the parents ridden out of town on a rail, if not sent to prison.

Just because this is driving me crazy: Jill’s last name is Lepore, not LePore.

Hey; I saw the link here and was reading the comments with interest (not all of them, I’ll admit!)

I just thought I’d say…I think that the discomfort/confusion around Marston that Harry expresses is coming from Lepore’s book pretty directly. She seems puzzled at times by why Elizabeth and Olive stayed with him, and she also at points expresses reservations about the gender politics of their relationship.

I think that is linked to her (at least occasional) discomfort with kink and polyamory, and a vision of feminism which leans towards the second waves mistrust of sexuality, rather than engaging with the third waves’ pro-sex/pro-queer arguments.

There are a couple of places where Marston comes off badly in various ways too (Lepore’s account of how he introduced Byrne into the relationship is very unpleasant; Marston was quite racist.) But I do think that part of the reason the family relationship is hard to parse from the book is that Lepore herself finds it, and presents it as, offputting. Which I think is problematic (though there are lots of things about the book to admire, not least the stunning use of archival sources.)

“His frankly essentialist views” is what I meant to say.

As highly as I think of Dr. Lepore, I believe the New Yorker piece and the NYRB review have given me enough that I feel no need to buy the book — though I will follow up some of the links in the comments.
I pass along something from Oliver (Green Arrow) Queen, who once suggested that Wonder Woman makes sparing use of her golden truth-telling lasso because she was tired of hearing men say what they were actually thinking in her presence.

@ 73, Yeah, but I can also understand why Puchalsky was upset. Blogging is a tough business. It’s why you don’t discuss politics in ‘polite company’. It’s too easy to politely express a view that pisses someone else off. If they respond rudely, is it all that meaningful to discuss who is being polite/rude? I didn’t read the original post as expressing political views, but based on Puchalsky’s later explanations, I can see why he did.

Still, I appreciate the difficulty of being a blogger. Commenters can come and go and be critical or polite as they wish. But for the blogger, this is his/her space. Initiating any conversation while being almost totally blind to the sensitivities of your audience is a brave step.

@65 I for one didn’t; it was far from clear which of Marston’s qualities led Henry to call him a loon, but knowing a fair amount about Marston I could think of lots of possible reasons, and if I really wanted to know more about Henry’s thinking there I would just ask him— and/or read the goddamn book. The only reason I can think of to respond as RP did would be if I were predisposed to assume the very worst motivation I could think of, and/or if I liked starting fights. (Though if I honestly thought Henry’s motivation was as Rich said, disdain for everyone who’s not “vanilla”, I certainly would take personal offense.)

This on Captain America’s character is good:

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/10/steven-attewell-steve-rogers-isnt-just-any-hero

Marston looks to me like a pretty neat guy who has done much more good for the world

Inventing the lie detector??? I hope the good of Wonder Woman outweighs that one.

Uh, got an appointment! Later!

“Are you hiding something, TTN?”

You know I have often wondered when TTN was going to share with us his/her Permanent name. Something fishy is going on!

Also, sorry for calling you Henry, Harry. Though if you want to be Henry, that’s cool too.

Marston’s science is completely preposterous, as science. The lie detector never worked, and still doesn’t. Marston is quite interesting as a feminist and queer theorist, though. His ideas sit uncomfortably with current approaches to feminism — but then in certain ways he was ahead of his time as well (in his approach to kink, for example.)

Marston’s kink isn’t really separable from his theories. His ideas about submission and gender essentialism are his kink, pretty much, and vice versa.

Noah: I sent a link to your piece to Michael Barrier, who had a similar experience w/ his biography of Walt Disney (also w/ a university press). Just before his book came out Neal Gabler came out with a big fat bio in the trade press. It sucked up all the review slots and PR. It even got picked up by all the Disney stores, where Barrier was shut out, despite the fact that Gabler’s bio was rather unfavorable toward uncle Walt while Barrier was sympathetic.

#93 – live-in housekeepers were scandalous in your neighborhood?

I'[m not indulging in a fantasy. I read the book. What is it with this fucking thread? Could all the maggots please go back under their rocks?

#96 Bloix

I’m not indulging in a fantasy. I read the book. What is it with this fucking thread?

It isn’t really about the book. It’s an argument about values.

Some people strongly believe that polyamory etc are OK, and that it’s bad and discriminatory when people publicly disapprove. So when they see commenters publicly disapprove, or if it looks like there’s disapproval expressed in the book by the author, they respond to that. Perhaps intemperately.

Some other people strongly believe that children deserve a happy, safe environment and that when parents do things that cause social disapproval it is bad for the children. Polyamory etc are bad for people who have children because the children get hurt by people who disapprove of the parents. So when you become a parent you must never do anything that would generate public disapproval, never get involved in a scandal or anything which could be interpreted as scandalous. Having to keep secrets is bad for children and keeping secrets from children is bad for them, so to fulfill your responsibility to your children you must not try to secretly do anything that people would disapprove of. You must *be* blameless and *look* blameless. Marston was wrong to have children by a second woman. There was no possible way he could make that right for the children.

So if the book implies that Marston etc kept secrets that the neighbors would blame them for, or kept secrets from their children, that means he was bad. If the book implies that they got away with it and did in fact keep the secrets, that’s no excuse because if there was anything that *could* have looked scandalous then the neighbors did indeed think it was a scandal and did take it out on the children. Regardless whether you read the book, if the book said that then the book had to be wrong.

It isn’t a lot of people who hold strong views on this, but still it’s easy to say something that sets off one side or another. Imagine you didn’t know much about Israel/Palestine but you read a book that had some bearing on that and then you innocently made comments about the book….

It’s probably just as well that these guys are mostly reacting to innocent third parties and not each other.

I was actually a DC comic person as a kid. I mostly remember Wonder Woman from the Justice League comics. (Green Lantern was my favorite, don’t tell LGM)
I don’t remember thinking she wore a “bathing suit” particularly strange. But, there is a great history of “stripperific” outfits in the popular culture of the time. Enter “pulp magazine covers” in Google Images and see what you get. And I am not counting Margaret Brundage’s BDSM covers for Weird Tales. Old Farnsworth Wright let Brundage push the envelope a lot.

Though I do find the hiding of paternity out of the ordinary, I don’t find Marston, Holloway and Byrne hiding the details of their relationship particularly mystifying.

Anarcissie 12.05.14 at 2:58 pm

Great description. I can see myself there.

http://superdickery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1227:wonder-woman-gets-a-day-job&catid=29:confounding-comic-covers-index&Itemid=32

Yes, absolutely, and Lepore explains that — he’s lying about his “lie detector test” because unless he is a looney (which…. well) he knows quite well that it doesn’t work. But the polygraph was a slightly different, and more successful, rival. Fortunately for his moral standing in history, he was unable to convince many people to use it, so all the damage done by the polygraph is down to whoever invented that version of it. She is pretty good on the way the polygraph wasted taxpayers money — not just by paying for it and its use, but by it leading to the dismissal, eg, of hundreds of competent State Department employees whom it deemed to be lying when they denied being communists.
Thanks Tamara, and others who’ve been encouraging, I really appreciate it.

Holy shit the trainwreck! I really feel that the fact that the author of the post TOTALLY HAS A PENIS should have been emphasized more so that this unpleasantness could have been mitigated. And would you all please chill out and disagree with one another employing something other than vicious ad hominems? The commenters’ fanatical dedication to driving all the FPP off the blog is going to work sooner or later, and then whom will you have to yell at? I often, very often think, I have something interesting I’d like to talk about; I’ll post on CT! And then I think, no, I don’t feel like having dudes condescendingly tell me I’m both stupid and a poor writer. I perform tragic late-term abortions on 70% of my impending posts.