Wonder Woman meets a babe in a burqa

karen says:

08:13am | 26/10/10

...its just a cartoon peter….get a grip.

Jack Thomas says:

08:48am | 26/10/10

It is propaganda, pure and simple. Marketing propaganda, PC propaganda, whatever you want to call it.

Be honest for once people.

DC comics are cynically chasing the PC nazi market, maybe the Leftard parents, or maybe just the edge of the Islamic market (as Coke and Pepsi have..).

DC comics are seeking to Westernise and humanise an element of reality, this is not the Hulk or some other character created in a science experiment gone wrong.

It is an Islamic woman, chosen deliberately to target the West in a propaganda campaign, not Islamics (as Peter noted - do you seriously think Muslims will start buying these comics? Come on..).

The underlying truth here though is that you feel the need to apologise for the large number of Muslims who support, sanction, or simply won’t talk against terrorism.

It is not right wing hysteria to point out the truth is it? All the wishy washy “ohh, it’s just a cartoon” stuff is typical apologist stuff that we come to expect from the Latte Socialists who happily house a Chechnyan Leader guilty of killing hundreds because it makes for great dinner party conversation..

Try actually opposing the fundamentalist Islamics rather than apologise for them, starting with the Hamas cartoon show which is so popular. Well ?

Peter's abnormal brother says:

08:50am | 26/10/10

Normality is a pretty subjective concept don’t you think?

Danny B says:

09:06am | 26/10/10

Peter,

Did you actually watch the animation?  Only ONE of the female characters is wearing a burqa - that doesn’t seem like ‘normalising’ to me.

Peter says:

09:21am | 26/10/10

... and all of them wear a headscarf and none of the female characters appear in a scene alone with a male.  ‘Cause, you know, males and females aren’t supposed to be together unless they are married or in the presence of a family members or a chaperone.

Normalise that.

GingerKitty says:

09:41am | 26/10/10

Normalise the abnormal?

What on earth are you talking about?

“Sure, she wears a burqa. But so does every other woman in Yemen”

Its obviously NORMAL for women in Yemen and other “hardline nations” to wear the burqa. Maybe try reading the entire article before making comments?

I would rather my children watch a cartoon where the women are modestly dressed that the heavily sexed up trash on television today.

As for your comment..“And if you seriously think that this show is designed for girls in Yemen or Saudi Arabia or any other of the hardline nations, you are kidding yourself.  This is recruitment propaganda for Western audiences” - Do you really think this cartoon will air on “western” channels? seriously? “Western audiences” are no where near tolerant enough to have anything like this air on their channels, because as soon as they are aired, the networks will receive a flood of complaints from ‘concerned parents’, and other ‘concerned citizens’ who arent really intolerant or racists or bigots, but they are honestly just concered about the increase of traffic in their area (im kidding).

Get a grip on reality mate.

Jason says:

01:17pm | 26/10/10

Ginger, love your openly-veiled criticism: “Western audiences are nowhere near tolerant enough…” So true. Perhaps we need a lesson on tolerance from Islamic audience. They’re a pretty tolerant lot. I bet that MTV is widely watched throughout the middle east. (I’m kidding too, by the way)

GingerKitty says:

02:31pm | 26/10/10

Jason - are you saying I’m wrong? Do you think a cartoon like this would ever be shown in Australia? Honestly?

I’m not saying that Islamic audiences are tolerant (although FYI, I have been to Malaysia, Pakistan, Bahrain, and other Islamic nations, and they all had MTV), my point was, which I cant believe I have to reiterate again, is that a cartoon of this nature will never be aired for a western audience.

Jason says:

03:03pm | 26/10/10

Ginger, honestly I don’t know if this would ever be shown on Australian TV. What I do know is that your reasoning for it NOT being shown is flawed. The only thing that determines what goes to air in a liberal society like ours is ratings. Do you honestly think that TV execs give a damn about controversy? If it doesn’t rate, it won’t be aired.
My point was, and I can’t believe I have to reiterate it, is that western intolerance is not the issue, and definitely not something that should be used in a pro-islamic argument. (And btw, I have worked extensively in the middle east, so yes, I DO have some basis for my thoughts.)

Reece Richardson says:

04:30pm | 26/10/10

ginger, I doubt it has anything to do with tolerance, its merely that there wouldn’t be a huge audience for it which is how television shows in Australia are usually chosen, yes this ends up with a lot of crap on the television and yes it is affected by interest groups (religious, government or otherwise) but most of it boils down to is there an audience for it, though i wouldn’t be suprised to see it on sbs and I’d welcome it

Chris L says:

06:05pm | 26/10/10

Peter, when a Denmark newspaper had cartoons of the prophet and muslims worldwide rioted and frenzied my opinion was they should get over it.

In all fairness feel the same way about your reaction to this cartoon.

Peace.

Bruce says:

06:56pm | 26/10/10

So will countries in the Islamic region now be able to watch the cartoon show “MASTERS OF THE UNIVERS”  ??

Amberley says:

01:04am | 27/10/10

@Jason (1.17pm) ... MTV / Channel V and the like is widely available in the MIddle East including here in Qatar ... thanks to OrbitShowtime - just like Foxtel!  And ... we even get the Internet (w-w-wow!!!) ... and Blackberry.  So yes ... our girls get a whole cross section of ‘popular culture’ ... and best of all ... we even get AFL games so the boys get a bit too

Tatiana says:

05:26am | 27/10/10

Ginger, racist Aussies don’t like it when people point out that they are racist.  They deny it all the way.  I’m not Islam and I don’t want to be Islamic but I’m not so small minded and rude as to call them “abnormal”.  Like you I think it would be refreshing to have a cartoon where the characters are dressed a bit more modestly.  Would I waste one second of my life fearing that my son will be successfully brain washed by “recruitment propaganda”?  Hardly, I’d like to believe the values we have instilled in him are a bit more powerful than 10 mins of cartoon once a week.  But you are right, there’s way too much intolerance here for this to be aired.  Yes Jason, that means you too.  Your they-started-it-attitude of whingy justification of intolerance is exactly what I’m talking about.

chris says:

08:18am | 26/10/10

So is a nun’s habit.

Average Joe says:

08:47am | 26/10/10

@ Chris…Zoo Weekly would disagree.

chris says:

11:32am | 26/10/10

@joe. I don’t think she was hiding guns or bombs. More like Weapons of Mass Distraction.

St. Michael says:

02:03pm | 26/10/10

I’m sorry, chris, I didn’t hear what you just said, I was reading Zoo.  What was that again?

g4m3rg4l says:

08:46am | 26/10/10

Actually James, to say Batman takes the ‘eye for an eye’ approach isn’t that far off the mark,especially when compared with other superheroes.  He’s much more violent and unforgiving of his enemies.

In one comic, he and Superman went head to head (with Batman as the ‘bad guy’) because Superman didn’t approve of the heavy handed approach that Batman took with the criminals/super villans of Gotham City.  Interesting to note, I’ve heard of theories that Superman is actually Jewish and that his name of Kal’el (sp?) is Hebrew for “Gift of the Sun” or something similiar.

St. Michael says:

01:55pm | 26/10/10

Regardless, gamergirl, Batman doesn’t kill.  Only the very darkest interpretations of the Batman lead to him having blood on his hands.  And even then it’s usually couched in extreme provocation or self-defence.

One bloody one-shot comic or all the Frank Miller Goddamn Batman books in the world doesn’t change his overall philosophy as run by DC comics.  He does not ascribe to the ‘eye for an eye’ approach—he doesn’t kill murderers, or the Joker et. al. would have been dead many times over by now.  He is about revenge on all criminals, but he uses fear to achieve that objective.  If anything, Batman continually follows a secular approach since he brings criminals to justice, albeit he strictly speaking breaks the law himself sometimes doing so.

If you really want a mindscrew with the Jewish Superman thing, I suggest you go and read Superman: Red Son.

A Bob says:

03:20pm | 26/10/10

Oooo! Nerd fight!

GingerKitty says:

09:57am | 26/10/10

Of course it gets banned!

“Islamic clerics” do not promote free thinking, and instead, focus on how to control the masses with their anti-western bullshit!

These “Islamic clerics” feed their misconstrued versions of Islam to the largely uneducated Muslim masses in third world nations, and thats where all the problems and hatred begin. The opinion of one, becomes the opinion of thousands.

Islam advocates education, both worldly and spiritual, but when you cant afford “worldly education” and as a result are illiterate, the words of the “Islamic clerics” will be the source of truth.

Its a tough cycle to break out of, wish people would give this a thought before going on their anti-Islam rants.

Chris L says:

06:08pm | 26/10/10

Was he crying at the time?

Trjn says:

11:56am | 26/10/10

Kitty Pryde (Shadowcat from the X-Men) is openly Jewish, as is the Thing from the Fantastic Four and I’m fairly sure that Nightcrawler (also from X-Men) is Catholic. That’s just the Marvel characters I could think of, excluding Thor who is a Norse God.

Zeta says:

12:41pm | 26/10/10

It’s kind of hard for the heroes in the Marvel Universe to be religious when there is ample evidence that other Gods really do exist or if he - you got Asgard just hovering over an American mid-west town for a while, you got Hercules and the Greek Pantheon fighting the Hulk occassionally.

Weirdly, Satan actually exists in Marvel comics and Damion Hellstrom is his son, but God still doesn’t make himself known.

James1 says:

12:43pm | 26/10/10

What about Neil Gaiman’s “Sandman” series?  Surely the Kindly Ones count as some sort of religious thing, plus Cain and Abel play prominent roles.

Pylades says:

12:56pm | 26/10/10

At least in DC, Doc Mid-Nite of the JSA is openly Catholic (he left the seminary to become a physician).  Ragman is openly Jewish.  Those are the only ones that come to mind ATM.

The whole storyine makes a lot of sense given that they’ve also had the Chinese “super-functionaries” of the Great Ten show up in past few years.

St. Michael says:

01:59pm | 26/10/10

But then, by definition, Thor is not a believer in any faith, since he *is* a deity.  He’s not a believer in Odin, either, since"belief” requires faith on his part, and he *knows* Odin and the other Norse Gods exist.

James1 says:

09:52am | 26/10/10

The word you were looking for is “inherent”.

Jon says:

10:07am | 26/10/10

Thank you James1, I stand corrected, but you get the idea.

Mr Subramanian says:

12:33pm | 26/10/10

And has Batman, Superman, or any of “our” traditional superheroes broken up a Ku Klux Klan meeting, or interevened in the beating of black man on a freeway, or prevented the foreclosure of a home because the bank gave the sub-prime borrower a loan that they couldn’t afford? The X-Men have come closest, with the paranoia about mutants being a nice allegory for any and all racist narrow mindedness, but you’d be hard pressed to find it.

Jason says:

01:04pm | 26/10/10

Hmmm, Mr. Sub, the problem with your argument is that what you so cleverly point out are instances of social evil that occur very much in the minority within western society (don’t even bother to argue that point; it IS a tiny minority) and are acts roundly despised by the vast majority. The acts that Jon points out occur very regularly in many Islamic states (once again, don’t bother to argue; you will just prove you know very little about your own argument) and are more often than not endorsed and supported by the “governments” (for want of a better word) of these states. The difference is startlingly clear for those who are willing to acknowledge it.

Trjn says:

01:08pm | 26/10/10

@Mr Subramanian, according to an episode of QI, Superman was actually responsible for a rapid decrease in real life popularity of the KKK. By having them as the villains in the radio serials and referencing real practices of the group. Oh, and the X-men are actually pretty overt in their message against racial prejudice, you don’t have to look hard, just pick up any X-men comic and look for the word “muties” or watch the movies, where the mutant registration act is a major theme.

gelfen says:

01:10pm | 26/10/10

Mr Subramanian,
“And has Batman, Superman, or any of “our” traditional superheroes broken up a Ku Klux Klan meeting, or interevened in the beating of black man on a freeway….”

Well, actually Superman has been shown doing similar things numerous times - particularly in his early incarnations.  In fact the producers of the original Superman radio serials ran a storyline with the sole intention of exposing the Ku Klux Klan philosophy to the mainstream population, which did a lot to undermine the Klan and embarrass law enforcement into taking action.

Ben says:

01:39pm | 26/10/10

Actually Mr Mr Subramanian there have been quite a few examples of what you stated.  Spawn has broken up a Klan Meeting, the Punisher has stopped a few race related beatings, so has Spiderman, and the X-Men (many times), and Green Lantern ......... Please don’t preach that this is the only comic/cartoon that deals with real life, moral issues.
However I applaud the creator of this comic, I don’t agree witht he teachings of Islam (personally I think ALL religion is nonsense), but they have found a creative outlet which allows them to express themselves and their beliefs.
It scares me that people jump up and down about censorship when it concerns things that interest them, but are all too willing to call for bans etc when its something they either dont understand or dont agree with.
Also, in the end, its a cartoon, not a Muslim plot to take over the world.

St. Michael says:

02:01pm | 26/10/10

Also, Mr. Sub, when the heroes do go with combating “topical” evil, they come across like a “And Knowing Is Half The Battle!” tract from the Eighties.  Consider Batman: The Ultimate Evil, which is basically Batman vs. Thai child molesters.  Good for a short vicarious read about what we’d like to do to paedophiles, but not a very good Batman story and really badly written.

Jon says:

03:12pm | 26/10/10

A few words of warning, The 99 producers should be very careful not the cast Muhammad or draw him in any way, which would be very dangerous. Then the 99 would be 0.

Adam Diver says:

10:07am | 26/10/10

You will always have your comics though

TimB says:

12:47pm | 26/10/10

Bazinga.

GingerKitty says:

10:40am | 26/10/10

I agree with your comment.. “The burka is a stupid archaic religious symbol of fanatism that reeks of control.”

But where exactly is “free love and non monogamy” the norm?
I havent yet met a single person in my life who is in favour of multiple partners and this “free love” you speak of.

Snap out of your fantasy world, or, at least tell us what you’re smoking and where we can all get some.

TheRealDave says:

10:58am | 26/10/10

Free Love is all well and good and something I passionately advocate….well..I would if the missus would let me….

Kent says:

12:20pm | 26/10/10

Exactly my point Dave. Too much control and possevieness in your relationship old son. GingerKitty a look at biology and the ACTUAL behaviour of people re affairs proves my point substatially. I’m not talking polygamy and multiple wives/husbands so to speak that is just stupid but what has sex got to do with love? Nothing mistaking a good shag for falling love confuses intellect with instinct. Honestly what is the big deal if one’s partner has a release on the side? It has nothing to do with feelings it simply follows biology. Let me ask this do people have a problem if their partner talks to someone else? goes for a beer wine or a chat with someone else? No so what’s the difference?

GingerKitty says:

01:17pm | 26/10/10

So you’re saying you wouldnt have a problem if your wife/girlfriend was shagging others on the side?

I’m only going to speak for myself here, but I would have a HUGE issue if my partner decided to start having sex with other women. Is that not a normal reaction? Or have I just been programmed by society to react like this?

Also, if its in our biology to want to have various sexual partners, why does the thought of having sex with anyone other than my partner revolt me?

The world has a long way to go before your idea of a perfect society becomes the “norm”, but dont worry, by the amount of moral decay already evident in todays society, its obvious that an alarming number already share your views.

Kent says:

02:43pm | 26/10/10

I’m only going to speak for myself here, but I would have a HUGE issue if my partner decided to start having sex with other women. Is that not a normal reaction? Or have I just been programmed by society to react like this?

Jealously and pure progamming. If your husband has a deep and meaningful with a friend about an aspect of his life does it revolt you? No of course not so whats the difference with sex. Unjustified wars in Iraq, violence and glassing on the street, puppy cruelty and hooliganism far more to worry about moral decay there.

So you’re saying you wouldnt have a problem if your wife/girlfriend was shagging others on the side?

No. Only problem I would have is if she theoretically got preggers and lied to me about who’s it was.

GingerKitty says:

01:28pm | 26/10/10

Wow.

Your ignorance has amazed me, I actually cannot believe what you just wrote, and had to read it again!!

Have you ever actually met a Muslim?

EVERY Muslim I know, wears jeans, has been to school (most I know are well educated professionals), and has friends from the opposite sex. I even know some who have married outside their faith!

What we shouldnt accept is lunatics like you spreading your psychotic views of “Islam taking over”.

Do us all a favour, and do some research, or maybe even talk to people, before passing a judgement on a group of people you clearly have no knowledge of.

Ange says:

01:37pm | 26/10/10

Em - I find so many things wrong with your argument I’m just not sure where to start but let’s have a go.

1. “Desensitising western society to the idea of the Burqa” 
Hmmm we can become desensitised to Violence or sexual imagery but a Burqa??  it’s a piece of clothing.
2. “Islam should always remain a minority faith”. Islam is actually the second largest religion behind Christianity and by no means a minority. 3. Catholicism/Christianity has plenty of followers who advocate murder in the name of their god - just look at the fundamentalist christians who happily murder doctors working in abortion clinics because it goes against their christian ideology.
4. “....crazy-arsed followers, but Islamists seem to be the first and foremost amongst that crowd”  Ever seen the fundamentalist christian groups in the USA?  They really take the cake.

The point is we’re talking about a cartoon here which is hoping to change western views of Islamic people as being nothing more than hysterical extremists who are all out to bomb their way to martyrdom. I have a few Islamic friends and can tell you this is simply not the case. Extremists exist in all levels of society and are dangerous no matter what their cause but please can we stop labelling all people because of the failings of a few.

St. Michael says:

01:56pm | 26/10/10

Islam is a minority faith in Australia, or a minority faith in the world, Em?

There’s actually close to or as many Islamic believers in the world as there are Christians.

Dan says:

07:27pm | 26/10/10

A disgusting and ignorant post. Shameful. I would respond to this extremist and Islamophobic post in full, however GingerKitty, Ange and St. Michael did it for me. Great posts guys!

“As far as I am concerned”

Thankfully it does not matter what you think.  Thankfully, extremists and Islamophobes such as yourself are irrelevent. You are the kind of person we should fear ‘taking over’, not Muslims whom you know absolutely nothing about!

Kent says:

02:55pm | 26/10/10

Who cares what its called. Its a symbol of religious and cultural control imposed on women by lunatics such as yourself. To even suggest a woman would be hounded if she ventured out without one suggests of a very sick, perverted and twisted mind. Why people wish to control others sexual behaviour in today’s society is utterly revolting. Are you really that lacking in spine that you need to sexually bully others? Societys attitude to the sexual behaviour of others has frankly reached a new low. Why Western society even treads back to this path of conservative militaism is a great worry.

Kent says:

05:32pm | 26/10/10

Yeah sorry Mohamed got a bit carried away. Choose to wear handcuffs if you like, not my problem what people do but nothing should be enforced. My other comments stand completely.