A Comics Beat contributor makes false claims about Bill Marston's two loves

A writer for Comics Beat, who claims to be bisexual, wrote a sugar-drenched look at the Wonder Woman movie, claiming she thinks it's great that it doesn't imply WW's not just heterosexual, and her piece is pretty SJW-influenced:

While the Wonder Woman movie (like many movies) would be greatly improved by more clearly depicting lesbian relationships, there is no reason to read Wonder Woman as straight and fans, especially fans who want a more inclusive superhero universes, should not describe her as “straight”. Director Patty Jenkins and writer Allan Heinberg give us even more ammunition to challenge heterosexual interpretations of the character.

And I think somebody should not go out of her way to say a fictional deity is something that Marston never literally established. I can believe both director and writer did stuff in allusions to lesbianism; Heinberg, as far as I know, is homosexual himself. But that's still no excuse for forcing their modern beliefs down the throats of the audience, and the op-ed writer shouldn't be lecturing fans about anything. Nor should she be making unproven claims about the wife and mistress of Marston, as seen in the next paragraph:

Two of Wonder Woman’s co-creators Elizabeth Holloway Marston and Olive Byrne themselves lived in a bisexual polyamorous relationship with lead creator William Moulton Marston. While decades of censorship and a culture that presumes heterosexuality is the norm have lead a lot of readers and watchers to read Diana as straight, the notion that women raised in an entirely female society would be heterosexual is frankly preposterous.

Umm, does she know censorship still exists, in the form of anti-conservative positions within the entertainment biz? All that aside, let's wonder first off why she's implying the 2 aforementioned ladies are literally co-creators of the famous Amazon, and not artist Harry G. Peter, who often goes overlooked. And then, more importantly, why is she claiming - with the use of Wikipedia pages that can be edited by just about anyone - that Mrs. Marston and Byrne lived in a bisexual relationship when as far as I know, there's no clear proof they ever did? What's her little game, eh? Last time I looked, even the Wikipages didn't feature that claim either. Those commenters who got to say something saw through this little charade, and one said:

“if anyone argues that Diana is heterosexual they are denying that characters”

Uh…no. They’re arguing that Diana was a comic book character created for an audience of children in the 1940s and has been portrayed as heterosexual for the vast majority of her existence. If you want to alter the character to make her gay or bisexual, that may be entirely defensible for creative or social reasons but YOU ARE STILL ALTERING THE CHARACTER.

And another said:

What seems preposterous is that it is no longer possible to discuss a character (even a fictional one) without a deep analytical discussion of what that characters sexuality might be. A part of the human experience is now a major definition.

Also a minor beef: I have read that Marston moved his mistress into his house after laying down an ultimatum to his wife that this was the price of their continued marriage (how very egalitarian and progressive of him!) but have never heard that there was a sexual relationship between the two women. it seems like it was more of a private mini harem for the man.

And then another:

The character ‘Wonder Woman’ is a fictional device that has passed through the hands of many creative personnel since its creation. To suggest that only one version of the character exists is narrow and not reflective of the changes that have been applied through the years. Reasoning that a character raised amongst only women might be implied to have had sexual relations with women is indicative of the discussion. Insisting that the character can only have ‘heteronormative’ qualities says nothing about the character and everything about the opinion.

And still another said:

I have no problem with homosexuals, bisexuals, or heterosexuals, but I do have a problem with phony history. If your point of view is legitimate, it should be able to stand the light of actual facts and not be blanketed in the shadow of historical fiction. It might make you feel nice to consider Elizabeth Holloway Marston and Olive Byrne co-creators or Wonder Woman, but it wouldn’t be strictly factual (and entirely eliminates WW’s actual co-creator, Harry George Peter). Likewise, there’s absolutely no evidence that the two women had a bisexual relationship with each other. Maybe they did, and maybe you would like to believe they did, but that doesn’t make it factually true. Stick to the facts and maybe more people will listen to you.

And finally, site overlord Heidi MacDonald stepped in and said:

I think we’re done here.

Elana, thanks for an enlightening piece.

The rest of you, enjoy the 13th century.

And with that, she turned off the commenting options, even though the above are far from vulgar. So neither she nor her op-ed contributor can stand for even polite dissent over their laughable politics. Pure SJW mentality in motion. This isn't the first time she's shut down topic comments either. Here's one involving the Honey Badgers where the comment form is turned off. At least two guys post rebuttals over her pre-determined standings, and the next thing you know, she goes thin-skin and shuts down everything. What's the use of being in the business if she can't maintain a thick skin? Methinks somebody's living in an earlier time, like the Roman Empire. Or in the USSR of the 1960s.

Since this was written, I have yet to find any apology by MacDonald for running unproven propaganda that's insulting to the two ladies in Marston's life, to say nothing of fandom itself. All she's done is compound her mendacity, and demonstrate why, as reporter, opinionator or host of the same, she's not qualified for the post.

If they really had concerns about anything, how about this Slate writer who goes out of her SJW-influenced way to suggest Steve Trevor supposedly raped WW in the film, even as she provides an acquittal? In her piece, she says:

Just a couple of days into their jaunt to stop the Germans from employing new chemical weapons, [Steve Trevor] is shutting himself into [Diana’s] hotel room, presumably so they can do sex things. Diana is so clueless about men, human activity, and the basic concepts of manipulation and evil—think mute air-breathing Ariel in The Little Mermaid, if she could incapacitate an entire village of German sharpshooters—that her capacity for consent is somewhat blurry. She can’t even understand why Trevor thinks it would be improper for them to sleep in the same bed when they’ve just met. Diana’s naïveté and innocence are crucial to the film’s moral thrust, but they cast her sexual relationship in a shiftier light.

Let me get this straight. The film's take on Trevor portrays him as a gent, yet the woman acts like something wrong was actually done? Good grief. Mark Judge at Acculturated posited the following rebuttal, which makes another interesting note:

Cauterucci is a social justice warrior and writer for Slate (but I repeat myself). In her recent assessment of the new blockbuster movie, Wonder Woman, Cauterucci argues that, despite positive reviews and the male eunuchs at Slate weeping over the female empowerment on display, Wonder Woman is not a feminist film.

In fact, Cauterucci argues, the film suggests that Wonder Woman (played by Gal Gadot) was raped by Steve Trevor, the film’s male lead (played by Chris Pine). I have little patience for men’s right activists who cry over every perceived slight they suffer from women, but this is just nuts. The attraction between Trevor and Diana Prince (Wonder Woman’s real name) is the outcome of a relationship of mutual respect earned through fighting side by side. [...]

There’s so much wrong here it’s hard to know where to start. First of all, when men see Diana in Wonder Woman they don’t as much drool as they simply stand awestruck. Gal Gadot, the actress playing Wonder Woman is, as one character says, “a work of art.” Portraying men who are stunned and babbling in the presence of (literally) a goddess is not pandering to the male gaze, but a joke about men being concussed by female beauty. The stares do not linger and are purely played for comedy. When one character tries to hug Diana, Steve quickly steps in. “I wouldn’t do that if I were you,” he warns. This is a joke but also a nod towards the fantastic alluring power that women have. As the critics have noted, Wonder Woman director Patty Jenkins shoots Diana in a way that is elevating and not degrading. To be sure, we are going to see Gal Gadot’s magnificent figure, but also her soft, empathetic eyes and fiery intelligence. It couldn’t be clearer: most of the men in Wonder Woman are ragtag characters who are only able to regain their honor and courage by following the example of Diana.

Quite a few SJWs will find/say anything they can to make issues that aren't there, and the woman evidently didn't realize she was providing proof that Pine's portrayal was respectable. If the film doesn't show what she implies, then she cannot just go along and accuse the filmmakers of pulling something like that. There are valid arguments you could make about this movie, to be sure, but she just blew it. Yet no criticism coming from MacDonald and other alleged advocates of comicdom over how some disgusting journalist wants to be a wet blanket.

The really eyebrow raising part though, was learning that at a leftist bastion like Slate, of all places, there's men who're whining and galled over the female empowerment on display in the movie! Which proves just how negative they really are on femininity.

Anyway, since we're on the topic of the WW movie, it's also worth noting that Algeria apparently banned the movie, for reasons we can surely guess, and it looks like Jordan's doing the same, along with Tunisia. Yet MacDonald and company don't seem to be commenting on any of that, let alone Lebanon's own ban of the movie. How odd they're so determined to push deception yet so uninterested in focusing on the continued bigotry these Islamic-led countries show towards an actress's Israeli background.

Here's also a Weekly Standard article about all the unintended politics the WW movie wound up with, no thanks to MacDonald's bunch either.