Oh, and why I always get broken ground support equipment. That wastes a few hours.
I'm green everyday anyway.
But I've also got a smidgeon of Irish Ancestry, so here's a belated gift courtesy of Green Lantern Corps: Recharge #5:







He and like-minded individuals who call strong women characters "men with breasts" or "Amazons" (same tone as "Unicorns") are missing something very important. They've probably realized that superheroes are an "Adolescent Power Fantasy" because that much is obvious. But they think of twelve year old boys when they think of it. They haven't looked beyond their own gender to realize that woman also have "Adolescent Power Fantasies." It's unheard of, because females are supposed to fantasize about love and romance and world peace and crap like that. Women don't want to be punch out the people who offend them. That's ridiculous, only men have those impulses. Women want more substance from their comics. They read Sandman dontcha know?
I started reading when I was teenaged girl. I was just being exposed to the real world and its attitudes about women. I was not happy about it. My mother embarked on quest to ensure that I would never trust a boy enough to get pregnant during High School or college. To give you an idea of how intense this could be, I'll give you a tamer example. As a pre-teen, I once mention offhandedly that I liked watching Daktari reruns and got a story about a young woman who was cannibalized on a trip to Africa in return.


A federal agent is introduced who comes onto Sara. Now, right away, he's showing the narrative signs of evil (the writer was using sexual harassment as dramatic shorthand for Jerk) so I know he's not actually there as a sleezy disappointing love interest. He's there to get beat up. Yay! And he does get beat up, in issue 91, proving that the writer understood that a sexist bastard introduced in the first act must have his ass handed to him in the third. What Mr. Marz missed, of course, was that if the offended female character is the main character, then she is the only one with the right to beat up the offender. Here, a guest star did it. Sara never got a chance to touch him. Hell, neither did her partner Gleason and he said some things to him that really deserved a punch in the mouth.

Secondly, if Pieter's going to see ghosts that accuse him of killing them, why not the person he actually killed when he got his powers? Why not his mother? Why these nameless, lost patients that he didn't personally know?
I freely admit to missing the symbolism on the first try sometimes. I miss it even when it's obvious. I have my off days, you understand. Times when I bypass it. And then, suddenly, someone points out something so unbelievably simple I feel like an idiot for missing it. I've been accused of obliviousness.
I love the symbolism of the normal, though. Most writers have some level of understanding about symbolism, and they make up for it with instinct. That's when we get the stuff that just randomly fits together. The average work-for-hire writer who probably didn't mean to do that, but it fits and reinforces the point. The multiple writers who somehow string a secondary character's entire life under one central theme, while not even using her to further the same story objectives. And they keep falling into the same symbolic lessons. This way, the plot becomes part of the characterization. It just fits, beautifully.
It's why I prefer to ignore the writer. Elayne asked me about that in the comments once. "I persist in believing there are no bad characters," she said, "just badly-written (or badly-drawn) ones. I'm curious as to why you never mention the people who write and draw the characters you examine. These characters literally do not exist unless they're being written and drawn by a real person, so it stands to reason that any discussion of their "personalities" would need to touch on the actual people writing and drawing them." It's partly because it destroys the continuity. If something is "out of character" then a deeper aspect of the character that explains this behavior does not exist. It's pulling back the curtain and destroying the magic. It takes the fun out.
Kate's concept is awesome. She is the granddaughter of the JSA Founder, the Atom. It's possible (but not clear in any of the issues I own) that she inherited superstrength from him by way of her father, Walter Pratt. Kate's a legacy hero, but not as the Atom. She took a completely different legacy, the Manunter. She took it by way of stealing equipment from a federal evidence locker. A locker she had access to because of her career, a federal prosecuter which was her personal choice. Kate's power comes not form her paternal legacy, but from the suit and accompanying weapons that she acquired herself. Right there, she's past a conceptual problem that plagues female legacy characters.
Even better, he gets stomped personally by her. She not only denies him his lifesaving medical treatment (for which her bone marrow, and the villainous Dr Moon -- the male villain Kate killed last issue -- are necessary), she fights him to the death. And she mouths off to him during the fight. That's the fun part.
The cover to Wonder Woman #1 as found on Newsarama.