There is a reason that Wonder Woman projects "fail".

[Edit 4: I made a Wonder Woman game.]

[Edit 3: I have put a LOT of time and effort into responding to people in the comments of this thread. Before you comment, take a look and see if the conversation you want to have has already happened or not. It very probably has.]

I originally drafted this as a response to the WW game being shut down, but I think it's worth saying on its own:

Always remember that Diana---when portrayed authentically--is the major comic book character who most challenges existing power structures and ideologies. (Of the DC Trinity, at least, but I do think I'd go farther than that.)

This is pretty obviously why she always gets marginalized, but this also is why she's so impressive and inspiring. This is why we like to spend time with her, but she's been an unlikely icon since the very beginning. (You know, when WMM wanted to use comics to show that a uniquely feminist vision of heroism was possible? The "Wonder Woman Project", as I like to call it, has always been deeply political.)

The reason Batman is shoved down our throats at every corner is the same reason why Diana can't catch a break. One is very conservative and one is inherently radical, especially when--again--portrayed authentically. (No, I am not authorized to be the arbiter of what's "authentic" when it comes to Diana, but my standard line is simply that her signature tool is a lasso and not a sword. I think the powers that be disagree with me very often. You are also free to disagree with me, but I can most certainly appeal to early comics to suggest I'm not off-base.)

I love my Superman as well (again, at his best), but he's more successful partly because he's both a man and often reduced to a supersoldier in popular Superman media.

You know what I like most about Superman? When he reminds kids that it's important to be kind to people and that they have a lot of power just the way they are. Sure, fine: sometimes he needs to punch a Luthor robot or whatever, but that's not the main draw for me.

The appeal for me with both Clark and Diana is that they try REALLY hard to be good in the face of REALLY difficult situations.

Batman just wants to surveil, terrorize, and brutalize. HM. WONDER WHY THAT'S SO VIABLE IN OUR CULTURE COMPARED TO (at her most authentic) ANTI-VIOLENT DIANA?!

Could it POSSIBLY be the status quo's preference for surveillance, terror, and violence? But enough about [insert almost any political issue here].

(Edited for a typo.)

Edit 2: hey, y'all? Batman is my second most-read character on League of Comic Geeks, only behind Wonder Woman. I've seen almost every Batman movie, and I'm enthusiastic about a number of them. And I've consumed plenty of Batmedia beyond that. Don't assume I don't know anything about Batman, thanks.