For devoted Wonder Woman fans like me, reaction to the character overhaul isn't just about the costume, but about her changed origin story and the urbanization of a character whose true history is steeped in Greek mythology. However, for most comic fans and pop culture observers at large, it's the costume that's getting the attention. The explanation is twofold. First, it's because the vast majority of them don't read Wonder Woman comics. That much is obvious from observations like one from Gunn, who says that in the new costume, "she looks like a citizen of the real world rather than a creature from another land.” Sorry Tim, but Wonder Woman IS from another land. Unsurprisingly, his analysis is not from the perspective of someone with the character's personality and past in mind-- it's just about the surface level.
Amazingly, even J. Michael Straczynski, who is writing the new WW storyline, seems to have his facts mixed up. “She’s been locked into pretty much the exact same outfit since her debut in 1941,” he says in a recent back-patting New York Times article about the reboot. JMS, who is known by his initials in the comics world, is either forgetting or ignoring that the 1990s brought a temporary costume change for Diana too, one that also included a jacket and leather.
That revamp was reviled by WW devotees as much as the current one, and rightfully so since it morphed her from a heroine into a leather-strapped S&M queen in the true spirit of the 90s' "bad girl" comic fad. Even more memorable was another complete "reboot" Wonder Woman received back in the 1960s, when she lost her powers, became a martial artist and wore casual citizen attire for a few years.
At the time, the writers thought they were modernizing Diana, just as today's creative team claims. That, too, eventually passed.
A professional fashion designer's ignorance of Wonder Woman lore is forgivable, but not that of the man who is taking the reins of her comic away from the capable hands of superstar writer Gail Simone. JMS is likely bloviating a bit to promote the New Wonder Woman, but other commentators offering their opinions without a modicum of WW knowledge amount to a peanut gallery. They can nitpick every detail of the new costume, from the red gloves to the outdated "half jacket," but they can't explain what either costume, old or new, says about who Wonder Woman is. That, in fact, is the crux of the matter for Diana's fans, but it's a point lost on people who just want to offer their two cents on the costume without any real reason to care about the character.
The second reason the costume is getting all of the attention is because it has predictably opened the floodgates for debate about sexism, feminism, objectification and empowerment. Rarely does a single article of clothing seem to represent so much to so many people about the state of women in society as does Wonder Woman's classic, one-piece swimsuit-style costume. Anything that draws attention to it, especially its replacement with a less revealing outfit complete with pants, is bound to bring up all the familiar arguments again.
However, you might be surprised to hear who is saying what about the change of threads. Gloria Steinem, women's rights activist and founder of the National Organization for Women, famously decried the aforementioned 1960s mod-era Wonder Woman in her publication, Ms. magazine. That same magazine featured Wonder Woman on the cover of its first issue as a symbol of feminist pride-- and, yes, she was wearing the old one-piece.
About the new look from WW #600, Steinem says in a Kansas City Star article that "adding pants gives us the idea that only pants can be powerful — tell that to Greek warriors and Sumo wrestlers." There are echoes of third-wave feminism in Steinem's assertion, that empowering women shouldn't be about making them more like men at the cost of their distinct sexuality.
Lady Gaga, a public figure far more prominent than either Steinem or Wonder Woman today, exemplifies the same concept. I can't help but bring her into the topic at hand because I'm becoming a bigger and bigger fan of hers the more I learn about her (and I haven't liked a new pop icon in years). Her own "Haus of Gaga" studio designs most of her costumes for music videos and public appearances, many of which are far more revealing than ANY creative team would dare to put on Wonder Woman, except maybe Jim Balent. Retro feminists don't know what to do with Lady Gaga because she presents herself as a highly sexualized public figure, but completely on her own terms. As Times Op Ed writer Nancy Bauer puts it, "Gaga is explicit in her insistence that, since feminine sexuality is a social construct, anyone, even a man who’s willing to buck gender norms, can wield it."
With Wonder Woman, the question of who should decide her gender identity and the visual expression thereof isn't as clear. Diana is not a real person, and her evolved, honed persona is a result of the collaboration of hundreds of artists and writers who have featured her in comic books for the better part of a century. She doesn't get a say in how she dresses, so it falls to us-- members of the fan community, artists and writers of Wonder Woman, and other voices who find it worthwhile to chime in on the subject-- to make a decision on what kind of costume best suits her. Naturally, DC Comics' editors and Wonder Woman's creative team will be the ones who make the final call, but the opinions of long-time fans are at least as valid, if not more so, than an editorial mandate designed to boost sales.
Proponents of the new costume say that the addition of the jacket and pants finally rights a long-standing social injustice by desexualizing Diana, many as though they suddenly noticed this travesty for the first time. I'm not sure why they think anyone wants her to be "desexualized," but even assuming that they are simply referring to something as shallow as the amount of skin revealed by a costume, the claim shows a gross ignorance of comic book tradition. Wonder Woman's classic costume wasn't created for the purposes of titillation. It evolved slowly from her original knee-length skirt to something more practical for an athlete. Would the people who call Wonder Woman's costume slutty or sexist say the same thing about leotards worn by female gymnasts?
Conversely, just adding coverage to Diana's legs and arms isn't an iron-clad guarantee that she won't be depicted in an overtly sexual way by particular artists. In fact, look at the very first cover of Wonder Woman that will be displaying the new look:
Jacket or no, Wonder Woman has fallen into "watermelon territory" here, with breasts as big as her head. Whether or not to make cheesecake out of a female comic book character is an individual artist's decision (except in the case of Power Girl, of course). By contrast, this image from the late 80s shows Diana with a more realistic bust, looking strong and powerful despite wearing that oh-so-dreadful classic costume.
In one of my favorite Wonder Woman stories, Spirit of Truth by Paul Dini and Alex Ross, Diana's costume is in fact a major subject in the story. Dini concedes that in the real world, such an outlandish getup might induce scorn from those with certain attitudes or cultural morays. Diana looks positively out of place in a UN council chamber or among a squadron of US troops abroad. But, Dini argues in the story, that's the point of the costume-- to stand out, to be bold and uninhibited.
The point comes across plainly in a scene where Diana disguises herself in a burqa to infiltrate a Middle Eastern hostage camp where women and children are being used as human shields by a local insurgency. When the time comes to defend these innocents, she reveals her identity to the shocked crowd, and the contrast is overwhelming.
In the context of the story, it is the liberated woman who chooses to expose her arms and legs, while the victims of a repressive, misogynist society are the ones taught from birth that it is shameful for them to reveal any part of themselves in public.
Not unlike the patriarchal denizens of those fundamentalist countries that mandate the burqa, every male forum poster saying that Wonder Woman should have pants and more coverage to become the equal of male comic characters is just one more man barking about what he thinks a woman should wear. And, as Steinem notes, the solution they offer is usually to make her look more like a man. However, since the subject of discussion is a fictional character, such debate isn't necessarily inappropriate, and it does often come from a sincere, if misguided place. Many who argue against the classic costume feel they are defending Wonder Woman against hordes of horny fanboys who see the character as meat. They feel that a different costume would free Diana from the shackles of fan service, something that dominates the comics industry to a much greater extent than it does almost any other realm of pop culture.
It would be intellectually dishonest to ignore the "fan service" factor in Wonder Woman's depiction. Many female characters walk a fine line when it comes to appealing to the male fan base. Creators are usually anxious to tell believable tales about women with respect and esteem, but when it comes to the bottom line, few can deny that more skin often equals higher sales. It has to be subtle, though; the closer comics venture toward out-and-out pornography, the more readers are turned off. Balent, for example has a small following for his self-published porno comics (even a few women), but he'll never be invited back into the mainstream of the industry drawing women like he does.
The bulk of male comic readers are a slightly lascivious but ultimately principled lot, and they won't tolerate treatment of classic female characters that truly denegrates them. Based on all the evidence I've given above, Wonder Woman's costume doesn't even come close to fitting that description. That doesn't negate the fact that some part of Wonder Woman is patterned after a particular type of male fantasy: the powerful, commanding female presence who tears asunder any and all opposition, male or otherwise, yet remains beautiful, voluptuous and very much feminine. My immediate response to those who disdainfully call attention to this fact is: how could such a fantasy in any way be harmful to women?
When it comes to the expression of sexual fantasy, America remains the most conservative civilized nation in the world. We quietly bottle up our ids in the name of political correctness or religion while we secretly spend tens of billions of dollars a year on an exploitive pornography industry. Fundamentalists shake their heads at porn and prostitution statistics, all the while ignoring the possibility that our visceral private behavior may be the direct result of the stifling environment they themselves have created. As someone who is an avid and unapologetic fan of pin-up and cheesecake art, my position has always been the same: let men have their fantasies. Let women have their fantasies (Twilight anyone?). Don't try to equalize the sexes by making us all equally asexual.
If Wonder Woman is a fantasy for her male readers, that in no way cancels out her status as a feminist icon or role model for girls. The two identities are not mutually exclusive. Wonder Woman means something different to everyone, which is yet another reason why the classic costume should remain. Changing it means shifting Diana in a particular direction, away from the universal appeal that she has to the many demographics of her fandom.
Perhaps one of the biggest differences between Wonder Woman and other female comic characters is that she does in fact reach outside of the comics community and appeal to girls and women in the wider American culture. Most ten-year-old girls can tell you who Wonder Woman is, but ask them to tell you about the Huntress, Black Canary or Ms. Marvel and you'll probably get a blank stare in return. The costume is the linchpin of that recognition factor. If you replace it with dime-a-dozen biker chic, you sever that connection to the mainstream.
Just as Steinem says, the idea that any specific style of costume or clothing is required to command respect for Diana as a woman is silly. None of these real-life Wonder Woman fans look like they are lacking in self-respect or confidence.
In the hands of the right artist, the costume can be everything it needs to be, for every kind of fan.
It is all these things because it is an extension of Diana's personality. If you take it away, you unavoidably mute a part of her. It should be celebrated that Wonder Woman, complete with the colorful, flashy and uninhibited classic costume, can simultaneously inspire confidence in girls, admiration in women and adoration in men. That's just what one would expect from a woman "beautiful as Aphrodite, wise as Athena, stronger than Hercules, and swifter than Mercury."
Wonder Woman Recommendations
2 comments:
Wonderful entry, as usual! You really are a great writer! I think this entry has given me a deeper appreciation for Wonder Woman <3
Spot on!
Wonder Woman is *not hard* to write well. Why is it that so many have written her poorly?
If DC had just given Gail Simone another year or so... a bunch of us only noticed that the comic had gotten good again within the last year. So DC removed her from it. Dumbasses.
Post a Comment