{"id":14039,"date":"2021-07-25T08:35:09","date_gmt":"2021-07-25T07:35:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.gfdesign.co.uk\/culture\/civilising-the-feminist-icon-wonder-woman-2017\/"},"modified":"2021-07-25T08:35:09","modified_gmt":"2021-07-25T07:35:09","slug":"civilising-the-feminist-icon-wonder-woman-2017","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.gfdesign.co.uk\/culture\/civilising-the-feminist-icon-wonder-woman-2017\/","title":{"rendered":"Civilising the feminist icon: Wonder Woman (2017)"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

Charlotte Dick<\/strong> criticises the 2017 film Wonder Woman, a troubling example of how ‘feminists’ are civilisng women, black and brown bodies to suit white, male fantasies<\/em><\/p>\n

Ravenously scanning streaming platforms, I spy Wonder Woman<\/em> (2017)\u00a0\u2013 brawny women demolishing men with golden whips, what\u2019s not to love? The film\u2019s prelude left me titillated and empathising with some critics’ desire to declare this \u201ca masterpiece of subversive feminism\u201d<\/a>. Then came the rest of the film, as did my visceral confusion. Where some see a “feminist hero\u201d<\/a>, I see a petulant protagonist \u2013 captured in pornographic cinematics and a patronising plot. It conjures the palatable feminist; vocal but not aggressive, sexy but modest, independent but mentored. Diana (Wonder Woman) is the \u2018right kind of feminist\u2019 because she is strong in a kind, nurturing way \u2013 What! I find this civilises, not embodies, our modern feminist icon.<\/p>\n

A fossilised model of womanhood<\/strong><\/p>\n

So here is my interpretation of the film.<\/a>Wonder Woman <\/em>manufactures a fossilised model of womanhood that civilises its hero within the concept of regression. Diana conforms to a bygone idea of femininity that situates women as a \u2018lack\u2019 of the perfect man<\/a>, less evolved in mind and body. This is clearest in comparison to her supposed male equal \u2018Superman\u2019 of whom she\u2019s a flawed reflection; less athletic, less astute, less gifted. It reaffirms old-fashioned norms that even the idealised woman is less than the idealised man, civilising her as inferior. \u00a0<\/p>\n

\"CD<\/p>\n

The supreme mythological hero \u2018Superman\u2019 draws a glorified muscular body with undeniable physical strength.<\/a> Snyder\u2019s contemporary version, \u2018Man of Steel\u2019, is a good example; Clark\u2019s bulging muscles, terrifying eight-pack and tree-trunk legs are the pinnacle of physical prowess.<\/p>\n

Conversely, Diana\u2019s \u2018athleticism\u2019 is barely visible in her slender form, little muscle and twiglet legs. Her superpowers are likewise unsophisticated: agility, speed and \u2018strength\u2019 \u2013 a pitiful contrast to Clark who\u2019s equipped with all the above plus super-hearing, super-breath, X-ray vision, flying and \u201cwidespread invulnerability to attack<\/a>\u201d. This makes Diana a clear repression of Superman, for her physicality is that of an unformed man yet she\u2019s celebrated as our strong heroine! Who would you pick to protect you? It\u2019s a distressing classification that the ideal, physically powerful woman cannot be as herculean as a man but must exist in his shadow; civilising women as second-class. \u00a0<\/p>\n

\"CD<\/p>\n

This continues into Diana\u2019s psychological portrayal. \u2018Superman\u2019 is a functional, experienced, hardened<\/a> hero whose numerous depictions include emotional intuition, career and battle success \u2013 each achieved independently. Diana feels like a cheapened version. Instead of experienced she never works alone, relying on collaboration from fellow Amazonians or her band-of-merry-men, and male mentors<\/a> to realise her full potential. Despite being a demi-god who speaks every language, she requires Steve (her love-interest) to coach her on basic human knowledge: social conduct, marriage and emotions. This is glaringly different to Superman\u2019s <\/a>dense knowledge and experience, civilising Diana with lesser intelligence. Again, she\u2019s not hardened like Superman but unable to have assertive confrontations, resorting to over-emotional frenzies calmed by Steve\u2019s \u2018wise <\/a>words\u2019<\/a>. This is strikingly reminiscent of ancient portrayals that in lacking a penis (women) develop mental defect(s) of hysteria<\/a> \u2013 carving them as direct reductions of men. Can this really be our feminist icon? I find her degraded to the position of colonial Other, a socially constructed, non-essentialized term that continues to be produced and reassigned<\/a>. This shifting category is applied to this white Hollywood character via her weak, passive and ignorant personality.<\/p>\n

The civilising project continues in Diana\u2019s hyper-feminisation and sexualisation also reminiscent of the female Other, who was similarly feminised and eroticised, yet redefined in this contemporary paradigm. So, despite the film\u2019s female direction, it\u2019s noticeably composed for the male spectator\u2019s fantasy suggesting an acutely internalised male gaze. A distinct example is the silencing of eroticism in favour of possessive pornographic tropes. Audre Lorde distinguishes eroticism as beyond sensuality, being \u201cthe nurturer of our deepest knowledge\u201d<\/a> and women\u2019s profound psychic \u201clife-force\u201d.<\/a> Pornography is a \u201cdirect denial of the power of the erotic\u201d<\/a> confining women to sensation without feeling. Wonder Woman<\/em> is firmly stuck in the latter. Not only was the superheroine originally created as a dominatrix, by a man with fondness for bondage<\/a>, but continues to be sexually objectified with little character-development. For example, her clueless demeanour is married with extensive beauty that dominates most interactions, men interjecting that she is the most beautiful woman they\u2019ve ever seen.<\/p>\n

\"CD<\/p>\n

Costume choices amplify this dialogue. Diana\u2019s model-like figure is accentuated in her metal bodice, thigh-high heels and letterbox skirt \u2013 <\/a>functional and professional, right? In the superhero context, costume is more than a disguise: \u201cfunction(ing) as a sign\u2026of character development\u201d<\/a> \u2013 but not only does this costume disguise little, it signifies that the main facet of her persona is sex appeal. Accompanied by her shallow sense of self this feminist icon is relegated to \u201can object of satisfaction\u201d,<\/a> divorced from the \u201cerotic charge\u201d<\/a> that could facilitate transcendence. How has the director been so obtuse? She has designed a film to satisfy the man inside her watching a woman<\/a> (Diana) and as such becomes her own voyeur<\/a>. She strips the \u2018feminist icon\u2019 of her power source and civilises her into a male fantasy.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"Picture9\"<\/p>\n

This extends into Diana\u2019s depiction as a \u2018feminist\u2019, which civilises her into the agreeable, happy feminist who smiles and is cheerful in her oppression<\/a>. Men desire a feminist who is not a \u201ckilljoy\u201d<\/a> but who can have polite conversations without getting wound up<\/a>, so as not to disturb their happy, but delusional, male fantasy<\/a>. Wonder Woman<\/em> constructs a feminist who is set in this male gaze, not angry, bitter or aggressive; the ideal feminist. Diana conforms to the typical superheroine whose sense of self is bound by love<\/a>, mentoring others in a passive form of kindness and compassion. Love is central to Diana\u2019s character, claiming \u201conly love can truly save the world\u201d<\/p>\n

Come on!<\/strong><\/p>\n

I mean come on! This is magnified by her motherly and nurturing temperament, particularly towards children. I don\u2019t deny the importance of love and compassion but making it the focal point of the ideal feminist denies women\u2019s right to be angry or aggrieved about their oppression. As Lorde states, anger is an effective tool \u201cloaded with information and energy\u201d,<\/a> a \u201cwell-stocked arsenal\u201d<\/a> that is an essential \u201csource of empowerment\u201d<\/a>. Wonder Woman<\/em> deflects this tool, resorting to unproductive patriarchal tropes of the \u201cfeminist killjoy\u201d.<\/a> This is once again a civilising act on feminism, authenticating and glorifying the male demand for a palatable feminist; demure, gentle and kind.<\/p>\n

\"CD<\/p>\n

But what could be a bigger expression of colonial civilisation than promoting a white, heterosexual, cisgender woman as the feminist hero<\/a>? This introduces an immediate racial hierarchy, imitating the imperial preferment of white women over \u2018concubines\u2019 in the colonies. Diana\u2019s whiteness is treated as a neutral space, \u201cso normal…so ordinary\u201d<\/a> that it\u2019s the ideal \u2018blank canvas\u2019 to transplant this feminist hero. In being praised as \u2018subversive feminism\u2019, the film screams that the modern female icon is race-free. This is not covert but overt racialisation. Its compounded by her cisgender, heterosexual, bourgeois identity rejecting other feminist experiences and denying a central pillar of modern feminism: intersectionality<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"CD<\/p>\n

Jenkins (director) and Gadot (Diana) have constructed a feminist hero in their own image the \u201cwhite, bourgeois feminist\u201d<\/a>, and in doing so violated what feminism means today and the individuals who\u2019ve fought for it. This racialisation is intensified by the film\u2019s portrayal of black women. The few women of colour in the Amazonian community are represented as speechless savages or servants \u2013 one as Diana\u2019s governess, the other a voiceless black woman beaten without evidence of pain. This is overt misogynoir, reproducing white supremacist tropes<\/a> of black women like the \u2018Mammy\u2019, who raises the \u2018master\u2019s\u2019 children,<\/a> and the \u2018Savage\u2019, who is less sensitive to pain<\/a>. These violently racialized depictions of black characters reproduce traumatic politics of slavery and its racialised power relations<\/a>. It authenticates a violent gaze that denies black women\u2019s experiences and voices in feminism and mimics colonial tropes that elevate white women and whiteness as the superior normal. It means Wonder Woman<\/em> is not just a civilising project of the modern feminist but ultimately oppresses the experiences of black and brown women.<\/p>\n

Perhaps you think this overly cynical? Maybe there is space to interpret this film differently, and that whilst problematic it\u2019s moving in the right direction. But what is this direction? Who is pointing us there? Are we going fast enough? For me, Wonder Woman<\/em> merely articulates everything that is wrong with mainstream feminism today. Women, especially black women, are continually gaslighted and civilised, not just by men but by other feminists about how to be the \u2018right kind of woman\u2019, the \u2018right kind of feminist\u2019 and whose experiences matter. This film embodies and brazenly champions such ideas to a new generation of feminists now created in this image. The fact Wonder Woman<\/em> was created by two \u201cfeminists\u201d, is widely appraised by \u201cfeminists\u201d and teaching future \u201cfeminists\u201d how to behave is severely uncomfortable. It speaks volumes about where politics is at today and exposes how women, black and brown bodies are continually civilised to suit white, male fantasies. \u00a0<\/p>\n

I dare you to convince me otherwise.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Charlotte Dick criticises the 2017 film Wonder Woman, a troubling example of how ‘feminists’ are civilisng women, black and brown bodies to suit white, male fantasies Ravenously…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":610,"featured_media":14029,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1664],"tags":[2476,2477],"class_list":["post-14039","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-films-2","tag-feminism","tag-sexism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.gfdesign.co.uk\/culture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14039","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.gfdesign.co.uk\/culture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.gfdesign.co.uk\/culture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.gfdesign.co.uk\/culture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/610"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.gfdesign.co.uk\/culture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14039"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.gfdesign.co.uk\/culture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14039\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.gfdesign.co.uk\/culture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/14029"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.gfdesign.co.uk\/culture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14039"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.gfdesign.co.uk\/culture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14039"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.gfdesign.co.uk\/culture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14039"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}