How about Pippi Longstocking?
Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini at Sister-hood on Wonder Woman and the UN.
For those of us who ever feel conflicted about the United Nations, the past month has been an exercise in managing absurd cognitive dissonance. First, on October 21 2016, the United Nations announced that the 1940s comic book heroine, Wonder Woman would be its new mascot for promoting the empowerment of women and girls. The news naturally sent serious women around the world into a collective swirl, and then a reach for their golden lassoes, to capture the attention of an institution that seems perpetually tone deaf on the issue of basic equality and respect for half the world’s population. It also prompted female staff at the UN to protest in silence, through literally turning their backs on the occasion. Then, on October 25th the UN Security Council held its annual open debate on the groundbreaking ‘Women, peace and security agenda’, now in its 16th year of existence – still full of promise, and yet barely realized.
So what’s going on?
The story so far: In the age of Trumpism, just weeks after women’s rights activists globally were disappointed to learn that a woman was not selected to head the UN, hard on the heels of a year when the outgoing UN Secretary General appointed men to 96% of the senior jobs in the system, some folks at the UN thought having Wonder Woman as the icon for gender equality for the global organization was a good idea. Not so much.
Here are a few reasons why not: First off, the UN is a post-war institution, dedicated to ending the scourge of war and, by extension, violence. It is an institution founded on diplomacy and the principle of negotiating differences, not vilification and use of force. Wonder Woman, on the other hand, was a product of the World War II propaganda of superheroes that fight ‘evil’, using violence in the name of ‘good’.
That’s a point I overlooked. Wonder Woman is a Trump-style “hero” – a bully. That too is not empowerment. The real heroes, Naraghi-Anderlini points out, are the ones brave enough to be non-violent.
We did not fight for women’s equal rights to fight, die and kill alongside men. We fought so that neither women nor men had to live through the horrors of war. We fought so that women peacemakers could have equal space with the militias and politicians at the tables where the future of peace and security in their countries is determined. We fought to end the wars that exist, and to prevent future wars. 9/11 changed the course of history, but the spirit and vision of 1325 shouldn’t get lost in the fog of perpetual war and hyper militarization.
So the choice of Wonder Woman kicking, punching and lassoing her opponents is downright offensive and simplistic.
Herein lies the irony: just ten days ago, Marvel comics unveiled a new digital comic with Syrian mothers as the story’s heroines. So we are living in an age where institutions dealing in fiction recognize and revere contemporary facts, but institutions dealing in reality are stuck in an imaginary past.
Second, if we need a mythical figure, how about Shehrzad of the 1001 Nights? She used her words, wit and imagination to save the lives of women and turn a despotic king into a compassionate wise ruler. She is recognized across many countries and cultures – still relevant across time, and far more representative of an iconic and emancipated woman than Wonder Woman. Or, as one long-time UN staffer suggested, if its fictional figures, why not Pippi Longstocking? She was strong, creative, and definitely no pin-up girl.
…
Others have already commented on the sartorial faux pas of selecting Wonder Woman. But there is a political and security dimension to this choice. Women are already fighting the backlash of conservative forces that believe their struggle for rights or voice in political spaces is a ‘western agenda’ designed to undermine their power structures. Having a female figure in a low-cut bustier/corset covered in the American flag is just adding ammunition. Don’t get me wrong; I loved the kitsch Lynda Carter TV shows and comic books too. But Wonder Woman is clearly the figment of some 1940s male comic strip illustrator’s imagination.
Other than that, great choice.
It’s a comic book character with all the standing in reality as Snoopy or Pogo (both of which I like).
The international body that is the UN couldn’t come up with its own cartoon character?
I think Hellboy would be more suitable.
You’ll find very many words about Wonder Woman’s feminist credentials. About as many as you probably expect were written by feminists.
The use of a fictional character for this role was a joke. Literally a joke: a clear message that the UN bosses think lip service is sufficient for the concerns of half the population and that an obscene 1940s caricature of feminism will quiet down the uppity women.
The rest of the baggage that comes with Wonder Woman might have been an afterthought, but I bet it’s especially satisfying to the geniuses who came up with the idea. She’s impossibly beautiful and sexy. She’s powerful but – phew – not as powerful as her male colleagues. She is a mouthpiece for numerous ‘feminist’ messages no feminist ever espoused. She’s frequently schooled by the likes of Superman and Batman when they consider her ‘feminism’ to be too ‘extreme’. She – according to the theme tune of the Linda Carter live action show is all the time “fighting for her rights in her satin tights”.
Wonder Woman is a badass character, sure. But mostly on the terms of other, considerably less female, characters. And writers. She has *permission* to be a badass, permission that’s often revoked when stern male characters disagree.