UN Ambassador Wonder Woman
I was startled by the part where Suzanne Moore said Wonder Woman has been named a UN ambassador so I followed her link.
“This is the most fun the UN has had, I’m pretty sure right?” Diane Nelson, president of DC Entertainment said at a ceremony appointing Wonder Woman as the United Nations’ honorary ambassador for the empowerment of women and girls. The ceremony was meant to honor the fight for gender equality and the 75th anniversary of the character.
Pause to stare in amazement.
How insulting is that? What, because the empowerment of women and girls is so trivial and such a joke that a comic book character might as well be ambassador for it?
Also…
Not really about empowerment, or women and girls? Sexual fantasy rather than empowerment? The male gaze as opposed to the empowered woman or girl? Hello? Can anyone hear me?
t was announced that Wonder Woman would become an honorary ambassador earlier this month, in support of the UN’s sustainable development goal number five – “to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls”. The sustainable development goals were adopted by the UN in 2015 and hope to fulfill their agenda by 2030.
The news was met with both praise and criticism, and a petition was created by “Concerned United Nations staff members” asking the UN secretary general to reconsider. It mentioned concerns over her “overtly sexualized image” that is not “culturally encompassing or sensitive”.
And it’s also not about empowerment. It’s about the passive, powerless non-action of being looked at. It’s about being so unreal that only a comic can represent you.
Protesters entered the chamber at the start of the event, and stood with their backs turned and their fists raised. They walked out of the event about halfway through, but three women stood outside for a few minutes to speak about their actions.
Though they didn’t intend to speak about their protest to the media, one, who was asked if the Guardian could mention her remarks anonymously, said she wished a real person had been chosen for the role of ambassador.
“For something that is this important, you need a woman or a man who can speak, somebody who can travel, somebody who can champion these rights, somebody who is able to have an opinion, somebody that can be interviewed, somebody that can stand up in front of 192 member states and say this is what we would like you to do,” she said.
In other words an actual female human being, not a two-dimensional stylized drawing.
Also, it’s a commercial product. The UN presumably wouldn’t make a Mercedes SUV or Blue Goose Vodka an ambassador, so why make a comic book character one?
The ceremony on Friday featured famous guests, actors Lynda Carter and Gal Gadot who have both brought the character to life on screen, Patty Jenkins, the director of the forthcoming Wonder Woman film, and Diane Nelson, president of DC Entertainment, which owns the character. The audience was full of Girl Scouts and young women and men, all in Wonder Woman T-shirts given out at the event. Jim Lee, co-publisher of DC Comics, and Phil Jimenez, a comic artist who has drawn Wonder Woman, were also there.
Cristina Gallach, UN under secretary general for communications and public information, attended on behalf of the secretary general, Ban Ki-moon. She seemed to explain the choice of Wonder Woman in her remarks. “I don’t need to tell you Wonder Woman is an icon,” she said. “She has been known for justice, peace and equality and we are very pleased that this character will help us reach new audiences with essential messages about empowerment and equality.”
Nelson, who spoke next, commemorated the character’s long history in the DC Comics universe. Wonder Woman made her first appearance in All-Star Comics #8 back in 1941. The character soon got her own series and has been constantly transformed during her long history, with her origin story and costume specifics tweaked over the years.
As part of the yearlong campaign, DC Comics is developing a Wonder Woman comic that “tells the story of empowerment, peace, justice and equality” that will be available worldwide and in multiple languages, Nelson said.
Of course it is. How kind of the UN to give it such an advertising boost. Not so kind to women and girls though.
Did they say Linda Carter was available?
They said Lynda Carter was at the ceremony.
Sorry Ophelia, didn’t hear a thing you said until I stopped looking at WW’s breasts.
[don’t need ‘joke’ disclaimer do I?]
I don’t know guys – I think it’s fair to say that the ambassador should be a flesh and blood, living woman who can advocate to message, but I think the criticisms of Wonder Woman’s character are pretty shallow. While I know a lot of people get testy about the outfit, I have personally never really found it impacted on my seeing her as an awesome and incredible fictional role model. She was created by a husband and wife team, and they were greatly inspired by early feminists, including Margaret Sanger.
As a fictional character, she was tough, smart, resilient and powerful – everything I wanted to be as a girl growing up – I never even noticed the outfit. While I know that many of your commenters on this site find feminized fashion to be oppressive and fetishized, like high heels, for someone like me – I happen to love them. I don’t feel crippled or diminished by them at all and Wonder Woman was a great character for me.
Anyway, I hope you don’t think I’m trolling or out of line saying this. I agree that this was a bum decision on the part of the UN – there are plenty of living women they could have picked for this – but I think it’s a bit harsh to dismiss Wonder Women as a male sexual fantasy and object. She was always more than that to me and lots of other women. We are all different in our tastes, and I suppose I’m uncomfortable with the sense that feminism is being policed.
Anyway, just my thoughts – not trying to offend or step on anyone’s toes.
Elsa, I think Wonder Woman works for empowerment for girls in America, where there are fewer barriers to full participation in society.
However, international movements for the empowerment of women often have more to do with helping women start their own microbusinesses, raising the age of marriage, helping girls get to school (often overcoming taboos about menstruation), and not having all their time spent on chores like hauling water. I can’t see a fantasy of punching men in the face being helpful.
DC isn’t a good choice for female empowerment; they’re pretty upfront about their rampant misogyny. Marvel’s done better in recent years.
Hi Samantha Vimes – I completely agree – which is why I think it was a mistake for the UN to choose a fictional character, when any ambassador for female empowerment should be able to speak and address real issues effecting women’s lives. There are any number of wonderful women who could do this job creditably, it’s kind of insulting to say “the only one we could think of isn’t real”, so I get that anger.
My point was more, criticize that dumb decision by all means, but don’t write off what the character represents to some women in the West. Like I said – we all have different tastes and it’s great if there is diversity of representations to appeal to everyone.
Personally, as an Australian, I’d be delighted if Marvrl and DC could make comic characters that weren’t so obviously American (complete with Stars and Stripes on their uniforms), but then I remind myself that they are both for-profit companies. If they happen to stumble upon positive representations of women, I know it was an accident but I can still enjoy it. :)
Elsa @ 4 –
Why? Are you claiming that she’s not sexualized? If so, then why is she drawn that way? Why the bustier, the underpants, the billowing hair, the tiny waist, the lipstick, the earrings?
Or is your argument just that you never saw her that way? If so, how do you get from there to the claim that it’s “policing feminism” to say that she’s a sexual fantasy?
#4 Elsa, you write:
So … you’re one person. We’re criticizing a decision that affects women as a class. Do you actually not understand that?
Says the person who’s doing just that. From a position of total ignorance of class analysis. OK.
@Cressida
Elsa agrees with you about that decision. Her disagreement is about the value of Wonder Woman as a comic icon.
That shouldn’t be difficult to understand.
She looks sexy, in the reflexive way most comic book characters, and especially the female ones, do. Is she a sexual fantasy for males? I doubt it. In any case, there’s a lot more to the character than that.
Jill Lepore’s The Secret History of Wonder Woman is a great read, one which goes into detail about feminisim from the turn of the last century through the hey day of WW comics, and beyond. Wonder Woman’s history is indeed closely bound up (that’s an inside pun) with feminism.
Her creator was indeed a feminist, and one of his partners was Margaret Sanger’s niece. He was also a kinky polyamorist, a psychologist, and a bit of a con man.
Still a ridiculous choice for a “UN Ambassador.” Sounds like a marketing gimmick. Great way to assure the world the UN is serious about the rights of women and girls.
What a completely daft decision. Instead of the Americanised cardboard fantasy of an ‘Amazon’, with naturally, super powers, the UN should have taken inspiration from the real Amazons. They were, as far as historians can determine, equal to men in their respective societies.They dressed the same as men, fought in wars and generally frightened and fascinated the Greeks who had a rather ‘Islamic’ attitude to women.
#10 Lady Mondegreen, fine, my wording was imprecise. I wasn’t thinking of the decision to appoint Wonder Woman ambassador so much as the decision’s obvious conflation of “empowerment” with being sexualized and gazed at (as Ophelia pointed out).
The rest of my point stands. How much an individual woman loves Wonder Woman is not relevant here.
Lady M @ 11 – You quoted my question but didn’t answer it. I don’t think I get your point.
Lady M @ 10 & 11 – thanks for those comments, and you nicely summarized where I’m coming from.
Ophelia @ 8 – I honestly hope you don’t find this disrespectful, because I do appreciate and value your work and opinions on many things. Re my feeling that the dismissal of Wonder Woman as a sexualized subject of ‘male gaze’ being uncomfortably close to policing feminism, I suppose it’s that I think that you are looking at the artistic representation of the character’s appearance only, without giving consideration to the depth of the character and what she does and respresents in her fictional universe. Forgive me, but it seems a fairly shallow critique.
I worry that many feminists would dismiss me as a ‘victim of the patriarchy’ because I’m a young woman who happens to enjoy high heels, makeup, jewelry and pretty dresses. I am more than the sum of my appearance and I guess I don’t like the sense that I could be reduced in such a way. I kind of feel like that’s what’s been done here, with Wonder Woman – who, in universe is a strong, brace and smart woman.
I hope that kind of answers your question about why I feel like this is close to policing feminism.
Apologies to everyone else though – didn’t mean to derail to conversation about idiocy at the UN.
Elsa – I don’t categorize things as disrespectful towards me; that would be terribly pompous.
I pointed out the obvious sexualization of Wonder Woman because the UN seems to have ignored it. I nowhere said that’s all there is to her, but it is a very conspicuous and obvious aspect of her.
Saying that is critical of the choice of Wonder Woman as a UN ambassador, but I still don’t see why you call that policing feminism. The UN isn’t feminism, and my disagreement with something it does isn’t policing.
As Cressida pointed out @ 9, you’re making the issue of sexualized clothing personal to you when the issue is the effects on women as a class.
Ophelia @ 16 – okay, this is probably the last time I’ll try and explain why this bothered me, since I’m clearly not doing a good job of it.
In your original post, much of your criticism of the choice of Wonder Woman, leaving aside her fictional nature, was how she looks. I suppose it bothers me that you and Cressida assume there is an ‘allowable’ look for female empowerment.
You also assume, with no evidence, that Wonder Woman was selected because of how she looks. My point has been that, regardless of your views on her, as a character, Wonder Woman was an icon of female power. She was the only female hero in comics that saved herself – reversing the idiotic “damsels in distress” trope from comics. And that isn’t just my opinion – it is the opinion of lots of female readers of comics – and yes -we exist.
I appreciate that you think that ‘feminized’ appearance and dress is an issue affecting all women – and it is. If a woman wants to wear jeans, baggy shirts and hiking boots, more power to her. I’m certainly not going to tell her no.
What I don’t like is the implicit message that a woman who enjoys feminized fashion choices can’t be empowered, or a feminist role model. That’s what I mean by ‘policing’ feminism. I’m not trying to personalize it – I’m saying that the shallow critique of Wonder Woman’s appearance says “a feminist can’t look like this”, which I find a bit mean and limiting. And for the record, no – I’m not one of those women who claims that all choices are feminist, but I think you didn’t go more than skin deep on this particular critique.
Okay – I’m done now. Clearly I can’t convince you, but I’m just saying that I thought your criticism on this was a bit off. Still, we are all entitled to our own opinions, and I appreciate that I was able to have my say and mostly everyone was polite in responding (Cressida was kind of rude in that first post – calling me ignorant because you disagree doesn’t a rational argument make) – thanks :)
Lady M @ 11 – You quoted my question but didn’t answer it. I don’t think I get your point.
You’re right. I think my only poow I’m not sure why I quoted that question in particular. I thinLaziness, maybe. I think my only point was tha
Oh jeez. I’m sorry. It’s so EASY to hit that damn “post” button by mistake on this “Smart” phone. As I said, distracted today!
Anyway–yeah, I didn’t, and that was a weird choice of quotes on my part. My only point was that I think calling WW a “sexual fantasy” is inaccurate (although I think I know what you meant.) She’s idealized and stylized in the way people in comics are. There’s room for criticism there, but she’s not meant to be wanked over.
I’m going to jump back into this conversation on the basis that having made a cheap joke about breasts at the beginning I have a stake in this [crickets]. As a teenage boy growing up seeing the TV version of wonder woman (not the printed cartoon), I wouldn’t describe her as a sexual fantasy. But neither did I or my boyhood friends and associates take note of her state of relative empowerment either frankly. She was a tall, athletic and good looking woman showing a lot of skin. It’s not like we rushed home to watch the show, but we certainly didn’t turn it off in disgust either. Frankly I’ve never seriously thought of WW as empowered and it’s been interesting reading that analysis.
Looking at the cartoon above (remember I never actually read or saw those as a youth) I see, well, a tall, athletic and good looking woman showing a lot of skin. The pose could just as easily be a frozen moment in dance as kicking ass while defending herself others. She isn’t dressed for practical purpose (you know, kicking ass), but instead in a manner that is designed to exploit her beauty. And she is beautiful. Classically American Beauty Queen beautiful in fact. Right down to the flat, emotionless open mouthed slight smile without a wrinkle, furrow or grimace anywhere on her face to betray an iota of emotion or effort related to whatever she’s doing.
In short, she doesn’t represent female empowerment or the message that ‘girls can do anything’. She’s not average, normal or even upper quartile. She’s exceptional. And, as everybody ‘knows’ the exception does not prove the rule. Even if as a boy I had considered the subtext message that she represented female empowerment, the overriding cultural message would be “well that’s OK, she’s WW, not just any woman”.
In short Elsa and LM, I see your point of view, but from my perspective it doesn’t resonate. I think the UN has made a weird choice.
Rob
And Superman, Batman, Iron Man, etc., are just schlubs. Regular joes.
Do little boys find comic book heroes “empowering”? [I hate that word.] Consciously, probably not.
But I think it must be a good thing for kids to have a whole bunch of different possible role models to choose from. When all the female characters you see are being saved by male characters, and you’re a little girl, well, your imaginative universe is just that little bit stifled. It takes that much more work to imagine yourself, or someone like you, into a position of strength and heroism.
Is the character a perfect role model? Don’t be silly.
But for many years she was one of very few in that particular niche. The action adventure hero niche.
BTW, I don’t know if Elsa was referring to the TV show. I know I wasn’t. I didn’t watch the show. All I know of WW is her history, and it’s her origins in the 1940s that interest me most. (I do know of women who loved the show, though.) WW, like all comic book heroes, has had multiple incarnations.
And a bad one. Nobody’s disputing that.
Elsa @ 17
The issue isn’t how Wonder Woman looks, it’s how the makers chose to present her. I object to the message that presentation sends.
No, I don’t “assume there is an ‘allowable’ look for female empowerment.” Don’t put words in my mouth, and please don’t rewrite what I say to make it look stupider.
No, I don’t. Not at all. I didn’t say that (speaking of “no evidence”). Try to read more carefully, even when you’re annoyed.
I didn’t say she wasn’t, and that’s an awfully bizarre way of putting it – “regardless of your views on her” – you seem to resent my daring to be critical of the UN’s choice of her at all. Of course my views on her don’t change reality, but I never said they did. I have opinions about a lot of things that won’t change because of my opinions. It looks a little anti-intellectual to bother pointing that out. It’s like saying “sexism and racism will always exist, regardless of your views on them!”
But you’re the only person who has used that word on this thread. Again, you’re putting words in my mouth. Please stop doing that.
But there is no such implicit message. That’s not what I was saying. This isn’t about Wonder Woman’s fashion choices, it’s about the UN’s choice of Wonder Woman. I don’t think that has anything to do with “policing feminism.”
But, to repeat, I didn’t say that, and that’s not what my critique said. I won’t dispute the “shallow” part though. No doubt it is shallow; nobody’s perfect. I will however note that you called it shallow three times, while objecting to Cressida’s being “kind of rude.” You’ve been a little bit rude yourself, in a passive-aggressive sort of way.
Duly noted.
I think there’s a disconnect between those who are interested fans of comic book characters and the wider perceptions of the rest of the world. This is not a criticism of being a comic book fan, just a request to step back and look at it from a different way.
These are special pleading:
-Wonder Woman was created by feminists
-Wonder Woman was envisioned to be much more than X, Y, Z
-Fans of the history of Wonder Woman know X, Y, Z, so you should take that into account
Respectfully, no. Most of the world is not an interested Wonder Woman fan, and they’re not obliged to be. And it’s not required to take the interested-insider point of view. How the majority of the public sees Wonder Woman, a comic book character, is actually operative. We all understand this when we’re looking at something that’s not our personal favorite, but that a bunch of fans are upset about because we don’t share their interest.
What matters in political questions like this isn’t what fans think. It’s how the action/character is read by the political public—*everyone, in the aggregate*. Again, you know this is true, even though WW may be a personal favorite of yours.
To the rest of the world who shares the view Ophelia expressed, this is how WW reads:
-Sexualized and glamourized
-Mostly for looking at if you like curvaceous women
You can get upset about that, but it’s pointless. We’re not foolish, misguided, or wrong. So can we please stop having to coddle comic book afficionados’ sensibilities before we’re allowed to say it’s insulting that the UN chose a bodysuit wearing Glamour Girl fictional character as a women’s ambassador? I sure fucking hope so because it’s tedious as hell.
Doubting that Wonder Woman is a sexual fantasy for males is an ignorant doubt.
There are Wonder Woman hypersexualized costumes done by Fredricks of Hollywood pretty frequently.
There were years where Wonder Woman was written by a bondage fetishist who made it so that if WOnder Woman was tied up by a man, she’d lose her super-strength (just so she couldn’t break free, she got it back after being untied for whatever reason) or some goofy thing like that.
Or listen to guys of the right age talk about how Lynda Carter was such a turn on for them.
(Which, since things seem to be getting twisted in this conversation, I should clarify does NOT mean that she is JUST a male fantasy. Nor is she the fantasy of all males. Etc. Etc. It’s just that there are very clear pieces of evidence that say that men have had sexual thoughts about her, and it’s odd that anyone thinks that is unlikely.)
Hey, I *never* said I thought it was unlikely that men have had sexual thoughts about her.
Men have had sexual thoughts about My Little Pony.
Ophelia @ 22 – I really intended to let this drop but I feel like I have to respond because you seem to have misunderstood my meaning and intent. I was not for a second trying to call you shallow or anything like it. My comment was aimed at the content of you argument, and I intentionally was trying to avoid the suggestion that I thought you were shallow. That was why I found Cressida’s comment rude – it was directed at calling me ignorant and not at the substance of my argument.
Re what I felt your comments about WW’s look (and more broadly your past comments on feminized fashion) I think you do subconsciously send a bit of a message that it is demeaning to look this way. I’m willing to admit that this may be an entirely personal reading of mine, and in no way intended by you, but it is honestly the message I sometimes get from your posts. I hope you don’t think I’m trolling or anything – I’m just providing my honest opinion and I don’t take offense because I’m certain that it’s not malign.
As a completely unrelated aside to those who think that her outfit is evidence of a sexualized representation, I’d ask you to consider the wardrobe of comparable male superheroes like Super Man. Okay he exposes less skin (no thighs or shoulders), but could you honestly call his outfit modest? It’s a skin tight catsuit. Even if WW had been covered from wrist to ankle, would her outfit have left anything to the imagination? As far as I’m concerned, it’s just the nature of comic book art.
Also, for those people saying that the tv show proves she’s sexualized because men liked it – I never watched it. I’m thirty – I’m too young to have seen it. As Lady Mondegreen previously noted, I like the origin and intent of the creation of Wonder Woman. I’m happy to concede that not all representations of her character have been consistent with the original creation, but I draw a line between new artist representations and what she was created and designed to be. In her original comic form, she was marvelous.
Lady Mondegreen @ 26 – I completely agree ;)
Josh Spokes @ 23 – I never said the UN wasn’t dumb for picking a fictional character, and I don’t really care if you share my interests of not. I suspect that beyond comic aficionados, most people don’t give much thought to Wonder Woman at all, but even among my friends who have no interest in comics, she is a recognizable character of strength and power equal to Super Man, not just “sexualized and glamourized” or “mostly for looking at if you like curvaceous women”. I appreciate that your view, but you are also extrapolating out to the world world with your view. Also, my point from the start has been that the UN was dumb to pick a fictional character, but that dismissing Wonder Woman as a sexual object undermines her character’s history and impact on many young women in the West who looked at her comics as a chance to see themselves as the hero.
Phew – okay. I’m tapped out. I’m reminded of why I don’t usually comment anywhere. This is exhausting. Thank you all for taking the time to consider my opinion, and thank you for sharing your with me.
@ 27 Elsa
Don’t take it personally. There’s a lot of defensiveness here for historical reasons. I appreciated your comments.
Elsa, if you object to people observing that you’re ignorant about feminism, maybe stop demonstrating it every time you open your mouth. good lord.
Sexy clothing norms and expectations are Bad For Women.* Do you honestly expect feminists to stop pointing this out just because it gives Elsa a case of the sadz because Elsa likes to wear sexy clothes? Are you truly that egocentric?
*I’m trying to use short words here.
Cressida @ 28 – I love that someone points out that you were rude and failed to actually put forth an argument and your response is to double down on being rude and horrible.
The world is more complicated that black and white/good and bad. In this conversation it is you, and not me that has demonstrated a penchant for egocentrism. Also, thank you for proving my point about some feminists feeling a need to police women and feminism. You just said, in as many words that I can’t be a feminist because I like dresses and high heels. You also explicitly call me dumb which is charming of you.
Honestly, if you’d like to have an argument, I’m happy to do so, but calling me names just reflects on your poverty of thought, notmine.
The funniest part of this entire exchange is how you’re so desperate to be acknowledged as a feminist.
Totally off-topic, I’ve heard Islamists like to declare other Muslims to not be true Muslims.
I’ve had a long day, followed by a couple of glasses of wine, so excuse typing and clarity of expression. Elsa, Cressida is being a bit short with you but I’m not going to criticise her for it. Sure, I can see your point, if I squint a bit. Women should be able to be sexy and feminine ad still be empowered. That would be great and maybe it actually happens in isolated pockets of space and time. Certainly not anywhere I’ve ever been present sadly.
Here’s a thought. Are there any fictional female characters that represent female empowerment and equality that are also average in looks and or intelligence and who do not end up victims? None spring to mind for me. Men get to be average, even below average, in looks, intelligence and likeability and still get to be portrayed and thought of as fully human. Women, not so much.
As a man I’m loath to place myself in the position of explaining such a basic tension in relation to feminism, but really, this is just way outside the bounds of appropriate.
Cressida @ 30 – I really um-ed and ah-ed about responding to you again. It feels like talking to a brick wall. Nevertheless I’m going in…
*deep breath* With your claim about my egocentrism I’m highly amused that you think I give a tinkers-toss about the opinion of someone as unreasonable as you. Everyone else here has engaged in a polite and civil manner and even though I’ve disagreed, I completely respect their opinions. Now, for the record, I don’t expect you to care about my opinion just as (and pay attention here) I don’t give a flying banana about yours. The only people whose opinion matters to me are my family, friends and colleagues. Anonymous ranters on the internet? Not so much.
Now – I feel like you have wasted enough of my time, so I will absolutely not bother responding to you further. My brother tells me that people like you are what drive people to embrace trolling and I don’t really want that for me, so I’m metaphorically washing my hands of you.
Rob @ 31 – your little thought experiment interested me, so I took some time to scan through my wide and varied collection of movies and DVDs (I like fantasy, drama, science fiction, horror and thrillers- sometimes action). It took a little while, but I’ll be honest – I couldn’t find any examples of stories where the female protagonist wasn’t either beautiful (subjective) or intelligent. But – and here’s the big one – I couldn’t find any examples in fiction where the man met that criteria either, always being subjectively good looking or intelligent. Frankly, that makes sense – if your going to watch a story about a character who is empowered (for want of a better word – I’m not overly keen on it as a label because I find it fairly spoungable), wouldn’t you naturally expect that character to be appealing and impressive in fictional worlds? In truth, humans- all humans – like attractive and smart people. That’s probably a biological drive.
With regard to female characters that are interesting and powerful while not being beautiful, I did find a few, including one of my absolute favorites from fiction – Adele DeWitt from Dollshouse. While I acknowledge that the overall plot is fairly controversial, I don’t think you could ask for a better representation of a woman. Neither morally black or white, she is cunning but deeply flawed. To me that makes her an excellent portrayal of a fully realized ‘human’ woman.
More broadly, I don’t know what kind of hell you live in to think that women can’t be sexy, feminine and still empowered and in control of their own lives. I live in a major Australian city. While I acknowledge that things for women could be better, they are generally very good and most women are happy. Most women I know and work with are highly educated, brilliant and in control of their lives. They don’t constantly think of themselves as victims or suffering. They pick their battles based on what matters to them – like ensure women are free to choose what job they want to pursue, have easy and cheap access to contraception and abortion, etc. the relative merits of looking “sexy and feminine” is and should be a personal choice, and I’ve never seen in my professional career (and I started working at 15) any woman penalized for not choosing a feminine presentation. For example, I’m the only woman in my team at work that wears makeup, and even then maybe once or twice a week. No one cares – so I’m not seeing you broader problem.
If I’ve misunderstood or you can provide more clarification on what you meant I happy to consider it.
Thanks for your input.
This has become ridiculous, but just a couple of points.
Elsa @ 27 –
You either missed or evaded my point – which you do a lot, frankly. This thread wouldn’t have become so ridiculous if you did a better job of replying to what is actually said rather than just writing free-form essays each time you reply. I didn’t say you called me shallow; I said you used the word three times, and that that betrays a fair bit of (passive-aggressive, i.e. veiled) rudeness, despite your claim that only Cressida has been rude.
I had just said that you are the only person talking about “feminized” fashion here. That’s not my word. I had just asked you to stop putting words in my mouth. I ask again: please stop putting words in my mouth.
You have great difficulty accepting that your interest in how you’re seen and how people feel about your look is irrelevant, Elsa. It’s teen aged behavior.
Ophelia @ 35 – I agree that this has gotten silly. With regard to your first point I’m not intentionally trying to evade your point, nor put words in your mouth. Re my commenting style, as I’ve mentioned, I don’t usually comment anywhere – partly because my job discourages it and partly because I don’t like social media and online communities. I find them frequently to be echo chambers of previously held thought (it why I left Freethought Blogs and returned to your blog – because I thought you valued different opinions being respectfully shared). Following this experience I’m doubtful I’ll ever comment here again. So – you are right – I probably do write essay like responses and not sharp witty jabs – I don’t normally do this at all.
Now – you clearly think my choice of language revealed ‘veiled’ rudeness. Fair enough if you feel that way, and if so I apologize as it wasn’t my intent. I draw a firm distinction between a criticism of a person and a criticism of an argument – with one being rude, and the other being a valid discussion. If you don’t agree – fine. I accept that.
Re your second point, I was commenting on how I interpreted your initial statements and that’s it. You described WW as an objectified character. In that sense, it must be either based on her wardrobe or figure. Given that she was created in the 1940s and all superhero characters of the age have idealized physiques (regardless of gender) I assumed (innocently) that your focus was on the outfit, and not the fact that a female character from another decade was drawn with boobs, a small waist and hips. I don’t personally take issue with her figure and many women have that shape totally naturally and it doesn’t make them objects – thus why I assumed the outfit was your issue. If it’s something I’ve missed, I’m happy if you can clarify what particularly concerns you.
As a final note – why did you moderate Silent Bob’s comments?
Josh Spokes @ 36 – I was genuinely interested by the point you first brought up, but now you too have reverted to name calling. Shame. I doubt I could convince anyone here of the irrelevance of their opinion of me (and with respect none of you know how I ‘look’), but it is no never mind to me either way. It’s not like you, or anyone else here is a friend so… *shrug* :)
Elsa – but I didn’t say this has gotten silly. I said it had become ridiculous. You keep attributing things to me that I didn’t say. It really helps to be accurate about that when disagreeing with people. That’s one of the advantages of written disagreements: the exact language is right there to see, so there’s no need to be approximate about it. I also didn’t say anything about sharp witty jabs. What I said was “This thread wouldn’t have become so ridiculous if you did a better job of replying to what is actually said rather than just writing free-form essays each time you reply.” Accuracy, you see; it helps. It’s difficult responding to you because you keep replying without responding to what was actually said.
Ok, you’re annoyed that I keep saying that, which is understandable, but look at it this way – it’s actually quite a useful habit to get into, responding accurately. It’s a transferable skill.
On to your second point – but, unfortunately, you did it again. “You described WW as an objectified character.” No, I didn’t. I really didn’t. Again, that’s not my word – you’re the only person who has used it on this thread. (Use CTRL + F if you doubt me.) So the rest of your second point isn’t really about what I said. I don’t know how to clarify any more than I already have.
What do you mean why did I moderate Silent Bob’s comments?
Ophelia @ 38 – okay you’re right. You personally didn’t call WW an objectified character – most of the other commenters did. So yes – I completely agree that I’ve in this case put words in your mouth. That wasn’t intentional. I do everything on my phone and after reading everything a couple of times I’m afraid I am probably getting muddled in who said what when I respond, so maybe it does come out a bit like word salad.
Having said that – your OP did refer to WW in the context of ‘sexual fantasy’ and ‘male-gaze’ so I think you are being a little disingenuous when you protest that I’m misreading your argument. While you never used the word objectified, can you not understand why I drew a logical line from the words you chose to that? (Still, I remain in agreement that a fictional character was an insulting choice for a UN ambassador addressing real world issues facing women).
Re. My query about Silentbob being moderated – I was confused because when I was responding last, I received email comments from Silentbob, but couldn’t see them in the thread – my screen must not have refreshed – apologies for the confusion.
I generally prefer communication being verbal, because when I write, I tend overthink and revising over and over to get message exactly right – something I haven’t done for the purpose of blog commenting (probably a mistake, but I didn’t think everyone would be so narky). I actually do write a lot in my profession and I’m apparently (so supervisors tell me) highly accurate and succinct but as I said, I’ve probably been pretty slipshod here thinking it was more relaxed. I freely admit that is my error.
As an aside – ‘silly’ and ‘ridiculous’ in common Australian vernacular are interchangeable terms – I wasn’t trying to misquote you – more trying to express my dismay at the swirling vortex of entropy that this comment thread has unintentionally become. Also, I’d point out that if I’m responsible for not replying to what others have said accurately, it seems that is a plague infecting your whole comment thread since many people didn’t reply to my points, instead choosing to call me egocentric and immature for not agreeing with their opinion.
Anyway, no harm is done by all this I hope. At the end of the day, I’m left wondering if the US is more of a gendered hellhole than Australia… perhaps part of the general angst felt by some people here is driven by exposure to a very different cultural tapestry than I’ve experienced. Just a thought.
Elsa – No, as I said, you’re the only person who used the word “objectified” on this thread. (Fun fact: nobody at all used “objectify.”)
I don’t think I said you were misreading my argument. You’re right that what I’ve said is consistent with talking about objectification, and maybe I’m too anal about verbal accuracy…but then again maybe not, because precision does help to zero in on what the real disagreements are.
Oh, you’re doing this on your phone – that explains it. That’s why I prefer a laptop for this kind of thing! It’s easier to be accurate.
About Silent Bob – I do moderate his comments in the sense of holding them for approval. (I don’t moderate them in the sense of rewriting them.)
I think it is pretty relaxed here, generally speaking, but there are probably also some implicit norms about argumentation.
I’m sorry things got heated, but Cressida was actually making a serious point, however waspishly she made it. It is a major difference between liberal feminism and radical feminism: liberal feminism makes such a fetish of choice that it overlooks the way individual choices can be bad for women as a whole.
Maybe you’re right and the US is more of a gendered hellhole than Australia…or maybe Australia is less feminist than the US. Not everyone commenting is USian though – two I know for sure are in your part of the world.
Nonsense, Elsa, you weren’t genuinely interested in anything but how Elsa’s feels about Elsa’s Clothes and Sexy Presentation are very very very very important. Like a teenager.
Ophelia @ 40 – personally I think it’s a little coy to try and claim that my failure to use the exact terms you did when I clearly understood you argument as being consistent with the term I rephrased as made my discussion ridiculous. I’m afraid I think that’s unfairly splitting hairs but, it’s fine and done now.
I agree that liberal feminism has many problems and I generally reject its positions on just about everything, including recent trends to whitewash women out of women’s issues. However, I think radical feminism tends to want to be so judgemental of choices women make that it puts the overwhelming majority of women off. I don’t see why there can’t be a middle ground where one could acknowledge that not every choice made by a woman is feminist, but individual women can still support and work for positive outcomes for women. My sense in this thread was that some people hear were so convinced that their view is the only one that they’d rather keep the ‘club’ small and reject most women. Again – just a personal view.
For the record, this is not a relaxed comment environment and as your devotees have made clear their views that they believe I have nothing at all to possibly contribute, I won’t bother responding or commenting or your site again. It’s not about my feelings or vanity (however much Josh Spokes seems to think it is), rather a dislike of wasting my time on trying to converse with people with such closed minds.
Please note Ophelia that I do not include you in that judgement – nor the handful of people who have tried to engage with my concern rationally (namely Lady Mondegreen and Silentbob).
Gosh Elsa where to start? Your comment at 42 is (largely) a mix of projection and passive aggressive insults to people who I don’t feel deserve that. I also feel personally insulted given that by not including me in the list of people who ‘rationally’ engaged with you, you imply that my engagement was irrational or at least non-rational. That seems counter to your closing @34.
This Blog does not generally have a relaxed environment. While there is a bit a light hearted banter from time to time, the nature of the topics and the expectation that ideas are tested can and does lead to strong views being expressed. I also would not describe anyone on this site as a devotee of Ophelia, nor I think would she want that. For you to throw that in is, again, just more passive aggressive flouncing that feels much like offended feelings and vanity frankly. I also note that every time a commentator has pushed back hard at your expressed view, you have immediately washed your hands of dealing with them (but have then come back to snipe anyway). Talk about close minded!
To return to your reply to me @34. I’m from NZ, culturally similar to Australia although certainly not identical. I’ve spent time in Sydney and other Australian cities for both work and holiday and, like many NZ’ers, have family and friends who reside permanently in Australia, some as citizens. Yeah, women have it pretty good in both countries, compared to say Saudi Arabia (almost joking). Just because some (or even many) women have reached a point of technical equality and have nominal control of their own affairs and have settled in that comfort zone hardly means that the struggle is over and we can all relax. Australia (and NZ) are still patriarchal societies where everyday sexism and outright misogyny are alive and well. The results of that are evident both in the extensive statistics collected by both countries governments and also by wandering into any down-town area on a Saturday night and observing social interactions.
As a last attempt for constructive discussion. Have you never noted the overwhelming number of males on TV (both real life and fictional) who are average in looks? Sure, many of the leading males in fictional series from the 70’s and 80’s wouldn’t get past the casting call now, but still there is a clear disparity between what is expected and acceptable for both men and women.
Live long and prosper.
“Coy.” Me. I ask you.
Rob @ 43 – yes – I apologize for not naming everyone who was polite and rational in their comments (which does include you). I was in a bit of a rush and have difficulty typing on the bus (or reading – motion sickness) so agai. Not as careful as I should have been – the only commenters by that point I really remembered were Cressida, Josh Spokes and Ophelia. I sincerely apologize and you are right – I shouldn’t have lumped you together. I’d also point out that Cressida never tried to engage me rationally and I did try to respond to Josh Spokes and was willing to be convinced by him until he started calling me a narcissistic teenager.
Re Australia and NZ (which I’ve never personally been to. Europe and South America, but not across the Tasman (yet!). Anyway, I agree that Australia (and I’m willing to accept you perspective on NZ as fact) and NZ are not post-patriarchy nirvanas, but I suppose I don’t like the prevalent oppression/victim culture that pervades so much of feminism and the left now. I don’t personally see what is to be gained by viewing all women as oppressed. I prefer to think that women are powerful, have made huge gains and will eventually reach full cultural equality with perseverance. I don’t know that I’ve explained that very well but I hope it makes some sense to you. And yes – sexism is still around – even I’ve personally experienced it (although never at work), so I would never deny that it exists – I just don’t like the fact that it exists to rule of influence my decisions about how I live my own life. Doesn’t mean I can’t and won’t fight it.
I’ll honestly have to take your word on the appearance of men from 70s and 80s era tv shoes. I’m too young to have seen them beyond a few episodes of exceptions like The Saint or James Bond. As I said before, looks are fairly subjective – I’d argue that many male and female actors today are fairly ordinary looking but, I will absolutely agree that women on tv or movies have a much shorter ‘shelf life’, with careers for most female stars over by 40, whereas men continue to be cast as the appealing love interest of ingenue girls. That is absolutely sexist (and ageist). Also true of male news presenters and so forth – so abosolutely – I agree that their is bias and discrimination around permissible ‘looks’ for men and women on screen (even Trump and Clinton seem evidence of that disparity). I guess I just have more trouble drawing that line between attractiveness quality since I tend to think it’s fairly subjective. Still, you may be right about men in 70s and 80s shows being slapped hard with the ugly stick and being (objectively) unattractive. I’m willing to google the images and see what I find. :)
Oh my goodness – so many typos! Stupid phone keypad! Sorry Rob!
Elsa, I don’t quite know why you think you have an open invitation to derail this thread with all your thoughts on The State of Feminism, but for whatever reason you think that, allow me to correct you: you don’t. Also, as the host, I’m tired of your insults, and no, the tacked-on disavowals of an intention to insult don’t cancel them. Typing on your phone on the bus with motion sickness doesn’t help. In short, I’ve had enough of your long and not very coherent comments on this thread. Thank you for your service.
“sexism is still around – even I’ve personally experienced it (although never at work)”
Bless.
Wonder Woman has been removed from this honorary position.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/12/wonder-woman-un-ambassador-gender-equality
Good!
Bye Wonder Woman!