Diana as a Feminist Hero

I've said before that a superhero's costume is as important as their origin story and sets the tone for the whole series/run/storyline at hand. Many agree with this standing, as said here, the face of the hero doesn't matter as much as the clothes because "the costume becomes their identity." (WonderWomanForDC.com) This is the heart of why so many fanboys pitch a fit whenever, say, Bats' (er, Batman's) costume is a shade of black different. Wonder Woman hasn't been immune to such controversy in the past. In fact, it's even going on right now as a new television series about her is being developed and filmed. But what about changes to her costumes in her comic book incarnations? And what does this do to alter or effect the thoughts of those who see her as a feminist icon?

The most recent example is when J. Michael Straczynki changed her costume in 2010, in order to "toughen her up and give her a modern sensibility." (Knox) Many were up-in-arms (prior to it being changed back to the original), questioning the change and even wondering why feminist didn't see the change as a point in their favor. Beyond furthering the idea that all feminists see sexuality as inherently bad, it flat out misses the point. As Shelby Knox says, "Diana Prince was sexy not because of her bare legs and cleavage, but because her personhood wasn't defined by them and her powers not derived from fashioning herself for the male gaze." (Knox) It seems to give in to the notion that a women can't be powerful and sexy at once, despite having the best of intentions. As someone who consumes or is around a lot of "geek culture", such as comics and video games, I see a lot of unrealistic images of women presented within that subculture. Many are made with the sole intention of being sexually attractive and just eye-candy. Wonder Woman isn't one of them. Covering her up does nothing to change the new characters that are constantly made in skimpy outfits and with inhuman proportions. Again, the intentions are good, but the target was incorrect.

Another part of her mythology that is often misunderstood or oversimplified is the element of bondage. As I said before, many people play up the sexual aspect of this, which Marston didn't shy away from or ignore. However, the point and the purpose of it is much deeper than that. As can be seen in the origins of Marston's Amazons, the reason they wear the bracelets is as a constant reminder of the enslavement they endured at the hands of men. This, along with Wonder Woman losing her powers if bound by a man, is meant to symbolize oppression by patriarchy; "The ropes and chains are symbols of patriarchy and the drama us her ability to break the shackles of male domination they symbolize." (Crawford)

Changes to Wonder Woman's origin story have bothered fans and feminists alike. The most notable change being in 1968, when her origin story received a massive ouverhaul. She lost her superpowers, bracelets, plane, Amazonian history, and Lasso of Truth. In their place, she became human, began a clothing boutique, and gained a martial arts mentor, I Ching. Some saw this change as a good thing, because it made her powers more realistic and therefore attainable. That fact that she was taught by a man just reflected the real world, especially in regard to the male-dominated world of martial arts. As a letter sent to Ms magazine in September 1972 states, the other storyline seems to imply that "women are better off relying on luck or magic instead of seeking real training from a competant, albeit male instructor." (Plubell) Whereas the 1968 version shows that all women have the potential to become just like Diana.

Though this is quite an understandable and sound argument, there were still many people who were staunchly against the changes, including notable feminist Gloria Steinem. Many likened the Wonder Woman of this period to "a female James Bond, but without his sexual exploits. The double standard applied even to her." (Edgar) They felt that stripping her of her mythical background and increasing her aggression and violence showed that she was in the hands of people who didn't understand her as Marston had made her or intended her to be. The antithesis of all the male-lead violence in the comic book medium that would be a role model for young girls, saying, "Not even girls want to be girls so long as our feminine archetype lacks force, strength, and power... Women's strong qualities have become despised because of their weakness. The obvious remedy is to create a character with all the strength of Superman plus all the allure of a good and beautiful woman." (Crawford) And if Superman certainly wasn't a normal human being, why should Diana be? In the eyes of a great many, she shouldn't be and eventually her non-mythical center storyline was scrapped in order to reboot the mythical origins she began with. Though, as I've shown earlier, reinstating the mythical background doesn't necessarily mean a complete return to the ideals of Marston, as the 1987 origin was incredibly violent. It makes one wonder if and how his vision of her will ever return, but only time will tell.

Time will also tell if Wonder Woman will ever get the massive respect she deserves and that her equals, Batman and Superman, already receive. The sad truth is that no matter how many feminist hold her up there are even more people who dismiss her. "She's just a girl." They don't give her a second glance because her invisible plane or slightly cheesy TV show, but they don't realize just how much they're missing out on. Unlike so many female comic book characters, she wasn't made to be just eye-candy or the girlfriend. She was made to show girls what they could be and what they were and show both boys and girls the power that lies within all women. That just like the suffragettes before her, one need not resort to violence or evil to produce change, that persistance, logic, and love were some of the greatest weapons of all.