Wonder Woman's no longer good enough for SJW "feminists" at the UN
The United Nations is facing backlash after appointing the fictional superhero Wonder Woman as its new Honorary Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women and Girls.If that list includes embarrassments like Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel, no thank you. So what we have here is a case that's becoming routine among SJWs like these, where they cannot look beyond the body illustration and only concern themselves with physical image, not the character's ascribed personal motivations and devotions to justice.
A petition started by “concerned” U.N. staff members asks the intergovernmental organization to reconsider the choice, arguing that Wonder Woman’s “current iteration is that of a large breasted, white woman of impossible proportions, scantily clad in a shimmery, thigh-baring body suit with an American flag motif and knee high boots -– the epitome of a 'pin-up' girl.”
The petition adds that it was “disappointing” that the U.N. “was unable to find a real-life woman that would be able to champion the rights of ALL women on the issue of gender equality and the fight for their empowerment.”
Critics also say that they would be more than happy to come up with a list “of incredible extraordinary women that would formidably carry out this role.”
Actress Lynda Carter, known for playing WW in the live action TV show from the late 1970s, was at the conference along with Gal Gadot, and was later interviewed about this, and Newsbusters has a transcript showing that she gave a rebuttal:
“Because they are nit-picking on something that has nothing to do with anything. It is a super hero, number one! And that gender, it has nothing to do with anything. They want to pick on, you know — Wonder Woman is an idea. This is not the American flag. This is not — it's about fighting for freedom, and the fact that she happens to wear — it's not scantily clad, big-breasted white woman.”And:
“It’s okay to look female, you know. Give me a break!”Something is definitely wrong when they no longer have what it takes to credit the motivations guiding the creation. If this were a black superheroine in discussion, I'm sure they'd even tear down on that at this point. It's really no shock when you realize how far gone the UN is today, hardly at all caring about freedom so much as they do care about appeasing Islamofascism and invalidating Israel.
As if the UN staffers weren't bad enough, even Vogue's joined the bandwagon of defamatory detractors, along with Jill Lepore, the author of a history book about WW, who strongly hints with the following she's ungrateful to William Marston:
Jill Lepore, the author of The Secret History of Wonder Woman, was also puzzled as to why the U.N. picked Wonder Woman as their global symbol of female empowerment. “Wonder Woman’s physical form derives very much and very specifically from the soft porn of the 1930s and ’40s,” she told me by phone. “Her look is not a neutral look. It comes right out of Esquire magazine centerfolds. Esquire was Playboy before there was Playboy, and [Creator] William Moulton Marston wrote for Esquire and wrote for other men’s magazines.”Why do I get the feeling her claim some staffers quit is phony? Is it because she works for the New Yorker, which went downhill years ago? I've read a bit of her work, and while Marston's not without flaws, I get the feeling she wants only to tear him down. Even Gloria Steinem didn't make such a big deal when she put her on the cover of MS. in 1971. The real people who've turned WW into a controversial subject are fakes like Lepore.
Lepore went on to explain that, throughout Wonder Woman’s 75-year history, the character has always been divisive. After she was created by psychologist and writer Marston in 1941, several members of the DC Comics editorial advisory board quit in protest. “They didn’t understand why she dressed that way; why she had to have those breasts,” Lepore said. “She’s been controversial from the start, it’s not like the U.N. has made her into a controversial subject.”
And speaking of Steinem, I looked at the comments, and we have answers like:
I'd like to hear Gloria Steinem's take on this. It's really disappointing that Wonder Woman's significance in the advancement of women's empowerment has been lost so that articles like this get written, with feminists turning their backs on their allies and fighting a battle against one of their most potent images.That's exactly what we're seeing today. A rejection of fictional figures to admire, along with beauty, which is not a contradiction of empowerment. Another one says:
I couldn't agree more. Added to that the hypocrisy and body shaming of women (whether fictional or not, these women are more focused on WW breast size and what she wears than what she stands for and says), claims that an attractive woman can't and ought not be inspiring to little girls and the amazing lack of research and pure ignorance being spread about this inspiring character is beyond me.I think the reaction by the SJWs, at the UN and elsewhere proves: they never liked WW's creation to start with, and consider Marston an abomination for ever dreaming up the idea. Besides, Esquire's always been pretty tame compared to Playboy, which stopped running nude centerfolds a year ago anyway, so I don't know why losers like Lepore want to use that as a defense for their pathetic standings.
Its just remarkable to me that we are having this discussion about WW of all figures. Just after loads of teenage boys started body shaming Gal Gadot, for not having big enough tits to play the character, now "feminists" are turning around and doing the exact same thing. Its quite frankly disgusting, it has no merit, and they should really start thinking more intelligently.
I mean ww wears the uniform when in battle, in her normal situations she wears civilian clothes. The same way that Gymnasts or dancers or fighters may where clothes that allow them to move around more.
Sure some artists have hyper-sexualized WW, but most of the time the fans have responded by demanding she not be drawn like that, bc her fans respect her message and don't want her depicted in that way.
I do think it's a shame that save for Lynda Carter, none of the other women connected with WW's marketing seemed to have a reaction. In Diane Nelson's case, it could be she's reluctant because it could go against the PC direction the company she's running has taken with the comics of recent. Simply put, they've made it difficult to defend the creation in their care, all because SJW pandering is just oh-so important now.
There is a bit of an irony in this: if the UN's become so bad, then they don't deserve WW as a mascot to represent an inspiration for girls, because all their bad acts drown out the ability to be convincing.