It’s the end of an era. At 69 years old, Wonder Woman has decided to put on some pants.
Actually, the new duds are not an act of self-determination by the woman (formerly) in red, white and blue. According to the New York Times, the new head writer of the series, J. Michael Straczynski, wanted to “toughen her up and give her a modern sensibility.”
This is modernity? Where are her red boots? What about modernization requires her trademark “W” emblem to fade into the background? How is covering her once rippling, now wimpy, muscles a nod to evolved images of womanhood?
I know what you’re thinking: Shouldn’t feminists be happy that Wonder Woman now looks more like a young woman freshly off a college campus, at once ready to go fight some bad guys in an alley or in a pay discrimination lawsuit? Haven’t we been fighting for women role models with more clothing as well as more substance? She couldn’t really fight evil in a bustier—is this not a feminist win?
No, not by a long shot. In fact, it feels like the sad loss of America’s first truly feminist comic book heroine.
This isn’t the first time DC Comics has tried to “modernize” the Wonder Woman character, which debuted in 1930 as the creation of psychologist William Marston. Marston, with the encouragement of his wife Elizabeth, designed her as a “new kind of superhero, one who would triumph not with fists or firepower, but with love.” Wonder Woman, her creator said, was “psychological propaganda for the new type of woman who should, I believe, rule the world.”
As such, Wonder Woman, alias Diana Prince, was introduced as a protégé of the classical goddesses and, like her male crime fighting counterparts, possessed a variety of powers and tools, including superhuman strength, agility and cunning, the ability to fly, bracelets that made her invincible and a “Truth Lasso” that barred those bound by it from uttering lies. Unlike her male counterparts, however, she sought to rid the world of evil by first employing logic and mutual human understanding before breaking out the fire power.
A generation of role-model starved women, finally presented with a truly powerful heroine, proved themselves a reliable comic book fan base—at the height of her early popularity, Wonder Woman had a readership of ten million, appeared in four comic books, and a daily newspaper comic strip, reported Philip Charles Crawford in School Library Journal.
Yet, social progress for women wasn’t correlated with the evolution of their superhero. In 1968, DC Comics debuted a “modern” version of Diana Prince who’d lost her goddess heritage and all her superhuman powers, gained a male mentor and his martial arts skills, and developed a propensity for the domestic arts. She also came equipped with a new “mod” costume: a pantsuit with no “W” emblem, no flags, and no invincible bracelet cuffs.
Feminist outrage at the devolution of their heroine was quick. A group of activists, led by Gloria Steinem, leaned on DC Comics to scrap the “new” Wonder Woman in favor of the more powerful original—and they won, convincing the company to restore Wonder Woman’s powers and history during the next version of the series. They understood that along with equal pay and childcare and the right to hold credit in their own name, young women need to be able to see themselves in strong pop culture role models in order to fashion themselves into the real life versions.
Here we go again, it seems. Wonder Woman donning what looks like skinny jeans is being spun as a direct result of the successes of the Women’s Liberation movement, a reaction to requests that female superheroes do a little less baring of buns and a lot more kicking them. Yet in stripping Diana of her overt sexuality the new writers have missed the reason Wonder Woman was a feminist heroine in the first place. As originally portrayed, 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. She could work a 9 to 5 job, hold down a relationship, subvert international conspiracies and toss the villains in jail, and perhaps, as the first cover of Ms. magazine suggested in 1972, even be president—and the way she looked was, as it should be, simply an aside.
While it’s yet to be seen whether this costume change signals an intent to again strip Wonder Woman of her super powers, it’s disconcerting to learn that the writers are creating a new back story for the character that deprives her of her upbringing on Paradise Island with her mother, Queen Hippolyta, and her Amazon sisters in favor of being smuggled out of her homeland as a baby as it was destroyed. Wonder Woman’s original feminist creator’s intent in giving Diana the Paradise Island upbringing was to insinuate she knew gender equality existed because she’d lived it and that her powers were derived from living with and learning from her sisters. In effect, all women could become “Wonder Woman” if they tapped into the feminine power around them and strived for a gender just world that, we know from real live history, really did and can exist. Is this rewrite an attempt to impose the myth of “post-patriarchy” on the character, in which she no longer needs to dream of and fight for equality because she’s achieved it?
If the folks at DC Comics weren’t aware, 2010 America is far from a mythical Amazonian paradise. Take for example new statistics from the Geena Davis Institute on Gender and Media pertaining to female role models for young girls. In G rated movies, just one in three speaking roles is female and in PG and R rated films, about 73 percent of the characters are male. While there are notable exceptions, like Dora the Explorer and the girl superheroes in The Invincibles, young women are still hard pressed to find pop culture role models that look and sound like themselves. If, as it seems, Wonder Woman is truly losing some of her characteristic fierceness, that’s one fewer strong female role model for girls to aspire to be.
Jim Lee, the artist responsible for Wonder Woman’s new design, claims he wanted her to look strong “without screaming, ‘I’m a superhero.’ ” Even today, in this “modern era,” it’s still hard not to wonder, what’s so wrong with screaming that?
The views expressed in this commentary are those of the author alone and do not represent WMC. WMC is a 501(c)(3) organization and does not endorse candidates.
Subscribe 
20 Comments
New wonder woman is definitely disapointing. Why make a super hero looks less super? Also I don’t think covering her up is doing much for her other than hiding her muscles inorder to showcase different “assets”.
Women wearing pants has long been a controversial issue. More than a fashion choice, pants became part of a symbolic message about women’s roles in public in the 1950s through the 1970s. Over time, it has been an example of male authority or a patriarchal culture exerting control – pants as power. In other words, “who wears the pants?”
I was around in the good-old-days when Ms. Magazine featured the “real” WW on the cover. She was a comic book heroine I identified with as a child and continued to watch over and follow. She was a commercial and social success then and could be a success now. Why didn’t they give the redesign to an artist who could understand her?
I do believe the Marstons must be rolling over in their graves (again).
Way to go Shelby. This is a fabulous essay!
Joanne
Agreed, and well put. I don’t know why DC insists on scrapping this particular character and starting from stratch every couple of decades. (The last time was in 1986, when her history was rebooted and she became the new kid on the block, with even her former teen sidekick suddenly a veteran superhero in comparison.)
One important correction, though: Wonder Woman debuted in 1941, not 1930.
I’m quite sad. She kind of needs her boots…
I am a triathlete. We do not wear restrictive clothing like the kind this new Wonder Woman wears, except wetsuits to swim (for buoyancy mostly). At the fantastic age of 52, I am in better shape than I ever was. And I am proud to wear my muscles and tone on the outside, at last. Why can’t WW?? My teen daughter is a lacrosse player, a golfer, a runner, a diver, a kickboxer, and a dancer, and is pursuing an International Baccalaureate diploma on top of it all. She would never consider this new Wonder Woman HER model!! She wears her skin with pride and confidence, just like the boys always have, and knows no better. And wears her long hair BACK to keep it out of the way of business. This new Wwoman is going to be laughed at by every one of her peers, if they even care to pay attention. Which they won’t. Frankly, they are too busy becoming their own Wonder Women, no thanks to current role models (except Angelina Jolie). Our girls will BE the role models because of 70-era feminists like their moms — unless they are stepped on and crushed by the alarming retrotrend toward testosterone-worship and fake feminism and revisionist historians. So I’m with you — off with the pants, on with the buff!
I am a proud feminist who grew up with a healthy appreciation and admiration for the Wonder Woman franchise. When I read this piece in the New York Times yesterday, I felt incredibly proud of DC Comics for finally bringing this beloved heroine into the twenty-first century, giving her the redesign necessary to “compete” alongside equally popular, superheros. I was dismayed to read Ms. Knox’s response to this development, frustrated by what I find is a propensity for contemporary feminists intent on finding ominous misogynistic or anti-feminist undertones in all aspects of cultural materials.
Ms. Knox insists that Wonder Woman’s “overt sexuality” is effaced due to her change in costume, which depicts her in form fitting pants, a top that shows off her strong abs and developed physique, and a chic, cropped jacket. According to Ms. Knox’s logic, it seems that there is only way to signify sexuality, which involves the gratuitous display of skin, barely covered by what amounts to little more than lingerie and remains unproblematic for Ms. Knox for reasons unclear, though might have to do with Wonder Woman’s boots.
She also makes the case that Wonder Woman’s “to-be-looked-at-ness” (to borrow from Laura Mulvey) was never an issue; she never “fashioned herself to the male gaze,” and her costuming was merely an aside. First of all, given a male created the figure for a male-dominated franchise, Wonder Woman has always been a product of male gazing and masculine fetishization. Second, if this argument holds, than it should apply to this new rendering: Wonder Woman should be as powerful and positive a superheroine with or without her Union Jack underwear, making Ms. Knox’s entire piece irrelevant.
Finally, Ms. Knox suggests that shifting Wonder Woman’s birth story away from its original narrative that she was raised on a female-centric Amazonian island is a slight against advocating for gender equality. Perhaps she is misinformed about this concept. Gender equality aims to level the cultural, social, economic, and philosophical value placed on both genders, not elevate one over the other. A female dominated island undercuts this message in the same way as the existence of a phallocentric dominion. There is nothing to suggest that this origin story will alter Wonder Woman’s ideology. Perhaps it will allow the character to have more nuances and dimensions than a cardboard cut out meant to parrot society’s shallow views of feminism back to itself: women CAN work 9 to 5, women DO use different skills to solve problems, women WANT to have heterosexual relationships.
Unlike Ms. Knox, I view this development in the comic industry as incredibly exciting, a new era of possibilities for Wonder Woman and the next generation who will grow up following her exploits. Perhaps this Diana Prince will wield her bracelets and her computer hacking skills; perhaps this Diana Prince will make mistakes and face fatal ethical choices that give readers something more to think about other than her red boots; or perhaps this Diana Prince will fall in love….with another woman. Rather than cutting down what gains women make, no matter how small or in what realm, Ms. Knox might want to take a cue from her own heroine and promote good over evil, real or imagined.
The new Wonder Woman doesn’t seem to be wearing (just) skinny jeans. Her boots are still there, but now they’re either very dark blue or black and come over the top of whatever her legs are covered with, be that skinny jeans or leggings of some kind. And honestly, let’s be practical. I’d rather rough-and-tumble throwdown in a get up that’s more like biker gear than a swimsuit–skirt or not. Also, the WW symbol is still right there in her cleavage.
It’ll depend on the writing, but I’m ok with the changes to Diana’s backstory. Being raised on Earth but still Amazonian by birth shouldn’t diminish her capability to fight the good (feminist) fight. A *very* similar backstory is hardly a problem for Superman.
And therein lies the potential “feminist fail”: Why is Wonder Woman still being designed, written, and now made to ride the backstory-coattails of men/Superman?
You might do just a tad bit more research, because then you’d know the point of this storyline is her realizing her past has been changed and her quest to restore the status quo.
Ironically, the W is more prominent in the newer design than in the one you chose to use to represent the older design (since it’s on both her arm bands and the eagle).
I feel like I ought to offer something more substantive on this, but I’m still gathering my thoughts. Is it relevant to the discussion at all that Wonder Girl has been wearing a similar outfit for almost twenty years? I was at a comic panel at a convention recently where every mention of Wonder Women included a “she’s in a bathing suit heh heh” side comment from at least one panelist. Is that their problem? Sure. As a big fan of Xena, I think women can unrealistically wander around in practically nothing and be [super]heroes. But as a comic reader, I’m waaaay more disturbed by half the costumes in Marvel comics, and the recent Batwoman’s pointy-nippled costume than I am about them retconning Wonder Woman and giving her a new outfit to match.
It’ll probably last as long as Superman’s mullet.
I wonder, are all of the Superheroes getting makeovers, or just Wonder Woman? Did she do something wrong?
I respectfully disagree with this first because as an over 30 year reader of WW I understand that WW has evolved, changed and been reborn and that is a natural progression of all these types of characters. JMS(Straczynski) is a brilliant writer and I trust him and his vision. I also think that everyone is getting their proverbial knickers in a twist over something that will NOT be permanant. But will probably a grand era of WW history. I personally enjoyed the WW issues from 1969 etc and own the entire collection it is facinating and powerful era of her history.
Instead of condemning something no one has even READ yet how about you be a little patient and see what happens? I know this woman(me) is actually excited to see what JMS does!
I think you’re overreacting, dude.
This is far from the first time since the 60′s they’ve changed her costume to something “more modern”. They just made more of a fuss this time. She always ends up back in her iconic look. I’m betting she’ll be back in the classic outfit within 2 years or less.
Ah. In reading the full blog post at DC Comics’ site, I see that Joe is NOT throwing out what makes WW unique. I have great respect for him as a writer, so I was hoping he wasn’t doing anything so stupid. Please read the whole story at http://dcu.blog.dccomics.com/2010/06/30/j-michael-straczynski-on-wonder-woman%E2%80%99s-new-costume/
I think that this change to Wonder Womans Character is fine, she has to adapt to a new world with new challenges. I would have liked to see a convertible “urban” style of clothing, that way she can still show off those sexy legs when she needs to.
The change to the storyline just keeps getting better in my opinion!
The pants and the new top aren’t the point. Pockets have always been the key to power in fashion, and if she now has pockets built into those leggings, then we can say that she is woman, hear her roar. Until then, I’m not convinced.
Those who think that clothes make the women, or in this case, the superhero, missed the boat. Clothing WW is a disgrace to a womens femininity. So it seems that some femanists felt that WW was scantily clad, when, in all actuality, she was expressing the strenth of a woman the entire time. Her new look is far more seductive and belittles her original inner strength. The bottom line is that she is a comic and not to be taken out of context. When was the last time you were offended that Lady Ga Ga changed her clothes before a concert?
Hey, so what if the new outfit hides her shoulders? What sensible person goes out fighting the forces of evil in nothing but a bodice, underwear, and heals? Yes I still think she needs combat boots, a pair of pants that allows movement, and body armor. But hey since when have comic book heroes worn sensible clothes?
I don’t disagree that the new Wonder Woman revamp is a step down in feminism for the character, but I don’t agree that it’s simply because she’s wearing pants. It’s a deeper issue than a wardrobe change and only someone who reads the comic books would know this.
The Wonder Woman I know and love was a champion of feminism simply because she had an incredible strength of character. She was an ambassador for her people. She was every bit as versed in the art of words as she was in the art of war. When she’s written well, she always tries diplomacy before physical battles are thrown, even to the extent of taking some nasty blows to an opponent while continuing holding out her hand to him. The other characters in the DC comic book universe often describe her as an avatar for truth and compassion despite the naivete of her mission: to teach “man’s world” love and peace. She was also definitely not a twenty-something, fresh-out-of-high school idealist whom the boys had to protect and save. Often times, it was the other way around for her.
The revamp, imagined by J Micheal Straczynski, strips her of this incredible strength of character she had. It’s not an issue of depowering her by taking away her abilities because the story arc is about her -earning- those abilities and -earning- the title of Wonder Woman. This is something she had to do on Themyscira to even become an ambassador for her people, so the journey itself is nothing new, just reimagined. The argument for anti-feminism should lie more in the fact that she’s now barely legal, her grace, poise, and intelligence have diminished, and she no longer has that admirable character she had before. Yes, she could be fairly naive and nauseating optimistic before. Sure, her multiple blessed attributes and lack of hardship on her island paradise does give her an arrogance of privilege she doesn’t realize she has, but that was humanizing for a character who realizes that she -is- a symbol. In the revamp, when she’s not immersed in some fight, she comes off as a bratty teenager who defies the authority of her guardian like some two-rate teen drama. Where is her strength? Her loyalty? Her love and compassion for the world? Where is the woman who withstood blow after blow of a mourning Green Lantern, holding out her hand to him and simply saying, “Will you fill my head [with yours]?” She’s gone.
In any case, once this story arc completes, reality within the DC Universe should resent and she should return to her old self. Until then, we’ve got this youngin and David E. Kelley’s new young Wonder Woman to contend with.