heroes and role models, real or imagined, are always larger than life. Men have Conan, Arnold, Muscle & Fitness, and SuperMan to aspire to as the height of masculinity, the pinnacle of what it means to be male, and ‘manly’.
Women have only had Barbie. Why not have Wonder Woman as well? Already she has been used as the ‘anti- Barbie’, used in the same way as ‘Rosie the Riveter’ was in the war era to get women working at what used to be male jobs (the men needed to build war machines were off at war piloting them). In a local diner owned by politically minded women, you can find period cutouts of wonder woman comics under plastic laminate. The diner was around since the 30’s, the decor unchanged since the 50’s (a jukebox apparently was the most recent addition) and it has been women owned nearly 20 years.
So why is there a ‘controversy’ about picking Wonder Woman as an icon for women?
Feminism has 2 branches- the ideal of the Empowered (woman) Individual, a pro- Female Libertarian (she only wants to treated as an equal being: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_feminism); and the ‘sisterhood’, doing what is good for the group, a marxist variant: http://www.womenagainstmen.com/media/feminism-is-a-hate-group.html
Case in point: 20 years ago, 2 local women filmed themselves wrestling in their basements once a week. They felt doing so was ’empowering’, as they were doing what felt right for them. A director of WAVAW (women against violence against women) who was legally blind, went on record to say that what they were doing was in fact “degrading” to women, “satisfying the lusts of men.” Here is a woman, shaming other women. Logically we can infer that she herself could never have (being legally blind) screened the videos herself; nor is it plausible that she would have ever met them. Yet she felt it worthy to cast a value statement on their character, thus devaluing the legitimacy of her own (“pro female”/ anti male) organization. The very name WAVAW is set out to deny the experiences of men who also have been victims of violence, and other forms of abuse, by female relatives and/ or spouses- its agenda focuses on women exclusively, and operates on funding through the government to achieve their political aims.
It would not be too hard to imagine that there might be similar GroupThink political groups out there bent on curbing the female Libertarian, promoting their ideology that the “equal female” is nonetheless one who is always a victim, rather than one of equal dominance and aggression with their male cohorts.
Where does this separation of views stem from?
Surely Emma Goldman wouldn’t recognise the Marxist feminists? She never believed that men were an enemy, but rather that the men of her time were ignorant in their ways, and afraid of change; they needed to be scared into doing what was right. In fact, Goldman loved men, and welcomed their participation. Somehow the Communist ideal took hold shortly after ww2, and culminated in Canada with Marilyn French “All men are rapists and that’s all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes.”- a quote taken up to even greater extremes today: http://www.dailywire.com/news/8386/feminist-journalist-all-men-are-rapists-and-should-amanda-prestigiacomo https://thefemministfatale.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/all-men-are-rapists/
In short- Wonder Woman may not represent ALL women; in fact, she shares in common with ALL characters an impossible Ideal. Nonetheless she is representative of a movement of Libertarian Feminists who don’t necessarily support the anti- male political agenda behind groupthink feminists.