I finally watched Wonder Woman that many had introduced me as a feminist movie. Instead, I only found a series of misogynous clichés, and I wanted to expose some of them, at least in the particular angle I have seen them.
1. From the top of the movie, we learn that Zeus is the king of gods, and he created "beings fair and good, strong and passionate to his image, called 'men'”. Zeus is a male, and he is incontestably at the top of the pyramid. That is a poor start for a feminist film.
2. The story keeps going and tells us that after Ares, Zeus’s son, got jealous of mankind (for some reason that is not exposed) and poisoned their good nature, so men start killing each other. In order to save them, the gods “created the Amazons to influence men’s hearts with love”. I can see how the writers could have thought that bringing love and peace was a compliment for women, but in fact, in consequence, women were "created" to serve a secondary function to men.
3. Physically, the Amazons are a bunch of perfectly fit women wearing great makeup, elaborate hair (and impeccable nails, if you pay attention), showing their flawless legs and their size-D cup cleavages.
4. Wonder Woman herself looks like a Victoria’s Secret model, dressed in hardly more than a Victoria’s Secret outfit.
5. Wonder Woman is a young-looking woman, although she is very old (unclear how she exactly is, but she was at least 18 during WWII, so let's say she's at least 120 years old).
6. So although they are pretty and pure (and probably all virgin), the Amazons are incredibly, appallingly naive. They basically know nothing about the world because they never went out of their small island. A man has to train her, educate her, teach her love (and probably sex, too). In a way, save her, in an almost initiatic sense.
7. Wonder Woman literally falls in love with the first man she meets…
8. Wonder Woman is a typical male fantasy in many conservative aspects: she is a virgin who knows only sex from theory books but surely will fall for a man with "above average" attributes.
Now, because I have had this conversation with friends, this is more or less what they told me to convince me Wonder Woman is in fact a feminist movie.
a. The movie is feminist because it passes the Bechdel test. That is a very bad argument. When something is not sexist, it doesn't make it automatically feminist.
b. The woman is so strong she kicks everybody's asses! Finally, feminism! Go, women! Kick men's asses! Several answers to this:
- Many Amazons are killed in a few minutes by men with rifles because they are so naive and stupid they go to a gun battle with arrows. Even after they start to be killed they don’t change their fighting technique a tad.
- Then there is one woman who beats the shit out of men, and it is only because she has magical powers. Magical powers are not gonna empower women, so men can sleep on both ears and will retain their privileges.
- More importantly, the only unchangeable factor of oppression a man can hold against a woman is his superior physical strength. This movie shows a virtual case where a woman is physically stronger than any man, or probably any being. This not subversive at all for the same reason as magical powers do not threaten the establishment. The glorification of a situation that is clearly impossible may actually be counter-revolutionary.
c. The movie is a feminist film because it was directed by a woman. There are very, very few female directors in Hollywood, granted. However, the movie was written by two men, and produced by lots of men... so I don't think that's very valid a point. Not to mention the same sort of thinking as for the Bechdel test above.
Side note: when James Cameron criticized Wonder Woman for not being a feminist movie to him, the female director shut him up and said that James Cameron could not understand it because he is a man—she meant that criticizing there equaled mansplaining. I have seen so many friends agreeing with that and subsequently calling James Cameron a sexist that it gives me the chills. James Cameron is not exactly humble, but his point was interesting and he did not deserve to be shut up, I feel. Should you want to respond to me, I hope you will spare me the same argument, or if you insist on serving it to me, at least support it with a little more argumentation than "I am a man and therefore can’t get it and may not criticize it". Such logic leads to everyone caring only for their own. I care for a lot of different people, and I am sure you can, too.
And a final though: superhero movies generally speaking can hardly be subversive as the characters don’t choose their powers. They can choose what they do with their powers, but in any case, no one can relate to superpowers, as they don't exist. Superpowers make them superheroes inhuman, and you cannot reproduce their actions outside pure fantasy. And in fact it is not recommended: fake Batmans but real vigilantes make the real Batman pissed because he says, in essence, "you are risking your lives to do something you’re clearly not qualified to do"). By contrast, Sarah Connor, Ellen Ripley, even Sandra Bullock in Speed are like the female versions of John McClane: they become empowered by the circumstances and their own choices. That’s a lot more progressive in my eyes. I would rather see ordinary people make extraordinary choices than extraordinary people do their thing.
I would love to hear your thoughts about this topic.
Comments
Post a Comment