‘Wonder Woman’ Is Not An Op-Ed
Director Patty Jenkins, Sue Kroll of Warner Bros. Pictures, and actresses Gal Gadot and Lynda Carter Image by Getty Images
Christina Cauterucci is getting some pushback for a Slate piece with the headline, “I Wish ‘Wonder Woman’ Were as Feminist as It Thinks It Is.” In it, Cauterucci argues that “whatever chance ‘Wonder Woman’ had of being some kind of feminist antidote to the overabundance of superhero movies made by and for bros was blown by its prevailing occupation with the titular heroine’s sex appeal.” While she allows that male superheroes also tend to be played by actors of the unusually-good-looking persuasion, Cauterucci isn’t persuaded that Patti Jenkins’s “Wonder Woman” merits a place on the feminist mantle.
I have to say I agree with Andi Zeisler’s suggestion that we “just chill and stop holding movies involving women to ludicrously high standards.” Indeed, I’d had a similar response to a recent Vice review, “’Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt’ Has A Feminism Problem,” which, to my mind, treated the (excellent) sitcom as if it were an op-ed, and in doing so, missed the point of a “problematic” scene, if not the entire show.
Why is it, then, that works made by and featuring women are expected to somehow be sitcoms, action films, or whatever else, while also serving as righteous feminist treatises? I don’t think this is about an outrage-prone brigade looking for problems where there are none. It’s a bit more complicated than that.
Here’s what may be happening: When new cultural products – new TV shows, new movies – come out with women (or, indeed, anyone not a white man) in lead roles onscreen and behind the scenes, their arrival is inevitably greeted by a split political response: many women are pleased to finally see women as subjects, while the… not-so-feminist response ranges from furious to merely put off by what they perceive as encroaching political correctness. It’s such a novelty for women to be at the center of the action that whenever this happens, it gets reported on as a politically significant event.
It can then feel – and I get this! – that if you are a feminist, you must watch and love a particular show or film. And then if you go and – as was evidently Cauterucci’s experience – find yourself unconvinced that a Gal Gadot superhero movie is impeccably feminist, what can you do but point this out?
But here’s the thing: Representation is not an argument. Or, rather, it’s a bare-minimum feminist argument, namely that women are human beings, fully capable of making and starring in movies and television programs, and deserving of, well, representation in both areas. The mere fact that a show or film puts women’s experiences front and center can make a work moving from a feminist perspective, but doesn’t magically turn a piece of entertainment into a feminist op-ed. “I wondered why I’d come into the movie expecting some energizing woke-feminist manifesto,” writes Cauterucci, and I think, in that musing, lies the source of the problem. Yes, some movies are political, but a film doesn’t suddenly become political when it’s made by someone who isn’t a white man.
Phoebe Maltz Bovy edits the Sisterhood, and can be reached at bovy@forward.com. She is the author of “The Perils Of ‘Privilege’”, from St. Martin’s Press. Follow her on Twitter, @tweetertation
A message from our CEO & publisher Rachel Fishman Feddersen
I hope you appreciated this article. Before you go, I’d like to ask you to please support the Forward’s award-winning, nonprofit journalism during this critical time.
We’ve set a goal to raise $260,000 by December 31. That’s an ambitious goal, but one that will give us the resources we need to invest in the high quality news, opinion, analysis and cultural coverage that isn’t available anywhere else.
If you feel inspired to make an impact, now is the time to give something back. Join us as a member at your most generous level.
— Rachel Fishman Feddersen, Publisher and CEO
