THIRD WAVE FEMINISM IN WONDER WOMAN IN THE 1980s AND 1990s

Since the late 1980s, Wonder Woman has been engaged in a variety of ways with the ideas and aesthetics of the Third Wave of feminism. Those who adopt the Third Wave label or sensibility continue from the Second Wave in that they have as central tenets liberation and equality, and build on internal critiques of the Second Wave as having a predominantly white, heterosexual standpoint (see, e.g., hooks Reference hooks1981; Lorde Reference Lorde1984; Moraga and Anzaldúa Reference Moraga and Anzaldúa1981). Grounded in protest to the conservative politics of the 1980s and 1990s, the Third Wave strives to be antiessentialist and nonjudgmental, welcoming a variety of identities both across and within people. This embrace of the messiness and complexities of lived experience includes not only openness to continua of race, gender, and sexuality but also the reclamation of signs of femininity as empowering. Cultural critique and cultural production, often laced with irony, are important aspects of the Third Wave as well (see, e.g., Baumgartner and Richards Reference Baumgartner and Richards2000; Heywood and Drake Reference Heywood and Drake1997; Purvis Reference Purvis2004; Walker Reference Walker1995).Footnote ³

These elements of the Third Wave—diversity and individual complexity, feminism and femininity, and cultural critique through narrative and irony—as well as concerns about such ideas have been particularly visible in Wonder Woman during the last 25 years as producers and consumers negotiated their meanings. This began when DC Comics rebooted all of its superhero titles in 1987.

The new Wonder Woman was helmed by writer/artist George Pérez and the title's first female editor Karen Berger (WW Vol. 2 #1–62, 1987–1992). Berger summed up their approach to Princess Diana of the Amazons in the second issue, “Wonder Woman [is] a great role model to young women, but also contains many elements that appeal to males as well. Wonder Woman crosses the gender line.” Harkening back to creator Marston's first stories from the 1940s, Pérez's Diana works with friends and allies to teach “lessons of peace and equality” (Pérez and Wein Reference Pérez and Wein2005, WW Vol. 2 #17 [1988]), while also being a decisive superpowered warrior ready to fight humans, monsters, and gods if compassion and diplomacy fail. This performance of traits and actions constructed traditionally as “feminine” and “masculine” highlights the instability of the categories and creates space for gender hybridization (Brown Reference Brown and Inness2004, Reference Brown2011; Inness Reference Inness and Inness2004; Robinson Reference Robinson2004; Stuller Reference Stuller2010; see also Butler Reference Butler1990; Halberstam Reference Halberstam1998).Footnote ⁴

Pérez has said that he had great freedom because no one else wanted the title, so he drew Diana as more “ethnic” to show that “she is not American,” drew the Amazons as more racially diverse, and introduced the character Phillipus, who was black, as Diana's mother's trusted companion (“George Pérez's Second Melbourne Podcast,” 2010). He also implied that some Amazons were in romantic and/or sexual relationships with each other (see, e.g., Pérez, Newell, Marrinan and Machlan Reference Pérez, Newell, Marrinan, Machlan and Pérez1990, WW Vol. 2 #38). All of these elements exhibited Third Wave sensibilities and appear to have been read as such. Most of the first letters from readers after the reboot specifically praised the new Diana as a strong feminine and feminist woman.Footnote ⁵ Sales were high and fan letters were enthusiastic about the title's politics. Negative letters argued for more diversity across and tolerance by the characters (see, e.g., Bill Campbell in WW Vol. 2 #5, Matt Gersper and Ernest Black in WW Vol. 2 #35).

As conservative politics clashed with liberal identity politics in the early to mid-1990s, the more postmodern and poststructural sensibilities of Third Wave feminism and queer theory began to gain resonance for some on the left. But as star comic writer Grant Morrison observed, superhero comics at the time still leaned in a conservative direction, “The gender confusions and reorganizations of masculine-feminine boundaries that marked the eighties had outgrown their welcome, so men became lads and women were babes” (Reference Morrison2011, 235). Comic art began to display a hypergendered backlash to the gains of the feminist movements: hypermuscular men and hypersexualized women.

After George Pérez left, the next writer,William Messner-Loebs, worked with a number of artists on the title from 1992 to 1995 (WW Vol. 2 #63–100). But it was the last one, Mike Deodato, who garnered the most attention for the way he sexually objectified Diana and the Amazons. Wearing little, they were often posed in what has come to be criticized as “broke back” fashion—a twisted, impossible posture allowing the reader to see all of a woman's curves in the front and back at the same time (Messner-Loebs and Deodato Reference Messner-Loebs and Deodato1996a, Reference Messner-Loebs and Deodato1996b).Footnote ⁶ He later remarked, “They gave me freedom to do whatever I want…. I kept making her more … um … hot? Wearing thongs. I talked to Bill Loebs at a convention, and he said his friends call his run on Wonder Woman with me ‘porn Wonder Woman’ [laughter]…. Every time the bikini was smaller, the sales got higher” (Newsarama staff 2006). He drew more and bloodier violence as well. In the mid-1990s, superhero comic sales had begun to crash and its active fan base became more homogenous: mostly male, white, heterosexual, and adult.Footnote ⁷ These readers as well as many others clearly liked Diana's “Bad Girl” portrayal; sales did rise for the title.

Two letters in particular represent the different ways in which readers received the art. One embraced the simultaneity of traits that had historically been constructed as conflicting, “Deodato drew at once a beautiful princess and a fierce warrior” (Eric Gerbershagen in WW Vol. 2 #104). A second wrote at length about the female characters' sexualization, and summed up, “Give them some rear coverage and some dignity” (Kate Payne in WW Vol. 2 #95). Both readers represent Third Wave ideas, but their contrast highlights a fault line in the Third Wave's celebration of a person's individual choices and of sexy images of women (as represented by the first letter writer) and its push for cultural critique of the objectification of women (as represented by the second). Supporting the first could mean financially bolstering further objectifying images; supporting the second could mean alienating potential feminists by criticizing what they find attractive and implying that they are not sufficiently politically conscious. Both paths could lead to a lack of collective political action about such portrayals of women.

A further complication was that these two letter writers (along with many others) praised the storyline that was illustrated by these images. The plot concerned Artemis, an Amazon like Diana but raised in poverty and violence. Artemis becomes “Wonder Woman,” but is less respected in the role because she is less diplomatic, less clothed, and quicker to fight than Diana. She is defeated, and her dying words to Diana are that she (Artemis) had not deserved the title of Wonder Woman. Artemis' portrayal can be read as condemning a female character who performs a less “feminine” enactment of heroism, and as showing that Diana is able to transgress gendered boundaries because her “class privilege allows for such fluidity” (Cohen Reference Cohen1997, 450; Inness Reference Inness and Inness2004; Peters Reference Peters2003). But even if the characterization of Artemis did shore up Diana's “proper” portrayal of the female hero, fans loved both characters and embraced the Third Wave idea that there's more than one way to enact woman warrior, or superhero, unbound by traditional norms.Footnote ⁸ Writers and editors listened. Artemis was brought back to life, chosen as one of the Amazon rulers and allied with Diana through the 2000s.

RACE, SEXUALITY, AND POLITICS IN WONDER WOMAN IN THE EARLY 2000s

Writer and artist Phil Jimenez (WW Vol. 2 #164–188, 2000–2003) had the Amazons choose Artemis and Phillipus, the impoverished, rough warrior and the black military leader, to replace their queen (Diana's mother). Jimenez made Diana's politics explicitly feminist and queer through her founding the Wonder Woman Foundation to help women be “economically self-sufficient and in control of their bodies and reproductive lives” and to promote “the liberation of men, women, and children from the terrible problems that stem from antiquated religious philosophies and patriarchal fear…. All human beings deserve to live on this planet without threat of violation, physical or spiritual, simply because of the body they were born in [or] the gender they were born to” (Jimenez Reference Jimenez2002, WW Vol. 2 #170).Footnote ⁹ This received mostly encouraging fan responses; a few were negative, such as “Little did I expect to find Diana on a neo-fascist diatribe about [Christianity] or sub-Marxist gibberish about ‘valuing each other simply because we exist’” (Chris Jackson in WW Vol. 2 #173). Another wrote about a scene of two female Amazons (talking), “Should you continue to advance the homosexual agenda … you will be able to include me along with Chris Jackson as an ex-longtime reader” (Seth Richard in WW Vol. 2 #177). The editor described the scene as “people in love,” scolded the writer for being intolerant, and wrote, “For the record, Phil is working on giving Diana a boyfriend.”

The boyfriend was Trevor Barnes, who worked with Diana at the United Nations. The spoiler leaked that Diana might have sex with Trevor. There was largely positive fan feedback to the idea, said Jimenez, but also very “negative and often racist reactions” as well, that “undermined my goals” (quoted in Singh Reference Singh2002). Trevor was black. The very negative feedback was not printed. Instead, a typical letter would be “The most attractive part of Jimenez's latest storyline is the African American love interest…. Speaking as an African American reader, I hope that this becomes a very strong storyline for Diana” (Terry Hagan in WW Vol. 2 #180). On the other side were letters such as, “One thing has me troubled, this whole losing the virginity thing … I just don't like this Trevor guy … I don't know if I'm supposed to like him or not, but I don't … I just don't like him, sorry” (Tim Holl in WW Vol. 2 #181). What finally appeared was a panel in which Trevor's parents find them on the couch, mostly clothed—a multivalent image that takes into account that negotiation between producers and consumers.

Jimenez' writing and art pushed for the fluidity of gender and sexuality, portrayed diversity, drew Diana as a strong woman not gratuitously sexualized, and used the genre to comment on cultural norms. Many, but not all, readers were on board with those ideals and the ideals remained despite criticism. Many, but not all, readers were willing to see a (hetero)sexually active Diana, but were not given the opportunity due to other readers' criticism. Marc DiPaolo has asserted that “often when great writers … tackle Wonder Woman's liberal political beliefs … conservatives complain and respond by not buying the comic. DC Comics responds in kind by minimizing the political content” (Reference DiPaolo2011, 86).

THIRD WAVE AESTHETICS IN WONDER WOMAN IN THE LATE 2000s

In 1999, just before Jimenez began his run, hairdresser and comics fan Gail Simone compiled a list of female superheroes subject to repeated violence, often sexualized, in ways that their male counterparts had not been (http://www.lby3.com/wir/index.html). She sent it to dozens of comic creators, whose reactions ranged from defensive to neutral to agreement. This list exploded online such that Simone began to write a weekly column for the Comic Book Resources website. Several years later, she was writing Wonder Woman (WW Vol. 3 #14–44, 2008–2010).

While Simone's politics seem similar to Jimenez's, the tone of her work was not as openly earnest, as she has said, “If a character has to preach, then you're doing it wrong” (AfterEllen.com staff 2009). Within the Third Wave, pop culture is critical, not just for deconstruction but also for production, which tonally is often playful, campy, and ironic. Simone had Diana and Dinah Lance (Black Canary) team up. Dinah informs Diana that they have to go undercover, and “the sexier the outfit, the fewer questions asked.” When dressed in her revealing undercover garb, Diana looks down at herself awkwardly and asks, “Do we need to expose quite so much of … [my breasts]? And these boots seem completely impractical in a combat situation! I can't believe women are expected to wear these every day. The damage to the legs and spine!” (Simone and Lopresti Reference Simone and Lopresti2010, WW Vol. 3 #34).

This moment draws attention to the performativity of the female superhero: the sexy uniform on the strong body can be disarming in its familiarity, but it can also be burlesque and in that way can disrupt gendered assumptions (Brown Reference Brown and Inness2004; Madrid Reference Madrid2009; Pender Reference Pender, Wilcox and Lavery2002; Peters Reference Peters2003; Taylor Reference Taylor2007). The embodiment of the attractive female warrior noting her own objectification both adheres to the familiar form of the superhero genre while delivering a feminist message about that form, couched in humor. As Anne Marie Smith notes, “the effectiveness of new articulations [of gender] depends on two basic factors: the extent to which traditional articulations have become increasingly weakened … and the extent to which new articulations borrow from and rework various traditional frameworks so that they already appear somewhat familiar” (Reference Simone and Lopresti1994, 6). But at the same time, the self-reflexive comment on the exposed breasts includes the visual objectification of those breasts. So the comment, for some, would be in tension with the image and could serve to reinscribe the normalcy of the sexualized portrayal of women in the superhero genre.Footnote ¹⁰

There were no letter columns in this run. But writer Simone launched a Wonder Woman thread the same month that the referenced issue came out (September 2009) on (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/forumdisplay.php?69-Wonder-Woman) that now has more than 6,000 sub-threads. Several posters addressed the character's juxtaposition of strength and beauty, “As long as they portray WW as being strong and smart, the eye candy is just a bonus” (Wonder Watcher 9/15/09, 1:25 pm). “Wonder Woman is supposed to be feminine. That's what's so amazing about her. She is “girly.” And can kick your ass when diplomacy fails (Meek, 9/16/09, 12:15pm). Simone responded to many posts, some of which were pointed and negative, to enter into conversation with readers. Former writer Jimenez posted as well.

Simone wrote in that space about her biggest regret: that she had intended for Diana's mother, Hippolyta, to propose marriage to Phillipus, but that tentative editorial approval was rescinded (Simone Reference Simone2010). This may have been about gender and sexuality if editors feared receiving more letters accusing them of being anti-Christian, as in the letters to Jimenez. It may have also been about race, in an echo of, again, letters to Jimenez about Trevor Barnes.

The result was similar—almost all fans who expressed an opinion expressed a positive one, but they would not get to see the story. In the cases of Diana having sex with Trevor Barnes and Hippolyta proposing to Phillipus, the subtext can (and according to fans, has been) read as supporting such stories. In the text itself and online, Wonder Woman has continued to forge a space for negotiating feminist politics. But while both Jimenez and Simone were able to disrupt traditional boundaries of gender in certain ways, it is clear that at least twice, struggles over feminist ideas at the intersections of race, gender, and sexuality led to nonfeminist outcomes.

NEW ORIGIN AND NEW DIRECTIONS FOR WONDER WOMAN IN THE 2010s

In 2011, as they had in 1987, DC Comics rebooted their superhero titles. “New 52” Wonder Woman was initially roundly praised for the quality of its spare, suspenseful writing, its plot about Diana dealing with the politics of the Greek gods to protect a young pregnant woman, and its art. Initial sales were sufficiently high that DC was considering launching a second Wonder Woman title (Siuntres Reference Siuntres2012).

But the new portrayal of Diana has also been criticized for its revision of her origin story and its violence. After 70 years, Diana is no longer born of clay in a nonaggressive matriarchal society; rather, she is the product of her mother's affair with King of the Gods Zeus. The Amazons are no longer peace-loving and immortal; rather, they reproduce by having sex with (and then killing) passing sailors, selling any resultant male offspring into slavery in exchange for weapons. Diana has shown herself to be quicker to violence as well, and has killed her long-standing arch-enemy Ares to become the Goddess of War herself (Azzarello and Chiang Reference Azzarello and Chiang2012a, Reference Azzarello and Chiang2012b, Reference Azzarello and Chiang2013). With such different foundations, her decades-old unique mission to teach Amazonian “lessons of peace and equality” seems to have fallen away. Former writer Phil Jimenez is concerned that this new version of the character “plays into the fantasies and culturally sanctioned fears of anything overtly feminine of the predominantly straight male audience the comic industry serves instead of reshaping them. She … buttresses the conventional wisdom as opposed to bucking it. Her otherness, her queerness, is all but erased. And money is made” (Reference Jimenez2013).Footnote ¹¹

Who she is may be more important than where she comes from, and she is also clearly honorable, compassionate, and strong. Writer Brian Azzarello has said, “We've made her a very powerful woman” and “we've definitely de-sexualized her” (Kennedy Reference Kennedy2013). These are feminist moves. Diana's nonobjectified performance of “male” and “female” qualities in and of itself opens up new gender possibilities for some readers. But some feminist critics of the Third Wave's embrace of individual narrative would note that if such a story is unaccompanied by broader structural critique, it may not work to move us toward acceptance of more equality, diversity, or fluidity of identities.Footnote ¹²

Fans are on both sides of this. Nine podcasts discussed the new comic at least once; some, several times. On seven of them, 17 men and four women described the book as one of the best of all 52 reboots. Some noted that they had never until now bought the title. Overall, they found her a strong character, surrounded by an interesting supporting cast.Footnote ¹³ The 3 Chicks Review Comics and Comic Book Queers (CBQs), however, liked only the first issue. Three Chicks disliked the new backstory and found Diana to be a weaker and more violent character, with a mostly male supporting cast leading her around (Thompson Reference Thompson2012). One of the CBQs summed up, “I'm happy it's selling, but this character is not Wonder Woman.” (Comic Book Queers 2012). The Wonder Woman boards online reflect a similar split, with partisans on both sides using the same arguments as the podcasters. Unlike Jimenez or Simone, writer Azzarello has said that he does not read or post to such sites, and there are no letter columns. This cuts off two avenues of negotiation with readers, who will of course continue to make their own meanings of his work, alone or with each other.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to thank Jeffrey Brown, Chris Gavaler, Steven Goodman, Bob Reyer, Trina Robbins, Anne Swinton, and symposium editors Matthew Costello and Kent Worcester for their comments on this work.