I’m going to say right off the bat that this post is not about Sarah Palin, even though it does begin with Lynda Carter’s opinion of her.
Philadelphia Magazine asked earlier this week what Carter thought of Palin being branded “the new Wonder Woman”:
Don’t get me started. She’s the anti-Wonder Woman. She’s judgmental and dictatorial, telling people how they’ve got to live their lives. And a superior religious self-righteousness … that’s just not what Wonder Woman is about. Hillary Clinton is a lot more like Wonder Woman than Mrs. Palin. She did it all, didn’t she?
No one has the right to dictate, particularly in this country, to force your own personal views upon the populace — religious views. I think that is suppressive, oppressive, and anti-American. We are the loyal opposition. That’s the whole point of this country: freedom of speech, personal rights, personal freedom. Nor would Wonder Woman be the person to tell people how to live their lives. Worry about your own life! Worry about your own family! Don’t be telling me what I want to do with mine.
I smiled when I saw that. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that I’m not happy with Palin. My exact thoughts on her policies are not appropriate for this website, or really fit for print anywhere.
I admit I’m annoyed to hear her compared to Diana, and I understand that’s the limitation of having just one such notable female hero in the culture. Every notable woman gets referred to as a “Wonder Woman” when being praised. It’s not like everyone who gets told they’re Batman or a Superman matches the personality of Clark or Bruce, so I know this is just a figure of speech. My annoyance is just a side effect of being a rabid comic book fan.
But there are people who do feel the comparison is accurate and take offense to Lynda Carter sharing her political views. Like blogger Michael Hutchinson:
Sure, Lynda Carter got to portray Wonder Woman once because she had a stunning smile and a fantastic rack, but she’s not William Moulton Marston nor is she the legal owner of the character. DC Comics may be a bunch of left-wingers but how much leeway are they going to give an actress to go out using their licensed character to defame a political figure?
Lynda does not own Wonder Woman and she doesn’t really know the character that well.
Mr. Hutchinson then proceeds to give a list of reasons Lynda Carter is wrong about Wonder Woman and he’s right, even though he doesn’t own the character. (But does he have a nice rack?)
Now I’m just barely keeping myself from going through the list he gave in my comic book fan obsession and telling him that he is wrong wrong wrong in his assessment of my favorite character, so I feel I should be commended on my restraint there. (I mean, she’s a diplomat not a huntress or a proselytizing priestess. And Marston’s philosophy of open love and female dominance probably wouldn’t have played well with churchgoing crowd.)
*Ahem* I’m digressing, though. I wasn’t bringing this up to get into a fan-dick-waving contest. I’m bringing this up because I find it so interesting that two people with such different politics as Lynda Carter and Michael Hutchinson have latched onto this character. That two politicians with such different views as Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin are identified with her.
And to show you how fascinating I find this, I’m going to do something crazy and throw the question to the internet: Why is this?
Is it because Wonder Woman is so poorly defined that we’re filling in the blanks with our own viewpoints? If so, is that because she’s female, pagan, or just too damned contradictory?
Is she as a character so politically neutral that we can’t tell where she stands? Has DC just been too chickenshit when it comes to writing politics?
Are we as readers just bringing that much to the table? Do we project too much of ourselves on these characters that even when they aren’t ciphers they serve as such?
Or is the person who disagrees with you just wrong wrong wrong because of [character trait; please include issue citation]?
Show your work.
September 12th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
“Rack”?
However persuasive his argument might’ve been, I stopped reading right there.
Asshole.
September 12th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
I think it’s just a casual comparison that people make of “strong woman=Wonder Woman” where it isn’t taken into account that WW has other character traits besides being strong/independent. In fairness, and you alluded to it a little bit, plenty of times when a man is called Superman for being strong or for seeming like he is capable of anything, he couldn’t possibly be further from the other defining characteristics of Superman (like being honest, humble, etc.).
September 12th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I think its awesome that he compared that picture of the actress who’s NOT Palin (the “awesome hot photo” of Palin…which I’m sure somehow, through some loophole doesn’t make him sexist) with Lynda Carter to try and make his point. Heh.
And yeah – that’s a…different interpretation of Wonder Woman. My view of the character never had her being a nag, but rather, an ambassador, leading by example and teaching her ways. Altho – to be fair, Wonder Woman’s religion has predicted a world-ending apocalypse coming soon (similarity!) multiple times…although Wonder Woman has sought to stop it.
September 12th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
This made me extremely happy.
That right wing blogger claims to “love” Lynda Carter and her portrayal of Wonder Woman, but simultaneously dismisses her as a pair of boobs with no brain or acting skill attached. That’s some freaky and messed-up kind of love there, I tell you.
September 12th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Newsarama has become as bad as Wizard in quality. Why do you morons have to drag politics into this place? Why isn’t it enough to talk about the comics? Who cares what you think about Palin? Who cares what Lynda Carter thinks about Palin?
The comics world use to be fun entertainment.
September 12th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
“She’s judgmental and dictatorial, telling people how they’ve got to live their lives. And a superior religious self-righteousness…”
Not to turn this into a political debate, but does anybody else find it ironic that Lynda Carter is upset that people don’t understand the true character of Wonder Woman, and then she proceeds to give a one-sided, purely negative description of Palin, which ignores the fact that there is more to her character than liberal blog talking points? I’m not saying Palin is a saint, or that she should be elected to public office, but for Carter to be concerned about misrepresentations of a fictional character in the same breath as she narrowly stereotypes an actual person struck me as unintentionally humorous.
September 12th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
i think it’s because iconic superheroes, for the most part DC heroes, are malleable due to both previous presentation and their age. Wonder Woman in the public consciousness is more of a catch phrase for a woman with many talents, similar to the way Superman in the public consciousness often alludes to a many who can accomplish many things. the meanings don’t come from the character histories because the public’s character histories exist only in movies and cartoons. Wonder Woman’s short-lived TV career and non-existent movie career leaves her wide open to interpretation, while Superman’s long career gives people many interpretations to choose from. i think that Batman only tends to be used in the public sphere when referring to someone who seems to have a mysterious or dangerous second life / another side to themselves. interestingly, i think Captain America and Hulk are the only two Marvel heroes who get name dropped in a way similar to Wonder Woman in this instance. Spider-Man, as a concept, doesn’t seem to exist as a public catchphrase. Cap could represent someone blindingly patriotic (which reflects nothing upon the actual character) while Hulk is often used to allude to someone large, menacing, or full of anger. and that’s more due just as much to the actual meaning of the word hulk as it is to the Hulk himself. Wonder Woman has been a bit under-defined in her storytelling history and that’s it’s own problem. i think the reason why she can be so malleable as a concept outside of comics and in the public sphere is because she’s known as an icon and a short-lived TV star. there’s nothing out there really to add a stricter definition to her character. most people think sexy, strong, and smart = Wonder Woman, right?
September 12th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Your assumption is incorrect.
“I’m bringing this up because I find it so interesting that two people with such different politics as Lynda Carter and Michael Hutchinson have latched onto this character.”
Neither Carter nor Hutchinson “latched” onto this character. Carter was asked by a magazine because they wanted a silly “let’s you and her” fight, and Hutchinson because he rose to the Carter’s bait. There was no choice involved.
And since there’s so little to WW except for her rack and her creator’s sexual obsessions — there was a great discussion online recently about why reviving the WW franchise is a lost cause — everyone’s free to pile in like hamsters in a cage.
Congratulations on joining the pile.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Linda will always have a place…in my pants.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
@ Lisa: C’mon, go over there and tear that guy a new one. He deserves it! If it weren’t Friday night and I weren’t busy I’d go do it myself. Maybe I will before the weekend’s over. But it really should come from a woman, I think Don’t hold back. Go all “Diana” on him. You don’t have to take him down like Diana did Max Lord, but you could give him a verbal beatdown that’s nearly as harsh.
@ Joe: Get over yourself. I get real tired of the “Don’t get political” crap. It’s a part of life, and books, comic books and film often have political commentary (or at least subtext). It’s an election year, and it’s relevant to this site. See, there’s still freedom of speech and of the press for now. That might change if someone like Sarah Palin gets her way and turns into a theocracy, but for now Newsarama can publish what it likes, and Lisa can write posts like this one. Did you go over to Hutchinson’s blog and scold him the same way? No? Well, then what makes it OK for him to post on the subject but not Lisa? Comparing the ‘Rama to Wizard is not only invalid, it’s a bad joke. No one’s forcing you to read this post. You chose to do that on your own.
@ Bill: So… Are you saying there’s only one valid interpretation of WW, and that was the original creation? I guess that means Supes and Bats should be written like they were in the 30′s and 40′s? Nothing about her becoming a symbol of feminism over the years is valid? She’s just a “rack” for you? Congratulations on being such a charmer.
September 13th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Monitor Duty manages to combine the speed and relevance of Jackie Harvey’s column for The Onion with the sort of unhinged, ill-informed wingnuttery of the 28% or so of people who still think Dubya’s doing a heckuva job. There’s nothing else quite so tragically hysterical in the rest of the comics blogosphere.
September 13th, 2008 at 10:00 am
I think that ANY powerful female politician will be compared to Wonder Woman…mainly by people who have never read a Wonder Woman comic book in their lives…simply because she runs around in patriotic colors, and IS female. That’s enough for the average person.
I don’t see Palin as Wonder Woman by ANY means. I see her as a younger version of Anita Bryant. Or possibly Dick Cheney in drag.
Although I DO think that Obaman could play John Stewart in the movie.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
The unhinged, batshit howling of the Left is music to my ears.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
So much for your whole feminist M.O., Lisa. I can smell your stinking hypocrisy all the way from here.
September 14th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Mark, what the hell are you on about?
September 14th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Simply this: Lisa’s blog-life revolves around the advancement of women…but now that one’s knocking on the door to the vice presidency…well, I guess that’s not the RIGHT kind of woman for Lisa and the rest of the snarling lefty feminists out there who can’t stand the fact that a conservative women might just beat the “acceptable” feminists to that role. The Palin nomination has cause quite a few masks to fall, one of them being the hypocrisy of so-called feminists who are now rallying to stifle and push down a fellow woman on the verge of making history, yet doesn’t fit their narrow ideological spectrum.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:59 am
Alternatively, Engblom, the outrageous pandering of picking a clearly unqualified sop to the evangelical base and then calling it a ‘feminist’ move might possibly annoy the women who have been fighting for the cause of women all their lives, only to be called ‘sexist’ by reactionary winger dullards whose idea of a feminist is someone with a ‘great rack’.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:32 am
You may not want to play the “unqualified” card with a bozo like Obama at the top of your ticket.
Oh, and keep in mind there are plenty of women who’ve been fighting the fight who are very pleased with Palin’s pick. I know that’s hard to comprehend in the intolerant circles you run in, but there’s a whole world of people out there that…get this…view the world differently than you do.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Why should feminists, “snarling lefty” or otherwise, be expected to automatically champion a political candidate simply because that candidate is a woman? That’s akin to arguing that minority-community activists automatically support a candidate simply because that candidate is a minority, or that evangelicals automatically support a candidate simply because that candidate is an evangelical.
And disagreeing with a candidate’s qualifications or stance on certain issues doesn’t equal “stifle and push down,” no matter how much some try to load the language with red-flag words.
September 15th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Mark, you seem deeply confused. People are objecting to Palin based on her record, not her gender. There’s nothing sexist or intolerant or hypocritical about deciding that it would be a bad idea to elect someone who, as mayor, left her small town deeply in debt through her incompetence. There’s nothing or intolerant or hypocritical about deciding not to vote for a woman who would force other women to carry their rapist’s child to term. There’s nothing or intolerant or hypocritical about deciding not to vote for someone who lies in every single speech she’s made since she was tapped as McCain’s running mate. There’s nothing or intolerant or hypocritical about deciding not to support someone whose town charged rape victims for their rape kits while she was mayor.
Honestly, I’m surprised I have to explain this.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Mark Engblom says:
“The unhinged, batshit howling of the Left is music to my ears.”
Mark Engblom says:
“I know that’s hard to comprehend in the intolerant circles you run in, but there’s a whole world of people out there that…get this…view the world differently than you do.”
September 19th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Wait Mark, should all black people vote for Obama, even if they don’t like his politics?
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:37 am
over 90% of them will.
September 28th, 2008 at 10:20 am
So what, Matt? The point is, if people don’t like someone’s politics, people shouldn’t feel compelled to vote or blindly support them just because they share an XX chromosome pair or skin color. And that’s exactly what Mark is insinuating, and it’s silly. I’m going to vote for the guy that lines up with my views and interests before I vote for a idiot that shares my Italian heritage. Why should it be any different for women?