Author: Hilary Lowe

Barbie on the Runway by Alexandra Margaret Vene

The Barbie Collection website is a dangerous place; I spent an hour scrolling kate spade barbiethrough all the different Barbies and their elaborate outfits and ended up wishing that I didn’t sell all of mine at a yard sale in 2006. I even found one that I had (2000 Celebration)! The Barbies of the World were intriguing, especially considering all of the stereotypes that they embodied, but even more interesting were the Designer Barbies. As if collector Barbies couldn’t get any more extravagant, these dolls feature clothes that were designed by world famous designers such as Christian Louboutin, Burberry, and Armani. Barbie models ballgowns, fur boas, and even wedding dresses in this series. The fact that a doll has nicer clothes than myself is a little disturbing.

chanel barbieThe material side of Barbie is explained by the collectability and the style that she embodies. Without her fancy clothes, what would there be to collect? Yes, there are different Barbies with a variety of hair and skin colors, but the clothes are what make her so collectable (Pearson and Mullins). By creating over a thousand different outfits, Mattel has created not only a toy for girls but an item for adults to obsess over as well. Clothes are a necessity that many cultures, including our own, have turned into something materialistic. I will even admit that buying clothes is one of the most satisfying feelings, hence “retail therapy”. So by buying a collector Barbie a person is not only getting a doll, he/she is buying an outfit. The Designer Barbies take retail therapy to the next level. Barbie’s outfit becomes even more extravagant and flashy, which is mouth-watering for collectors. When you throw a pink floral Kate Spade trenchcoat on her, the material level of a Barbie doll is enchanced by a thousand. The Designer series of Barbies shows the material culture that surrounds Barbie, even more than the doll itself.

Barbie—Hurtful or Helpful? – Deja Sloan

BarbiesFor over half a century, it has been almost impossible to grow up in American society and not encounter Barbie. Mattel’s creation of Barbie has revolutionized toys, and has had a huge impact on the world. Despite her enormous success, it seems society is divided about her. Is she a feminist Icon? Is she helping the cause, or only adding to the docile female stereotype?  The sad truth is, in this society there is no simple answer, and no chance of Barbie getting off easy.

So far this semester we have studied how icons are born of their time. Therefore, it makes sense that the first Barbie released in 1959 reflects the narrow beauty standards of the time, and features the original Barbie as a thin white woman in a one piece swim suit with blonde hair and pin-up themed make-up.  Considering 1950s society, she fit in perfectly as the face of American toys and as role models for young girls.

Mattel supporters praise Barbie and her ability to change with the times. But many argue that although Barbie tries to shape shift enough to represent all women, she still has a way of making those who do not fit the original Barbie hopelessly feel like the “Other.” The first Black Barbie doll was released in 1967.  Her name—Francie. On the surface, it seems like a positive step by Mattel to appeal to a larger audience and show another shade of beauty and success.  However, upon digging deeper I found that may not be the case.

Between Barbie’s initial release in 1959 and Francie’s release in 1967, Barbie had made friends, met her boyfriend, Ken, had a little sister and numerous jobs. As Barbie gained popularity, consumers found out she was of German ancestry and in the midst of the civil rights movement in the United States, this raised the question of whether or not Barbie, and the German ancestor, the Bild Lilli doll, were white supremacists. As a response, Mattel released Francie, and many argue that it was a cheap attempt to show that Barbie having one nonwhite friend who kept her from being racist (because that’s all it takes, right?).

For many minority girls looking for representation of their own beauty at the time, this seemed like a breakthrough. Finally, they too had a Barbie too look up too. But how much did Francie actually have in common with the African American community? Unfortunately, not much. Though she was produced with a lot more melanin, Francie lacked Black features and looked more like a painted Barbie than anything else. Mattel also failed to acknowledge the difference in hair texture, which resulted in straight haired Francie. It wasn’t until 1968 that another black Barbie doll, Christie, was released with a different head mold and more African American features, such as Curly hair and fuller lips. Many people argue that the public made too big of a deal about Francie’s inaccurate representation of Black women.  But was it blown way out of proportion?

Growing up, I had a collection of about six Barbie dolls that ranged in skin tone, but nothing else. I loved to play with them in the bath tub or pool, but often wondered why if they were meant to be like me…Why doesn’t their hair curl up in the water too? Why do they have the same face as the white Barbie? Are my lips too big? Should I keep my hair this straight at all time too? Is this what I’m supposed to look like? Reflecting on thoughts like this that I had as a child validated the public’s outrage of the white washed Barbie.

The other problem with Barbie is that even when she tries to expand her horizon and include more people of color, she’s trapped in the paradox of making them all feel like the “Other.” Blonde-haired blue-eyed Barbie is the standard, and every other shade of the doll is an attempt to include others, while keeping Barbie in her spotlight. Toy stores often have extravagant displays of Barbies, failing to realize that plastering the packaging with the world “Black” may be harmful. It makes it seem like the Black version or Barbie is just another set of accessories, much like Doctor Barbie or Beach Barbie.

The Black Barbie is not the only one made to feel like an other.  Mattel has released many secondary Barbies to try to appeal to our culturally diverse nation. There are Asian, Hispanic, and Even Native American Barbie dolls. However, these too have questionable effects. Sure its nice to see color on the Barbie shelves, but a lot of times Mattel makes a huge profit off stereotyped Barbie dolls. For example, the Native American Barbie dolls Mattel has created never specify which tribe they originate from, and often have very stereotypical narratives. Not only do these dolls help feed into the stereotype of native peoples being “one with nature,” but they also contribute to romanticizing historical relationships between Europeans and native Americans which help desensitized children to the genocide the actually took place. Even in Barbie books, the native Barbies are readily willing to accept the settlers, and divided by ‘savage’ and ‘wise’.  In addition, Babries of other ethnicities are featured in not so accurate way too. Mexican Barbies in big, pink Fiesta dresses with accompanying Chihuahuas.   Asian Barbies with no specific country of origin, but  Japanese cherry blossoms and “traditional” Chinese make up don’t help the cause. But then on the other side it can be argued that this is simple a form of celebrating diversity and other cultures. But if that is the case, why can’t Native American Barbies hold down office jobs like white Barbie? Why must their culture be so heavily emphasized? That only contributes to the idea of Other, which in Barbie’s case seems a lot like a chance for white people to see and make money off of fake diversity, but continue to stereotype through material culture (Shwartz).

I guess it would be hard for any woman as big as Barbie to please everyone, but are her attempts to please helpful or hurtful? She tries to include friends of color, but they are seen as secondary. She tries to “celebrate” other cultures, but often ends up stereotyping. She has held multiple careers, but is still body shamed for being “too” pretty, and unrealistic. There are two sides to every argument, however I personally believe that the criticisms Barbie has faced for years regarding other looks, lack of diversity, and even in some case, slut shaming, make Barbie closer to coming a role model for women. In society, women are constantly judged and criticized for just being human. And much like Barbie, we continue to exist and trail blaze despite our imperfections. I believe that all’s well that end’s well, so in my mind through al her controversies, Barbie is a positive contribution to our society.

Maureen T. Schwartz, “Native American Barbie: The Marketing of Euro-American Desires.” American Studies (2005) 46:3/4:301-332

 

Put Your Barbie Glasses On by Quinn W Karpiak

Let’s put our Barbie glasses on; let’s see the world through Barbie. First of all, take in your surroundings. Are you in a bedroom? Now it’s the Barbie Fantasy Bedroom. Are you watching TV? Well, now you’re watching a Barbie commercial on a pink, plastic couch. Cooking? Your timer has a cute little voice tell you when the food’s done in the oven, and your Barbie apron keeps you looking fashionable as you put the meal on the table for your hunky significant other. You can Barbiefy any activity, and it’s actually fun to think of all the ridiculous ways you can do so.

However, a trend is realized in everything being turned Barbie, a trend which hints to itself in familiarity… Anything worth reimagining, Barbie has done it in the form of children’s toys. Barbie is its own universe. There are no wars, no famine, no poverty, oppression, or disease. There are soldier Barbies without a battle to fight; homemaker Barbies feeding their families or friends; politician Barbies with no social issues at hand; doctor Barbies with plenty of cures but no ailments. The Barbie Universe is perfect, glamorous, and ideal. And you can accept it as ideal and leave your Barbie glasses on forever. Or, you can wonder whose ideal it really is.

The star of the Barbie Universe is the Caucasian, blonde haired, blue eyed, buxom girl known as Barbie. She’s fashionable, and has plenty of outfits to play the part. But is Barbie too fashionable? She can hold any occupation, complete any task, accomplish anything her heart desires. Yet, at the end of the day, the most important thing is that Barbie was fashionable. Why be a firefighter if you’ll look tacky? Why be a college professor unless your hair is perfect? Why do anything without being the eternal vigil for fashion? Barbie presents us with the ideal of looking good, first, and then worrying about whatever task is at hand. Athena Barbie is fashionable, despite all that killing and trickery and surviving being the victim of attempted murder.

So Barbie stands for fashion, but who is Barbie? Is she solely represented by the picture of a buxom white woman, or do the alternative images of Barbie also cover who she is. I believe in the very wording of that question is its answer. The blonde Barbie, with unrealistic proportions, is the main representation, and anything else is an alternative representation. These alternative representations deviate from the Barbie ideal. Yes, they’re all the races and ethnicities that ideal Barbie is not, but they are just editions, or phases, and not the ideal. But maybe when you put your Barbie glasses on you see yourself as Cleopatra, or an Native American Princess, and your vision isn’t restricted to the same ideal as others’. Regardless of who Barbie is to the public, she may be someone completely unique in the private, which is a perception based on more than just which Barbies a child owns, but is founded on the lessons that child is taught in consideration of the Barbies.

Engineering Barbie by Ali McCarron

The first thing that came to mind in preparing this blog was the internet uproar from a few months ago regarding the 2010 Barbie book, I Can Be…A Computer Engineer. The controversy arose when a journalist for Gizmodo, Pamela Ribon, published an article dissecting the book, entitled “Barbie F*cks It Up Again,” on November 18, 2014.

First of all, I definitely recommend reading the article, as it is a hilarious take on a horrifically troubling book for young, predominantly female, readers. To give a brief summary, I Can Be…A Computer Engineer starts out promising. Barbie’s story begins while she works on her laptop, designing a game intended to teach children how computers work. Barbie in a typically male-dominated STEM career, which seems like it will lead to a super-cool, ‘Woo! Feminism!’ ‘We can do it!’ type book for young readers, but it fails completely on every following page. After explaining her plan to her sister, Skipper, Barbie laughs off her compliments and requests to play the game, explaining that she’ll “need Steven’s and Brian’s help to turn it into a real game!” Suddenly, catastrophe strikes! Barbie’s computer crashes, and she subsequently crashes Skipper’s by putting her virus infested flash drive into her laptop. How ever will Barbie fix the laptops? Enlisting the help of Steven and Brian, of course, as Barbie is completely helpless. The story concludes with everyone praising Barbie for her amazing skills as a computer engineer, even though she was unable to do anything without the help of the males, illustrating the common view that there is no need for females in STEM profession.

On November 19, 2014, the Barbie Facebook page released a statement on the matter, writing:

The Barbie I Can Be A Computer Engineer book was published in 2010. Since that time we have reworked our Barbie books. The portrayal of Barbie in this specific story doesn’t reflect the Brand’s vision for what Barbie stands for. We believe girls should be empowered to understand that anything is possible and believe they live in a world without limits. We apologize that this book didn’t reflect that belief. All Barbie titles moving forward will be written to inspire girl’s imaginations and portray an empowered Barbie character.

This statement peaked my curiosity on the developments made to Barbie books since 2010 – you know, ages ago, when misogyny was a thing…

I went to the Random House Kids website, which publish all Barbie Books through several different subsidiary publishing labels. While I was not able to read all of the books published within the past several years, I was able to read a brief summary of them, and through my brief undertaking, I was extremely disappointed. Barbie within the literary world is both very similar and extremely different than the Barbie created in 1959.

While the articles we read in class depicted Barbie as a grown adult modeled after the “Bild Lilli,” a “sort of three-dimensional pinup,” the Barbie portrayed in books from 2004 to the present, show a teen Barbie in high school, who, disconcertingly, owns her own Dreamhouse with her younger sister Skipper, and the occasional friend, or a teen princess Barbie (Lord 7-8). The two main series of books in production in 2014 and 2015 are Barbie in Princess Power and Barbie: Life in the Dreamhouse. The Princess Power series appears the most promising, as it depicts Barbie as a modern day princess with powers that allow her to “save the day,” but Life in the Dreamhouse highly values domesticity, with titles like “Cupcake Challenge!” “Barbie Loves Parties!” and “Dream Closet”. However, there is one book in the series that focuses on Barbie’s independence – in “Licensed to Drive” Barbie receives her drivers’ license and gains mobility and the responsibility of driving Skipper and her friends around the town.

Other books published within the past two years include: Hair-tastic!, Pretty Ponies, On the Runway, Sleepover Fun!, Dream Closet, and Pop Star Dreams. The I Can Be… series that sparked the 2014 controversy is continued to be published, but the “Computer Engineer” edition has been removed. Other I Can Be… professions include: gymnast, dance star, movie star, artist, pastry chef, cheerleader, and ballerina. There are some more education-focused professions, such as “baby doctor,” “pet vet,” and teacher, however most of the focus seems to be on “women’s jobs,” including those in the arts and even teacher. To me, the most impressive of all the I Can Be… works is the I Can Be…President, in which Barbie runs for class president, with the help of her female friend. It seems the most empowering of all the books, without a male savior to help Barbie out when things become difficult.

I found it interesting that in the second phase of Barbie, Pearson and Mullens note the building up of Ken as a character in his own right, with the “macho Ken” role beginning in 1963, Barbie began to retreat into the domestic (238). In the new Barbie books, Ken is never present as a main character, and, from what I found, usually is not present at all. In most books, Barbie actually seems to be pretty into “girl power,” always hanging out with her sister and her friends. This is what makes the turn toward “female roles” so baffling to me. There is no strong male lead to take on the high-powered roles, so they are just in limbo, in a world with a whole lot of dancers and performers, but no scientists, lawyers, or mathematicians.

Maybe I am looking too deeply into this. Maybe it is actually a feminist move to say, “You know what? I don’t want to be a scientist, I want to hang out with my pony, and that’s completely okay!” But I can’t help to think of all of the interesting, “non-girly” aspirations that many young girls have that are not being represented in this market.

Or, conversely, perhaps the depictions of Barbie in these books actually align with Pearson and Mullins’ framework of Barbie’s development and regression throughout time as an indicator of the social mores of our society at the time. As Lord explains, “Barbie [is] a toy designed by women for women to teach women what – for better or worse – is expected of them by society,” and, although disappointing, maybe our society is stagnant in a misogynistic ideology, developing, but only insofar as moving from domestic women’s roles to “women’s jobs” within the broader workforce.

Barbie. “The Barbie I Can Be A Computer Engineer book…” Facebook. 19 Nov. 2014. [12 Mar. 2015 <https://www.facebook.com/BarbieNAD/posts/362944293876701>]

Ribon, Pamela. “Barbie F*cks It Up Again.” Gizmodo. Ed. Annalee Newitz. N.p., 18 Nov. 2014. Web. 12 Mar. 2015.
<http://gizmodo.com/barbie-f-cks-it-up-again-1660326671>

How real is the “Rosie Myth?” by Deja Sloan

The popularized media image of our beloved wartime heroine Rosie the Riveter Se Puedeseems to be ingrained in our brains as a young, white, American woman, eager to help on the home-front while the boys are away. But how much of this iconic image corresponds to what the face of a “Rosie” actually looked like in the forties? Did all the women who stepped forward to work fit this cookie-cutter example of what a wartime heroine should be? Or did the lines blur to include women of different color, ages, or socioeconomic backgrounds?

My investigation begins with the oral history accounts of Angelina Alexandre. A Mexican-American woman born in California, 1919, Alexandre was in her mid 20s around WWII and the birth of the image of Rosie was born. When asked about her recollection of the war, she remembers when her brothers went into service, and when her nephews went to work because of the shortage of men. As far as being as eager as Rosie to work, however, Alexandre was more so coaxed into working for Ford industries by a next-door neighbor who worked at a shipyard at the time of war, and suggested that Alexandre get a job as well. With two myths debunked so early into the investigation (all the Rosies being white & their eagerness to work), it seems that the image of our wartime heroine is a false representation, however, the ‘average Rosie’ did overlap with the image of Rosie the riveter in multiple ways. Alexandre recalls being “too busy with [her] children” to hear about the attack on Pearl Harbor when it happened.  Her recollection corresponds with the film “Women on the Warpath” (produced by Ford Motor Company) that we watched in class which portrayed women as being distracted by “womanly” duties and oblivious to the devastation – and danger of the war.

Alexandre also mentioned the labor union she was a member of during her work service at the time of war, Autoworkers of America. She enjoyed it, and the men in it alongside her. She had morning and lunch breaks, and spent them in the cafeterias onsite, which she described as “Very good.”  She did her work, and when it came time to be paid, she hopped in line with all the other workers for an envelope of cash.

When asked about the treatment of Japanese Americans during the war, much like the riveting propaganda at the time, Alexandre did not enter the camps they were being held in, or ‘acknowledge’ them much during this time.  As far as the not-so-publicized characteristics of our heroine Riveter, Alexandre also followed the pattern of hiring a “Mammy” to help take over domestic work over a period of 18 months while she helped with the war effort. Alexandre also recalls the time when the boys returned with an expectation of their old jobs back. Alexandre, however, was not as easily laid off as some Rosies.  She managed to find work until her retirement. In conclusion, my investigation of Alexandre shows that it takes a closer look to see who Rosie really was.  She was not always the perfect icon. At the time of the war, workers were desperately needed and companies had an ideal image of exactly who they wanted their workers to be.   But in times of desperation, these ideals had to allow flexibility for Rosie’s persona, resulting in millions of “average” Rosies, who made up a workforce that riveted just as strongly.

Rosie the Riveter- Just Your Average Advertising Story by Brittany N. Cozzens

To me, the more and more I read on Maureen Honey’s “Creation of the Myth” on Rosie the Riveter, the more I began to question Rosie as a true American Icon and more of an American Farce. Defining an American Icon in the beginning of the semester we learned that an iconic image is “wholly exceptional and has levels of widespread recognizability; moved beyond its original purpose; is in fact original and moved to a point of celebrity; and has the attraction of a cult following”. While I think that most may agree that Rosie possesses these types of characteristics, I believe she does so in the sense that she was specifically made TO BECOME an icon, which to me breaks the #1 rule of iconicity- she isn’t original or authentic.  Rosie the Riveter, in my opinion, was just a successful advertising campaign.

In “Creation of the Myth,” we obtain a very detailed understanding of how Rosie came to be. During WWII, we see that the Office of War Information (OWI), the Bureau of Campaigns, and War Advertising Council (WAC) work to create a “Women in the War” campaign in 1944 that encourages women to enter the work force in an array of different jobs. A man instrumental in pushing government officials to this idea was Chester La Roche, the chair of the WAC. Now, La Roche isn’t your typical Don Draper; his intent was to get the rest of the government on board to wage psychological warfare via all media outlets and “threaten the public with the loss of loss of political freedoms”. (I know sounds American right? ) He truly believed that if the government didn’t use these types of methods that the American public wouldn’t cooperate.  From here we then see the launch of a nation wide advertising campaign set with a manipulative manual War Guide for Advertisers that outlines where and how to advertise.  In 1942 the campaign took off and La Roche’s plan of utilizing all media outlets really set sail with the addition of Magazine Bureau. Propaganda in magazines was present in the photos, the storylines, and articles on women in different industries and basically the whole magazine. Fiction writers were a huge addition into the OWI campaign efforts in order to make “war work sound attractive to women readers.” For years, media industries worked solely to convince women in every way that working during the war was a glamorous and fun thing to do through these magazines.

When government and fiction align is when we should start to realize there is a problem.  La Roche and the WAC probably created one of histories most strategic, elaborate, and effective advertising campaigns. And Rosie was all a part of that manipulative plan.

As an advertising student, I see Rosie the Riveter as successful art direction. I don’t see her as an American Icon because she is based off of a propaganda media blast in order for the government to control citizens. America is supposed to be land of the free and home of the brave, where citizens work hard because they want to not because they are manipulated to. Everything about this ad campaign points to a dictatorship of citizens through media rather than a democracy. To me, she is no truer than those tabloids you see about celebrities in the grocery store. Yes, her image was made famous but not in an honest or American way. She doesn’t truly represent the feminist women either because she was enacted as a plan to control women psychologically. Iconicity lends itself to being formed through a societal need, but Rosie was created to be an icon in order to sell the government’s product (the workforce) during that time.

Rosie’s: Rebuilding but Not Disturbing by Annie Persico

Let’s set the tone: Imagine a person walking up to your white picket fence and promptly smashing it with a sledge hammer. The American Dream, yours and countless others, was just smashed into pieces. Americans experienced this on the Eve of Revolution, in the economic Depression, and in the Dust Bowl, but they picked up the pieces and survived.

In essence, that is what America felt on a global level when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in December 1941.

As previously blogged, survival is Rosie's riveting during WWIIthe essence of achieving, and in World War II’s case upholding, the American Dream.  Your ability as a person or collectively as a country to overcome and succeed allows you to achieve that Dream; when it’s smashed, there is nothing to do but try to survive again. American culture, based on the survival efforts of man was thrown upside down when all of our men were sent to the front lines. Who would help the country pick up the broken pieces of its white picket fence?

Enter: Rosie the Riveter.

Women all over the country (my grandmother included,) put on pants, tied up their pin curls, picked up their drills and fought for the survival that would enable us to rebuild our white picket fences one rivet at a time.

Women, like Mary Cohen, were encouraged by the Office of War Information’s magazine campaigns run by Dorothy Dorcas and the Magazine Bureau (Honey) to take up the jobs of men to fulfill their patriotic duty to their country and help the country survive in its time of need. The propaganda campaigns of the OWI achieved the goal of their “psychological” war in drawing women into taking up the duty of survival previously left to men. No doubt the achievement of these women, their dedication and patriotism to our country is commendable; but how do women like Mary Cohen survive in our male dominated historical narrative? How do these women’s stories become a huge part of World War II’s historical narrative?

Mary Cohen commuted two hours every day, 5 days a week to rivet in New Jersey in 1942. After fulfilling what she felt was her American duty to help support the men over-seas and “rebuild the fence,” she joined the United States Army and worked on airplanes in Tucson. She later married, had children, and worked for the State of California to help place veterans in jobs. In one of her stories she tells of giving up her seat on a plane to a young man returning home from Iraq. Clearly Cohen represents the ideal woman of American society that history has presented us; patriotic, willing to serve her country, a mother and wife, a supportive role model. Her profile fit into the narrative of World War II without disturbing the accomplishments of man- She “[could] do it!”  She, like all Rosie’s, achieved iconic status because of a supporting role- much like Betsy Ross did for the American Revolution.

Laurel Thatcher Ulrich makes the argument that Betsy Ross persists as a historical figure because she fits the dominant historical narrative. Mary Cohen wanted to fly planes, but her choice to support and rivet, like all Rosies is what makes Rosie an Icon. The fact that Mary Cohen, an embodiment of Rosie, never got into the plane and bombed, and the fact that she willingly took the role of support that the government needed to rebuild its “fence,” her understanding that survival and upholding the American Dream was only hers for a brief period of time, is what allows Rosie to remain an icon of World War II and the larger American historical narrative.

Nubia: Wonder Woman’s Black Sister by Kelsey Miranda

During our class discussion on Wednesdays we mentioned the new Superman vs.sfnubia Batman movie features Wonder Woman as a main character.  The actress who was casted for the role is Israeli actress Gal Godot. A good choice but in class we discussed how songstress Beyoncé Knowles would have been better. During my frantic Google searches of why Beyoncé was not cast as Wonder Woman, I came across something interesting.

In 1973 the writers of the Wonder Woman decided to change her origin story revealing that she was not the only Wonder Woman.  WW Issue #204 “The Second Life of the Original Wonder Woman” the cover depicts a fully armored woman ready to kill Diana and they are surrounded in an arena of Amazons.  In the background there is Hippolyta stating “Unless I revel there are two wonder women, my daughter Diana will die!” In this issue Diana’s memory and powers are restored after the efforts of her mother, Hippolyta, bring Diana back to the Paradise Island. Prior to this issue, Wonder Woman was living as Diana Price and gave up her Amazon powers to live in the “Man’s World”. Memories of her life as an Amazon disappeared until flash backs of her birth come back “as Hippolytasculpted a toddler girl and Athena endowed her with the powers of the gods.”[1]  Issue 204 hints that Diana is missing a part of her birth story. Diana gains back her memory and reasserts herself as Wonder Woman but is interrupted by armored woman who claims she is “Wonder Woman of the Floating Isles.”

iamnubiaThe armored woman challenges Diana in a series of games. While Diana and this mysterious armored woman are sword fighting and the armored woman defeats and knocks the sword out of Diana’s hand.  In a position to kill Diana, she stops and reveals herself as Nubia.  This is the first time Nubia is introduced in the comic book. Hippolyta’s immediately recognizes her long lost daughter who was captured by long time enemy of the Amazons, Ares god of war. In the origin story of Nubia, at the same time that Diana was created out of white clay Nubia was created from black clay by Hippolyta.  Aphrodite gave both babies the gift of life and beauty but Nubia was immediately captured after her creation by Mars. Nubia is Diana’s black sister but Hippolyta only refers to Diana as her daughter. Kind of messed up of Hippolyta especially being reunited with your long lost child! Nubia returns to the floating island where she is the leader of male warriors. Nubia’s life away from Paradise Island depicts a life of loneliness.

In WW #206 “War of the Wonder Woman” the cover shows Diana and Nubia chained together at the ankles and wielding swords at each other. In the background there is Ares face and it seems that Nubia is being controlled by Mars to kill Diana and destroy the Amazons.  Interestingly Mars chooses Nubia, Diana’s sister because he knows that she is the only woman with enough strength to challenge and destroy her. Nubia’s sword is the only weapon that can counter act Diana’s lasso.  Nubia and Diana cross paths again and we find out that Mars raised Nubia to be an “”instrument of vengeance against the Amazons — whom I hate because their ways of love — will eventually destroy my ways of war — unless I annihilate them first! Nubia will do this for me!”[2]

In the Midst of the fight Diana recognizes that Nubia is wearing a ring that belongs to Ares and it is being used to control her. Diana changes her focus to destroying Ares’s ring. Once the ring is destroyed Nubia and Diana realize how fearful Mars is of women and their peacemaking ability.  Mars disowns her at the end of the issue and Nubia decides to lead her “warriors into ways of peace!”[3] The two do not decide who carries the title of Wonder Woman but share a “sisterhood” like alliance instead.

Gloria Steinem’s article “Wonder Woman” discusses the influence comic books especially Wonder Woman had on her life. Writing during the 1970’s in the midst of the women’s movement and the civil rights movement Steinem connects second-wave feminism to Marston’s Wonder Woman. “While Wonder Woman symbolizes many values of the women’s culture that feminists are trying to introduce into the mainstream, strength and self-reliance for women; sisterhood and mutual support among women; peace fullness and esteem for human life.”  Steinem dismisses the concept Marston created that women are better than men and argues that the social hierarchy must be eliminated so individuals can be free of assigned roles because of race and sex. Marston’s use of Mars to display how men are threaten by women which the writers in the 1970’s show but also how women maybe standing in the way of other women.

This is an interesting concept because of the time period of 1973, after the passage of Roe V. Wade there was a significant split in the woman’s movement.  I agree with Jill Lepore the writer of “The Last Amazon” that passage of Roe v. Wade narrowed the movement. “If 1972 was a legislative watershed, 1973 marked the beginning of a drought.”[4]  Pro-life feminists and Pro-choice feminists separated but also many minority women thought of the women’s movement as white heterosexual women’s movement.  This created splits between Black feminists, Chicana feminists, and Lesbian feminists to split from the women’s movement to discuss other inequalities such as race and sexuality.

It also poses an interesting concept of Mars the male figure that is everything nubia_2012that Wonder Woman is against creating divides against women. How Nubia was “brainwashed” by Mars for his agenda against the Amazons. Hmmm. It may possibly a reference to anti-feminist women during this 1970’s creating more conflict with the women’s movement. Unfortunately this is the last we will see of Nubia in the Wonder Woman comic until the late 1990’s and 2000s. After talking to my friend Leo, who has been reading the “post-crisis” Wonder Woman he says that Nubia becomes Wonder Woman of an alternative DC world and may be modeled by Beyoncé. Can you see the resemblance?     [5] [6]


[1] http://www.carolastrickland.com/comics/wwcentral/misc_indexes/nubia/nubia.html

[2] http://www.carolastrickland.com/comics/wwcentral/misc_indexes/nubia/nubia.html

[3] http://www.carolastrickland.com/comics/wwcentral/misc_indexes/nubia/nubia.html

[4] http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/22/last-amazon–

[6] Final Crisis #7 (2009) // DC Comics (Earth 23)

Wonder Woman as Feminist Icon: Two Different Perspectives by Calvin Thrall

Our class discussion about whether or not Wonder Woman truly is a feministwonderwomanimage icon really made me think about the complexity of the question – Wonder Woman was created by a man, after all, and she behaved differently under different writers and in different time periods. We know that William Marston created Wonder Woman with feminism in mind, but could a white man in the early 20th century even really grasp the concept? Is Wonder Woman a feminist icon?

I have two separate answers to this question – though they might sound like they are in opposition, I believe that they are equally true and equally important. I arrived at these answers by splitting the question into two questions, the first of which being: Is Wonder Woman a feminist icon in 2015?

My answer is a resounding no.

Analyzing past media (movies/articles/books/etc) through a feminist lens is an important practice for the furthering of modern feminist theory. It allows us to better understand the prejudices and biases of a time period, and by extension to better understand the problems in our society today. It’s also true that it’s just as important to critique past works of feminism as it is to critique non-feminist media; modern feminism is no longer the “if you educated women they’d be better wives for men” argument that Mary Wollstonecraft once wrote about. Wonder Woman can be critiqued in just the same way. Yes, it’s true that she is a woman and a superhero; it’s also true that many of the plots of her comics (at least in the 40s) aimed to teach lessons of gender equality.

But Wonder Woman was never quite allowed to be as strong or as capable as the male superheroes that she associated with – she was secretary of their league, she had to stay home when they went war. Wonder Woman is also problematic when viewed from an intersectional standpoint. As Gloria Steinem points out, the Wonder Woman comics tended to get racist and jingoistic around wartime, while she still claimed to be a supporter of human rights. One hardly has to watch the news for 5 minutes in the U.S. nowadays to understand that we still do the same thing when it comes to our depictions of Muslims. Perhaps the patriotism of the 40s simply won out over the attempts at feminism (for example, though Wonder Woman is Amazonian she’s also… a white American woman?), or perhaps a nonwhite or non war-supporting heroine just wouldn’t have sold comics at that time. Either way, Wonder Woman certainly does not pass inspection when it comes to the standards of feminism in 2015.

Question #2: Did Wonder Woman symbolize the ideals of Western feminism in the 1940s?

My answer here is yes, absolutely. Wonder Woman has a lot of flaws that are important to acknowledge and keep in mind, but in my opinion she was a positive step in the advancement of feminism in the United States. Perhaps Wonder Woman presented a slightly watered down version of the ideas that were really circulating among feminists at the time, but she offered a strong and independent female icon to a world that desperately needed them. Wonder Woman never explicitly tells her readers to dismantle the patriarchy or to use birth control, but consider what she does do: she encouraged woman to earn their own living, to join the WAVEs or WAACs, and she (at least originally, under Marston’s control) demonstrated to her young readers that women can be just as successful without a husband or children. Her existence alone as a female superhero allowed girls to see that world as one that they belong in too, instead of the boys’ club it used to be (and mostly still is, sadly).

The image I’ve included, the closing panel from 1944’s All-Star Comics #22, is an example of Wonder Woman’s progressive nature relative to her time period. Does she follow this creed unfailingly? No, she doesn’t; but she played an important role in bringing feminist ideas to the general public, and inspired many women (like Steinem) to defy the patriarchic order and learn about feminist theories. 70 Years from now, that which we believe to be progressive now will probably be considered conservative and problematic, as it should be. There is merit both in acknowledgment of Wonder Woman’s faults and her successes, and though she’s lost her status as a feminist icon, her American iconicity is undebatable.

Rolling a Natural One: Wonder Woman and the Weighted Dice by Elizabeth A Yazvac

In Dungeons & Dragons, players roll dice to accomplish actions. Simply put,Wonder Woman breaking the chains! rolling a higher number increases the chances of success. On a 20-sided dice, rolling a natural 20 (a 20 is displayed on the die) means instant success! Not only success, but really awesome things happen. On the other hand, rolling a natural 1 means instant failure. And not only failure, but bad things happen to your character, too. Reading about Wonder Woman, her origins, and her evolution made me think about the role that women play in comics and the Fantasy genre, and how it so often feels like we are constantly rolling a natural one.

In the same way that Dungeons & Dragons characters are appealing, superheros are popular because of their power; they can accomplish things that the audiences cannot, and that makes them cool! Wonder Woman’s creator, William Marston, made her powerful but also a model of “strong, free, courageous womanhood”, making her even cooler! (Lepore 1). Yes, she has Amazonian super strength, but she also has to be talented enough to successfully execute her plans (Steinem 204), so no rolling natural ones allowed!

When talking about the appeal of comics, Martson brings up the concept of “wish fulfillment,” claiming that wish fulfillment is tied to human emotion, and emotions are exactly what comics play at (Martson 39). While reading that passage, all I could think about was how true it was for my own experiences with my Dungeons and Dragons character.

I started playing Dungeons & Dragons in high school. I had given up attempts to stifle my inner nerd (I planned my senior prom… and made the theme outer space) and decided that not only did I want to play D&D, but I wanted to chop as many imaginary goblins in half with my imaginary enchanted two-handed battle axe as possible. But as I got to creating my character – Ellywick Silverleaf, half-elf, fighter class – I realized that I didn’t want to make her a one-dimensional killing machine. I wanted her to be a complex and multi-faceted killing machine.

Much like my own struggle to find balance between femininity and the Fantasy genre, I wanted Ellywick to have all the power that I don’t (wish fulfillment!) but still be a relatable female who wants a husband, children, and a modest castle in the hills. So, I created Ellywick to be a symbol of “strong, free, courageous womanhood”, because other symbols like her were, and still are, so lacking.

Sexy Woman D&Dd and d

Wish fulfillment is not something that only appeals to men. Just as much as my brother liked video games, so did I. Wonder Woman, obviously, appealed to female audiences, but female audiences were also reading Superman and Batman, and they continue to do so today. Yet, despite large numbers of female comic book fans, women continue to hit a glass ceiling (keeping in line with the theme of this article, I am imagining women like lasers unable to penetrate the Gungan deflector shields at The Battle of Naboo).

Gloria Steinem discusses the importance of Wonder Woman in her own formative years, reading about a character that (“Great Hera!”) was a woman with an active role (Steinem 204). But, today, Wonder Woman fails to achieve the fame of her male counterparts, instead being tossed into the background of a Superman/Batman mashup movie and being subjected to fashion critics looking at her outfit more than anything else.

Early on in my creation process of Ellywick, I almost made her a man. I wanted her to be as strong as possible, and that seemed to better fit a male persona. But this, I realize, is exactly Martson’s point. That “not even girls want to be girls so long as our feminine archetype lacks force, strength, power” (Marston 42). We need to stop rolling natural ones for ourselves, stop accepting worn-out, sexist roles for our female characters, and demand that the efforts of early Wonder Woman not be in jest.

wonder woman

 

Photo credits

Woman Woman breaking chains: Gardner, Dwight. “Her Past Unchained.” The New York Times. 23 October 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/books/the-secret-history-of-wonder-woman-by-jill-lepore.html

D&D Character 1: Dungeons and Dragons, armour and underwear.http://blog.rhiannonlassiter.com/2012/09/12/dungeons-and-dragons-armour-and-underwear/

D&D Character 2: DeviantArt. http://www.deviantart.com/morelikethis/artists/149223458?view_mode=2

Wonder Woman comic: Asselin, Janelle. The ‘F’ Word: Wonder Woman’s Feminism Shouldn’t Be Covered Up. Comics Alliance. 2 July 2014. http://comicsalliance.com/wonder-woman-feminism-meredith-finch-david-finch-dc/