Wonder Woman: Not Trying to Start a Crusade Here, but…
…I am more than a little bit disgusted and discouraged by the dismissive attitude that I’m seeing in regards to the use of Wonder Woman on the February 2008 issue of Playboy magazine.
I’m a guy. I like women. I’m the one in the Pink Raygun household who subscribes to the digital edition of Playboy Magazine, and I’m the one who told Lisa about the cover. Lisa and I are the ones who first posted on this use of the Wonder Woman character by Playboy Magazine.
Within a week of posting, our little post pointing out the distinctly different ways in which DC seems to allow use of their trademarked characters (based on the character’s gender, apparently) had been picked up and and was being discussed on jezebel.com, afterellen.com, athleticwomen.com, and many of the usual suspects when it comes to issues of feminism and comics.
Today I came across the latest installment of Steven Grant’s Permanent Damage column over at comicbookresources.com (which I have been gladly reading for as long as he’s been writing).
Wonder Woman isn’t an ideal for girls anymore, and probably hasn’t been for a long time; to teenage girls and younger, she’s an old hat fuddy-duddy. - Steven Grant
Maybe that’s true, and maybe it isn’t - but if it is true, somebody should tell the licensing department at DC/Warner that they’re completely wasting their time with all that silly Wonder Woman merchandise that you can currently buy. Children’s plates? Toddler’s costumes? Wonder Woman Barbie Dolls? All available either today or recently from stores like Target and Sears, and all completely Pointless. What girl would want any of that crap?
(Speaking of Barbie - She came into being almost 50 years ago, 18 years after Wonder Woman’s first appearance. Both characters were created to appeal to little girls, and marketed as such. I would argue that in the US, the two most recognized “girl” icons are Wonder Woman and Barbie - one the action girl, the other the girlie-girl. Can anyone imagine Mattel EVER allowing Playboy magazine to co-opt the image and name of Barbie to sell their magazine?)
Anyway - DC/Warner continues to market Wonder Woman to little girls. More importantly, they continue to market Wonder Woman to the mothers of today’s little girls, those same mothers who have fond memories of their own Wonder Woman Underoos, bed sheets, dress-up kits, purses, and Crazy Foam bath soap from when they were little girls. DC/Warner wants to have it both ways - a sexed up Wonder Woman as wank material to help sell adult fare, and a safe, action-heroine Wonder Woman they can get their percentage on to sell merchandise to children.
All in all, it’s a hissy fit clawing for an issue. - Steven Grant
Again, can anyone imagine Mattel doing the same with Barbie? And if Mattel were to go the Warner route with their most recognized girl’s brand, can you imagine the backlash that would occur both in print and at the cash-register?
Of course, I could be wrong, and this could be the start of a brave new marketing world for DC/Warner. Imagine how much better the well the Wonder Woman Resin Mirror would have sold…
| Hey Girls! Now you can look into our products and see yourself!
And Mom? Remember all those hours spent imagining yourself as Wonder Woman? Well, here ya go! |
|
 |
 |
Never miss an update. Subscribe to Pink Raygun by Email or subscribe via RSS
January 24th, 2008 at 8:42 am
I wonder why it should be a surprise that Wonder Woman is marketed different ways to different audiences. As far as I know, that’s the way to increase awareness of her and marketing is just a way to sell the product. If getting guys off to her is a way to do it, then, from a purely commercial standpoint, it makes sense to sell that image to those sorts. I’m not saying I agree, but I have trouble working up too much ire over something that’s been inherently part of the character since forever. I mean, you can’t say a character created with a specific weakness against BDSM never crossed the line, sexually, before. I know she’s improved and become more of a stronger, independent character, which is great. Perhaps that’s why she is such a turn-on, hence why she would have an appeal as a cover-girl for Playboy? I’m just Devil’s Advocate here, I didn’t love that they did that.
January 24th, 2008 at 9:04 am
While I understand why you or anyone else might be upset about this, I disagree for a couple of reasons:
1) DC isn’t pushing the sexed-up version seen in Playboy…Playboy did that. And they did it in such a way so that they wouldn’t have to ask DC’s permission, hence the inaccurate costume and the only briefly mentioning making the cover girl “look like Wonder Woman” on the inside. There’s nothing for DC to fight, as they are not using the trademarked character, but a costume “inspired” by it.
2) While Mattel would never allow Barbie to be used in this way, that doesn’t mean that people don’t dress up as Barbie for sexual fetish play or to take sexy pictures. Little girls don’t (or shouldn’t, if their parents are doing any kind of a good job) know about these things. It’s not as though a little girl is going to come across a copy of Playboy, see Wonder Woman portrayed in a slutty fashion, and have her world shattered. The two worlds are separate enough, I think, that one wouldn’t affect the other. So, there’s nothing really to worry about as far as the influence on young girls.
Adults co-opt children’s images for sexual purposes all the time - from Shirley Temple’s “Baby Burlesque” films back in the 30s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Burlesks), to today’s “sexy” versions of children’s characters as Halloween costumes. Yet, I don’t see how it has anything to do with children’s view of themselves or the characters they love.
January 24th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Trinity - Wonder Woman may be flawed, but she’s one of very few girl’s characters that have been marketed by it’s owner to multiple generations as some sort of role model. Disney would never allow Mickey Mouse to be used in this way. Ronald McDonald won’t suddenly be allowed to be a spokesperson for tobacco companies. They understand the marketing value of keeping a children’s character untainted and viable - something the comic book industry seems to have forgotten (if they ever knew it). And why double standards? Why jealously guard against an artist sexualizing Batman in a gallery show, but allow this?
Teresa - Yes, Playboy did this, not DC. But DC, by refusing to make any sort of statement, gives us their tacit consent. And just because Playboy got the costume wrong, they specifically say “Tiffany Fallon as Wonder Woman” right there on the cover - so there’s no real attempt to dodge any sort of infringement.
Even though people sexualize children’s entertainment for their own use, the use of a character by an entity that doesn’t own the character is problematic. The “Baby Burlesque” films were shut down by the Hayes code, Disney shut down “Air Pirates,” there was even ongoing flap over Alan Moore’s Lost Girls by the copyrights holder of Peter Pan, which prevented the book from being published in the EU until after the copyright expired in 2007.
As far as little girls never being exposed to images like a nude, body-painted Wonder Woman if their parents are doing their job: How many examples do we need of irresponsible parents NOT doing their job before we realize that’s not a valid argument. Not only that, even a parent doing their job could be blindsided by something like this - have you never gone into a Borders or Barnes and Noble and seen a copy of the latest Playboy unwrapped on the shelf? I usually see it, probably opened by some teenage boy, sitting in the gaming and comics section at my local Borders, right next to the Wizard and Playstation Magazines, which are typically located on the floor level display area.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Thank you, Space Cowboy!
“Teresa - Yes, Playboy did this, not DC. But DC, by refusing to make any sort of statement, gives us their tacit consent. And just because Playboy got the costume wrong, they specifically say “Tiffany Fallon as Wonder Woman” right there on the cover - so there’s no real attempt to dodge any sort of infringement.”
I suppose I also just don’t see the need for DC to say anything about it, then. While it did confuse me that they took no action, if they don’t care about the infringement on their intellectual property rights, why should we?
“Even though people sexualize children’s entertainment for their own use, the use of a character by an entity that doesn’t own the character is problematic. The “Baby Burlesque” films were shut down by the Hayes code, Disney shut down “Air Pirates,” there was even ongoing flap over Alan Moore’s Lost Girls by the copyrights holder of Peter Pan, which prevented the book from being published in the EU until after the copyright expired in 2007.”
The Baby Burlesque films were probably a bad example. Mostly because they were actually using children. However, the movies were filmed and shown before the Hayes Code was really enforced. Also, the Hayes Code ended up being dismissed decades later, because it’s kind of insane. No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin. Really? And who decides those standards?
“As far as little girls never being exposed to images like a nude, body-painted Wonder Woman if their parents are doing their job: How many examples do we need of irresponsible parents NOT doing their job before we realize that’s not a valid argument. Not only that, even a parent doing their job could be blindsided by something like this - have you never gone into a Borders or Barnes and Noble and seen a copy of the latest Playboy unwrapped on the shelf? I usually see it, probably opened by some teenage boy, sitting in the gaming and comics section at my local Borders, right next to the Wizard and Playstation Magazines, which are typically located on the floor level display area.”
My point when saying that is that parents should be doing their job. If they don’t, they don’t. But they should. The world isn’t, nor should it be, in my opinion, designed just for children. It really irritates me when censorship is upheld “for the children.” Because 1) if you don’t want your children seeing certain things, don’t let them look at it. It’s not anyone else’s responsibility to cover things up for you. And more importantly, 2) I’m not, nor have I ever been a fan of attempting to shelter things from children entirely. Children have eyes and ears and they’re not stupid. Rather than try to keep certain things from children (and it always amazes me that, in our sex-phobic culture, people race to hide sexuality from children, but have less of a problem with them seeing violence - super heroes included!), we should teach our children how to process those images. The images in and of themselves don’t harm children, it’s when we deny their existence and leave children to their own devices as far as dealing with them that they become a problem.
February 4th, 2008 at 4:33 am
[…] The only way forward, therefore, is to stage an ethical argument framed around “new female superhero-comics readers” — unfortunately, such creatures are as rare and elusive as new male superhero-comics reader, especially if you’re talking about adults — and so a thin veneer of feminist concern for an entirely imaginary teen-girl readership is draped over fan entitlement. The Girl Wonder argument thus becomes, “If you like drawings of over-endowed women in skimpy costumes parading around in your comics, you aren’t simply a male of the species who enjoys things that heterosexual adult fangirls don’t: You’re a clueless misogynist who hate little girls.” […]