We lost a global icon with the passing of Gloria Steinem. Much of her philosophy was common sense. If it's okay for men to do something, shouldn't it be okay for women to do the same thing? Why do we, especially in America, create a culture with double standards?
Nowhere was this symbolized more clearly than on the cover of Ms. Magazine in July 1972. It was not straightforward however. Some women felt that Wonder Woman's tight fitting and revealing costume was exploitive and catered to male sex interestes. Okay, but what about Superman's tight fitting costume? Why was it okay for him to wear revealing superhero garb, but not okay for women to do similar things? That logic prevailed. Gloria Steinem was not anti-sex, though others of that era really did not want to have much to do with men at all. The Women's Lib movement could not be lumped together as one single agenda. After all, people are diverse and have different opinions about how progress should be made.
It sounds ridiculous, but DC Comics had systematically depowered its iconic female superheroine Wonder Woman. It's absolutely true. Wonder Woman was completely powerless by 1972. In fact, she was known by her ordinary name, Diana Prince, rather than her more famous code name of Wonder Woman.DC thought for some reason it would be liberating if Wonder Woman could be a female James Bond stunt woman and secret agent, clad in a white pantsuit. Note that the issue below is a Special! Women's Lib Issue, proof that DC really did lose their marbles, and I'm not making this up! By the way, judging from the cover, it looks like Women's Bondage issue rather than Women's Lib issue. Diana and the dogs are mainly black and white and only the victim is colorfully clad, and moreover, she appears to be wearing a 1960's style pointy bra. I would call that exploitive, portraying a woman as a sexified victim, rather than Woman's Lib.
It sounds ridiculous, but DC Comics had systematically depowered its iconic female superheroine Wonder Woman. It's absolutely true. Wonder Woman was completely powerless by 1972. In fact, she was known by her ordinary name, Diana Prince, rather than her more famous code name of Wonder Woman.DC thought for some reason it would be liberating if Wonder Woman could be a female James Bond stunt woman and secret agent, clad in a white pantsuit. Note that the issue below is a Special! Women's Lib Issue, proof that DC really did lose their marbles, and I'm not making this up! By the way, judging from the cover, it looks like Women's Bondage issue rather than Women's Lib issue. Diana and the dogs are mainly black and white and only the victim is colorfully clad, and moreover, she appears to be wearing a 1960's style pointy bra. I would call that exploitive, portraying a woman as a sexified victim, rather than Woman's Lib.
Gloria Steinem and Ms. Magazine #1 ultimately gave Wonder Woman--the "old" Wonder Woman, with super powers-- the cover of the first-ever Ms. Magazine! It was hotly debated, as there was some thought within the feminist community that women should in fact be man-haters. However, the miniskirt-wearing Steinem's logic ultimately prevailed. The message was clear. Women could be strong and beautiful. They can be Superman's peers. They do not have to be powerless in order to be feminine.
DC Comics was shamed into giving up the Diana Prince Secret Agent version of Wonder Woman and the white pantsuit, and returned to the original concept of Wonder Woman. This was followed by a successful TV show with Lynda Carter in a starring role.
Needless to say, the success of Wonder Woman did not resolve the debate of whether she was an is a liberating figure, a global icon, or a sexually exploited fantasy character. Perhaps it would be fair to observe that she is a complex phenomenon and at times all three of these facets can be found in her character.
Gal Gadot's version of Wonder Woman, I thought was the most moving. She is a superhuman force, but isolated from the ills of human society to the extent that she is amazed by a revolving door at a department store. The extent of human stupidity in creating World War I is incomprehensible to her and she rebels against the entire institution of war, believing that it must be a curse created by the evil God of War, Ares.
Just reading the news from around the world in 2026, the evil curse theory does not seem too far out of line, frankly.
