Wonder Woman is a female eunuch

June 9, 2017 § 60 Comments

The shield maiden is in fact an ancient archetype, notable precisely because she is an exception and very much not a feminine role model for women in general; just as for example the eunuch is an ancient archetype and very much not a masculine role model.  Observe modernity’s expectation that the ideal man is basically a eunuch; the ideal woman a shield maiden.

The existence of these ancient archetypes combined with “choose whatever you want to be, except that only subhumans make the tyrannical traditional choice” modernity is toxic.

§ 60 Responses to Wonder Woman is a female eunuch

  • vetdoctor says:

    Ouch- you caught me with a keyboard and 10 minutes to spare. Did you see the movie? Humans certainly portrayed as sub-human. The male sex is superfluous and generally violent with the one noble exception though he’s only noble because he’s dead. Before he dies they have a conversation where she says that men are valuable for procreation but not pleasure. Work what you want into that.

    SPOILERS

    The two vignettes that caught my eye with a theme that tied them together:

    Wonder woman (BTW She kills a whole lot of people in this movie) kills a German soldier in the bell-tower of a Church by jumping in and blowing up the bell-tower. We are left with the image of the 1/2 destroyed church and WW standing on the rubble looking nobly into the third space as the villagers come out cheering .

    Part two. She finally is ready to kill the last of the gods (except she then becomes the very last god) and floats into the air in a pose that looks a bit like St. John of the Cross’s image of Christ on the cross except she then blows the dude up. So now theres only one god left- her. She now preaches love.

    I could go on and on about the just plain stupid in the movie. I’ll only add that my daughter, the animation major, complained that Zach Snyder seems to think there are only two colors, yellow and blue. And that’s a minor ding.

    *********

    Have you seen Guardians of the Galaxy- I’ll be going to that next as my summer recreation with the adult kids. At least it should be funny.

  • “Observe modernity’s expectation that the ideal man is basically a eunuch; the ideal woman a shield maiden.”

    Interesting. Any theories as to why that is so appealing these days? Just off the top of my head, I’m always concerned because I imagine one of the best way to invade and conquer a country is to put the women on the front lines and make all the men eunuchs.

  • CJ says:

    Haven’t seen the movie yet. But the idea that a society composed solely of women would be more peaceful, enlightened, etc has always been laughable to anyone with real world w experience. There was a news story a few years ago about a female entrepreneur who created an all-female company. Hilarity ensued. When asked what she’d have done differently, she said something like “hire all men.”

    My boyhood crush on Lynda Carter notwithstanding, pathology is baked into WW’s creation. The character was a composite of two women the creator was in a threesome with. He invented the polygraph and was into bondage, which explains the lasso and why she loses her powers if a man binds her bracelets. The deviance is strong with that one.

  • Zippy says:

    vetdoctor:

    I haven’t seen it, but I just saw a “WW is a great role mode for girls” piece to accompany the preview. This post itself started out as a comment at Malcolm’s:

    https://malcolmthecynic.wordpress.com/2017/06/09/an-observation/#comment-4600

  • Zippy says:

    CJ:

    That’s some … interesting background.

  • jaxglaukopis says:

    @CJ

    I was unaware of that background. Although it doesn’t exactly surprise me.

    @Zippy

    Have you ever thought about working on a logical proof demonstrating the problems of choice in and of itself being a good? I’ve been working on one I refer to as the “submission paradox”. And one can also demonstrate the motte-and-bailey reasoning of those who claim choice is a good in and of itself.

    “Choice is a good”
    “So serial killers should be able to choose to fulfill themselves”
    “well no…”
    “then there are limitations on choice clearly”
    “well yes”
    “Well okay then, welcome to the field of ethics. Now you have to defend your limitations/allowances”

  • Professor Q says:

    It’s not just Wonder Woman; most of these “super” heroes and heroines are all pathologic examples of pseudo-virtue. I suppose we get the “heroes” we deserve, having rejected the real ones.

  • Dan Daly says:

    “Any theories as to why that is so appealing these days?”

    Being a eunuch is appealing because people are afraid of children. Why else do so many men and women have themselves sterilized?

    Dietrich Von Hildebrand noted that sterility (and boredom) are two of the defining characteristics of the modern age.

  • Terry Morris says:

    Professor Q.:

    In the land of lies a “hero” is a single divorced mother holding down a part time job, who plays hard on the weekends and relies on her parents and subsidized daycare to raise and educate her children.

    Dan Daly:

    Being a eunuch is appealing because people are afraid of children.

    Well, people are afraid of the personal sacrifice and responsibility of having children.

    Why else do so many men and women have themselves sterilized?

    Self absorption.

  • Fear of children? Ha! Well,they are kind of scary.

    As to the new WW movie, I haven’t seen it, but it’s getting some good reviews and some of the feminist complaining is hopeful, she’s too feminine, likes men too much,and good and evil are clearly defined. That last complaint is revealing as to the nature of the problem,this narrative where all the lines must be blurred everywhere, from gender to how we define good and evil.

  • Patrick says:

    I think youre right in principle but this movie in particular moves the needle slightly toward not pathologizing the traditional choice. Probably doesnt matter much given the tidal wave in the opposite direction, but WW’s whole mission is contextualized ultimately as submission to a man’s instruction and she is presented at the end more as a widow than as a eunuch.

  • GJ says:

    The vast majority of moderns are not transsexuals, but many are ‘trans’ to the extent that they reject the cultivation of virtues that pertain specially to their own sex, instead pursuing the virtues of the opposite sex. This does not make them one of the opposite sex, but ‘unsexes’ them; they become some androgynous mess in some uncanny valley between the poles of the two sexes.

  • GJ says:

    Having been unsexed, that translates in some to a greatly diminished urge to have and rear children.

  • @GJ

    Honestly, I don’t think there is much difference in how the genders should act. Perhaps what I mean is that there is a specific synthesis of, for example, the purported roman ideas of Virtue and Modesty which in my opinion applies to both men and women. Now, the two genders may demonstrate these same virtues of character *through different means* but I would argue both should be focusing on these same virtues. I guess I’ll have to better explain myself in long-form to get these ideas across.

  • Step2 says:

    Wonder Woman may come from a tribe of shield maidens but she alone has a divine origin. Based on the limited mythology given in the movie I would guess she is supposed to be a version of Athena.

  • GJ says:

    Cogitare in Atlantis:
    I guess I’ll have to better explain myself in long-form to get these ideas across.

    That would be good, because all I’m seeing in your comment is the standard modern androgynous perspective.

  • RichardP says:

    @IB: the nature of the problem: this narrative where all the lines must be blurred everywhere, from gender to how we define good and evil.

    I imagine one who doesn’t want to be judged or held accountable in any way would welcome these blurred lines – as it then becomes much more difficult to determine when someone has crossed a line and should be called out for it

    Alternatively, the STEM stuff requires very distinction lines, standards, boundaries. Can you imagine putting humans on the moon in an environment where nothing in the physical world could be known for certain and counted on. Where lines and standards and boundaries varied from one moment to the next.

    It would be interesting to do a study on those who love blurred lines the most to see where they fall re. an interest in / an apptitude for STEM stuff.

  • RichardP says:

    re. WW’s lasso, braclets, and shield. Who understood physics well enough to create those so WW could use them? Where did they come from? From someone who loved blurred lines? Are love of blurred lines and scientific achievement compatible?

    Finally, it would be interesting to know if there is a biological basis for the preference for blurred lines over the distinct lines, standards, and boundaries found in the sciences.

  • So I went and saw the new WW movie. I thought it was just fabulous. Quite a surprise.

    Zippy has made an excellent point here in this post, but I almost feel as if the movie began to peel back some of those layers of deception in a way I haven’t seen for a very long time. Men are kind of the heroes in the tale too, she is actually serving them, and what does a goddess and a man who would lay down his life in war, really dream of as the ideal fantasy? To be ordinary, to live a life of love, marriage, and babies.

  • Terry Morris says:

    insanitybytes22:

    So I went and saw the new WW movie. I thought it was just fabulous. Quite a surprise.

    Well, wonderful. The West is saved!

  • Mike T says:

    He invented the polygraph and was into bondage, which explains the lasso and why she loses her powers if a man binds her bracelets. The deviance is strong with that one.

    The polygraph was clearly him successfully combining work and pleasure.

  • c matt says:

    Being a eunuch is appealing because people are afraid of children.

    It is difficult to prolong your own adolescence when you become responsible for someone else.

  • LarryDickson says:

    My daughter – who is fiercely Catholic and anti-feminist – gave a positive review of Wonder Woman, contrasting it with Beauty and the Beast, which got a complete thumbs down. She saw WW as having feminine virtues, modulated through her status as a goddess. Particularly telling was the complete absence of the homosexual theme (I wonder how it got past the homostalinist censors?).

    Zippy, your identifying of “shield maiden” with “eunuch” is too severe. What about Eowyn – shield maiden and definitely not eunuch. You have forgotten that people have stages in their lives.

    What is more intriguing is the resurgence of real paganism as a theme in fiction. It started in a quiet way with Star Wars, but is much more definite in WW and in things like the Egyptian fiction of Rick Riordan. The re-appearance of imaginative gods and goddesses, some of whom are good guys in the Stoic sense, is a phenomenon of great interest in this age of decay. (Catholic author Christopher Stasheff has an unusual take on it in his two-volume Star Stone series.) Notice that this kind of paganism tries to be classical and fresh, not the decadent Wicca sort. Thus it always is presented in an alternate world in which Judaism and Christianity are completely absent (or get one enigmatic mention – Riordan).

    Our dear contemporaries are going to discover once again that Stoicism does not save. But ironically, their ejection of Judaism and Christianity from their imaginations may be a good thing, allowing a fresh start when we Catholcis start doing our job properly.

  • Laura Yunque says:

    Just wait for “Atomic Blonde.” These vile creatures are a disgrace to womanhood. The bearers of life are now killing machines. Yet, with 60 million abortions in the US since ’73, are we surprised?

  • Zippy says:

    LarryDickson:

    I am not disparaging eunuchs or shield maidens, either as actuals or as archetypes. I am pointing out that neither is (whether actual or archetype) a good masculine or feminine role model, respectively.

    Presenting the shield maiden as a role model for girls qua girls is as perverse as presenting the eunuch as a role model for boys qua boys; and modernity does both.

  • Martin T says:

    absence of the homosexual theme

    The Amazon’s teach that med are only for procreation, not for pleasure. I found the theme more offensive as it preached the idea rather than the usual,” aren’t they cute”,” how can you hate love” memes.

  • Svar says:

    “The Amazon’s teach that med are only for procreation, not for pleasure.”

    Meds for procreation, Nords for pleasure.

  • Mike T says:

    Gal Gadot actually has more than a little in common with a shield maiden. The fact that she is amazingly hot and seems rather feminine makes her particularly dangerous as a role model as it gives the impression that flirting with the things that come from being a shield maiden aren’t destructive to a woman’s femininity.

  • Zippy says:

    Part of the problem is that modern people think that exceptional means “awesome” or “great”, as opposed to “non-normative”.

    Archetypically, the shield maiden and the eunuch sacrifice the characteristic virtues of their own sex in pursuit of some exceptional (as in, this is the exception not the rule) calling which requires a degree of excellence in the characteristic virtues of the opposite sex.

    But there are always some truly exceptional individuals who can appear to pull it off, if you will, without apparent sacrifice: exceptional women who can compete with most of the man’s bell curve[*] in some sport (say) without becoming masculinized, and exceptional men who can caretake/nurture without becoming effeminate.

    These people are interesting but make exceptionally (ahem) poor role models for normal boys and girls, because they are unlike almost everyone in this peculiar capacity to adopt opposite-sex characteristic virtues with minimal apparent sacrifice of own-sex virtues.

    Exceptions are not norms.

    [*] At the tails of the bell curve there is no contest, of course.

  • “Part of the problem is that modern people think that exceptional means “awesome” or “great”, as opposed to “non-normative”.”

    Well, one thing I really appreciated about the WW movie, what our combat veteran and goddess dream of, their ideal of paradise and perfection, is the ordinary, normal, to live out their lives in relative obscurity, love, families, babies. That is the dream that all the superheroes died for. That is why they fight for us.

  • Terry Morris says:

    Part of the problem is that modern people think that exceptional means “awesome” or “great”, as opposed to “non-normative”.

    Zippy, that’s smart. You must have been in the first World War between left-liberals and right-liberals over what the term “American Exceptionalism” means. I think it was fought during the mid-’90s-early 2000s.

  • Zippy says:

    Terry Morris:

    I think Iron Maiden wrote a song about that:

  • GJ says:

    Superhero movies are probably the most egregious of movies that encourage people to be exceptional.

    But there are always some truly exceptional individuals who can appear to pull it off, if you will, without apparent sacrifice:…These people are interesting but make exceptionally (ahem) poor role models for normal boys and girls

    That reminds me of all the CEOs who have both successful careers and family. You can do it too young lady, you go grrrrl!

  • GJ says:

    and what does a goddess and a man who would lay down his life in war, really dream of as the ideal fantasy?

    That is the dream that all the superheroes died for.

    I see that another spell has successfully worked its magic on the target.

    Dreams truly matter, but not actual means or ends. This is because in this age, intentions are what truly matter. And somewhere someplace, some people are resolving to make another attempt at communism.

  • Zippy says:

    GJ:

    That reminds me of all the CEOs who have both successful careers and family. You can do it too young lady, you go grrrrl!

    Yes, or at least apparently so, appearances and reality being frequently divergent. Life has a way of testing the priorities of even the most privileged. How much privileged capital is spent just maintaining an illusion, versus achieving some “have it all” reality? I expect the latter is as illusive as Bigfoot.

    I don’t know if Bigfoot exists or if sightings of Bigfoot are illusions, but I know that Bigfoot isn’t normative. The 3 and 6 sigma tails of the normal distribution are non-normative by definition.

  • “I see that another spell has successfully worked its magic on the target.”

    Amen! Thankfully. You know what’s really postmodern? Skepticism,cynicism, distrust of the grand narrative. So we become very jaded, totally subjective, and prone to moral relativism. We lean totally into our own understanding. There is a grand narrative and it defies what we think we know.

  • Ritter der Immaculata says:

    I’m not even sure ‘Shield Maidens’ are actual historical phenomena or just made-up.

    St. Thomas Aquinas:
    “Outward apparel should be consistent with the state of the person according to general custom. Hence it is in itself sinful for a woman to wear man’s clothes, or vice-versa; especially since this may be the cause of sensuous pleasure; and it is expressly forbidden in the Law (Deut 22) …. Nevertheless this may be done at times on account of some necessity, either in order to hide oneself from enemies, or through lack of other clothes, or for some other such reason” (Summa Theologiae II, II, question 169, article 2, reply to objection 3).

    Cardinal Siri:
    […Three points on women wearing pants…]
    [1]first by changing the feminine psychology proper to women.
    [2]Second, it affects the woman as the wife of her husband by tending to corrupt the relations between the sexes.
    [3]Third, the woman as the mother of her children loses dignity in the children’s eyes. Each of these points should be carefully considered.

    Mallory Millet, former commie:
    It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a “consciousness-raising-group,” a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China. We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now, it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:

    “Why are we here today?” she asked.
    “To make revolution,” they answered.
    feminists

    Universities are training grounds
    for the womens liberation movement
    “What kind of revolution?” she replied.
    “The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
    “And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
    “By destroying the American family!” they answered.
    “How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
    “By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
    “And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
    “By taking away his power!”
    “How do we do that?”
    “By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
    “How can we destroy monogamy?”

    Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?

    “By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.

  • Zippy says:

    Update:
    I actually kind of liked the movie itself. If it is supposed to be feminist propaganda – as the public commentary of its creators say – it mostly fails. Diana is indeed very much a “female eunuch” in the movie, a singular and exceptional creature in no way a role model for women in general. There is a little harmless ‘battle of the sexes’ but the man protagonist is genuinely manly despite the amazon’s prejudices and unnatural powers.

    It wasn’t a great movie (what comic book movie is?), but I think that as feminist propaganda it fails.

  • Zippy:

    My question would be whether or not the act of publicly intending it as feminist propaganda is enough to make it useful as feminist propaganda.

  • Zippy says:

    TimFinnegan:

    I imagine that whether something succeeds or fails as propaganda depends on a lot of things, and that certainly does include the surrounding hoopla. My only point was that in my view the movie in itself doesn’t really succeed as feminist propaganda, whatever its makers intended.

    A lot of art accidentally affirms the opposite of what the artists intend, especially when what the artist intends is modernist claptrap. The casually misandrist prejudices of the amazon are ultimately proven to be silly and naive by the leading man of the film. Her super powers give her (unlike all of the other women in the film) entry into the man’s world, but even there she proves to be childishly ignorant. And in the very end she is being comforted in her grief by an off-screen Bruce Wayne — another man with no super powers, just lots of technical skill and wealth.

    Anyway, it isn’t a hill I’m especially interested in dying on. I’m just passing on my impressions, since I started the discussion.

  • Jack says:

    All the ECF – both east and the west – had severe bans on going to the theater. St. John Chrysostom called it the “temple of the Evil One”, and all who frequent the theater thereby acknowledge him as their master – and he wasn’t alone. There’s an interesting article in the Catholic Encyclopedia (which you can search on New Advent dot org) that explains how the Medieval theater differed from that of antiquity. The CE was written in 1908, I believe. I wonder if it would link our current theater to that of the Medieval world or to that of the ancient world?

    With that in mind, I’m thinking of a film genre based on the comic book super hero, which is specifically Jewish in provenance; the elevation of men or humanoids to super god-like powers. Wasn’t Christ rejected precisely for not displaying super power in the advancement of a militaristic overthrow and domination of the ancient world which the Jews expected of their Messiah?

    As we trudge through the still-smokey ruins of Christendom – where Christ was once worshiped as King – in this newfangled-yet-amazingly-dissolving Judeo-Christian world, I find myself thinking that the least repellent aspect of these super-hero movies is their feminist content. It’s the whole idea of Man – or “super” Man – being able to save himself from evil.

  • […] a societal vacuum. It was made in a society where men are emasculated more and more by the day and female eunuchs are being declared praiseworthy. That we don’t see this in the movie proper isn’t really the point, because that is […]

  • Zippy says:

    Jack:

    A lot of the superhero genre is explicitly pagan: many of the superheroes are literally pagan gods or their descendants. It runs the gamut though, from sciency-sounding phenotype transformation by radioactive spiders and genetic mutation to ordinary men with technological augmentation.

    I don’t have a settled view myself and I am certainly not critical of a puritan approach to modern entertainment. But since you raised one view I’ll raise another, which is that attempting to deprive kids of their Great Hero stories is emasculating and counterproductive (the book Killing Monsters may be of interest here). Modernity penalizes masculinity in particular and adulthood in general though so as a result this healthy childhood diversion tends to carry on through adulthood. (I kind of enjoy the genre myself, so this take on it isn’t particularly flattering to me).

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Zippy

    I think that as feminist propaganda it fails.

    Thought isn’t the organ that digests propaganda.

    And the Left is playing a longer game than this one movie. They are Progressives, after all. Once Wonder Woman is accepted as reasonable, then they will build on that with unreasonable exceptions.

  • Zippy says:

    Cane:

    No disagreement. I would just caution that killing exceptional archetypes — like the shield maiden and the eunuch — is its own kind of egalitarianism.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Zippy

    To tie this back to your other recent posts: My view is that it’s a pastoral issue. Everybody already professes egalitarianism, but at the same time there is no standard; no baseline. You can’t convince people that Suchandsuch real-world woman ain’t no shield maiden, and never could be.

    Not a few adult men and women really think Ronda Rousey could take Floyd Mayweather. The college kids I work with, when asked “Do you think Rousey took beat Mayweather?” answered in a gamut that ranged from “I don’t know, maybe”, to, “Oh yeah!”

  • Step2 says:

    Zippy,
    There is a little harmless ‘battle of the sexes’ but the man protagonist is genuinely manly despite the amazon’s prejudices and unnatural powers.

    I believe that indicates more about the typical character deficiencies of the love interests of male superheros. Steve Trevor is given an independent functionality and ultimately noble integrity that is rarely portrayed in female protagonists.

    It wasn’t a great movie (what comic book movie is?)

    The first Avengers movie was a great movie.

  • Zippy says:

    I’ve been trying to figure out what has been bothering me about the reactions to this movie. I don’t know that I am quite “there”, but I think a lot of it has to do with what looks to me like capitulation to the feminist “frame”.

    Here are a few inchoate thoughts:

    The feminists who see it as groundbreaking because of ass-kicking chickboxing are morons. Ass-kicking chickboxing has been pervasive in entertainment for decades. Someone who teared up at a scene of ass-kicking chickboxing might as well have permanently tattooed “moron” on her forehead.

    Rejection of exceptional archetypes (shield maiden, eunuch, etc) is just its own kind of pathetic ‘beta’ egalitarianism. It is similar to the ‘patriarchy lite’ I’ve criticized before: a concession of frame which impotently pretends to reject what it actually accepts.

    Arguably Diana isn’t even the main character. Certainly Chris Pine steals the show in terms of maturity, heroism, leadership, etc. But lets talk about Diana:

    She is literally a demi-goddess with a non-divine mother who derives all of her powers from her divine (in the pagan sense) father.

    She is in effect an immature child – despite her supernatural knowledge and power – who requires the leadership of a good man to put her in touch with reality. She is idealistic and entirely out of touch with reality on her own.

    When she contemptuously dismisses the funny and practical British secretary as a slave because she does what she is told to do, the secretary completely deflates the utopian puffery with the comment “the pay is pretty good” or something like it.

    Diana’s only contribution to the room-of-patriarchs is that she knows a language they don’t. She has no contribution to make to strategy, takes on no leadership role, etc.

    She is smitten with babies to the point of distraction.

    Her superpowers do allow her to break the stalemate at “no man’s land”, clearing the way for a man to lead the charge. The men didn’t expect this because they did not understand the extent of her powers. Once they do, the “above average” man who is leading the goddess and telling her what to do incorporates this into his strategy.

    Her naivety still manages to nearly get everyone killed, and leads to the leading man sacrificing his life for the greater good. In the end she accepts that her grasp of reality was wrong and his was right.

    Seriously, if this movie is an example of what feminism has to offer in terms of propaganda that says more about the state of feminism than anything else. This movie is not “GI Jane”.

    So why all the reactions of quivering fear at this latest salvo from the feminist enemy? Laughter seems more appropriate. I guess Gal Gadot is cute and all, and maybe that is what inspires so much beta fear.

  • Scott W. says:

    I’ve been praying for age of the superhero to end for a long time, especially as it has gone grimdark and superheroes aren’t particularly heroic and instead act like normal humanity is something they found on the bottom of their shoe. But apparently WW is a break from that and the box office succes is indicating approval. See this opinion here: https://www.polygon.com/2017/6/17/15821584/wonder-woman-justice-league

    “Wonder Woman is optimistic. Gal Godot’s Diana wants to be a hero. She leaves Themyscira to be a hero, and while her faith is tested, her resolve ultimately holds. She climbs out of the trenches in WWI because there are human lives at stake and she’s going to protect them. Hers is a movie about a superhero making the choice to be a superhero, without any expectation of praise or reward.

    That’s more or less the elevator pitch for superheroes as a concept, but it’s strangely at odds with everything we’ve seen from the DCEU thus far. Prior to Wonder Woman, DC’s output included two grim deconstructions of Superman and a third film about supervillains. All three have been skeptical of altruism as a concept, as if the most implausible thing about superhero movies is the hero’s willingness to help other people.

    Most of that trickles down from director Zack Snyder, the primary architect of the DCEU. In his two Superman outings, Snyder struggles with the idea of basic human decency. In fact, it seems to be utterly mystifying to him”

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Zippy

    Well that’s one way to look at it. After all: There’s been no real changes in sexual politics which one would track with the deluge of kickass chick films and television. Nobody trains female Army Rangers, or submariners. Nobody organizes mixed martial arts fights between women. Nobody allows “transgender” men to compete against women in athletics.

    It’s not “Wonder Woman”. It’s the relentless onslaught of stupidity of which “Wonder Woman” is a part.

    It’s nice for you that you have thoughts about how you watch “Wonder Woman” better than everybody else. Most of the people who watch Wonder Woman don’t know what inchoate means and they don’t think they’ve watched either “failed” feminist propaganda or a subversively patriarchal film. They think they’re watching “wholesome” feminism.

  • GJ says:

    Zippy:

    Seriously, if this movie is an example of what feminism has to offer in terms of propaganda that says more about the state of feminism than anything else. This movie is not “GI Jane”.

    So why all the reactions of quivering fear at this latest salvo from the feminist enemy? Laughter seems more appropriate.

    You might as well say that liberalism is so ridiculous and riddled with contradictions, so why take it seriously as a threat?

  • GJ says:

    Considering the movie “in itself” is very much like considering liberalism “in itself”.

  • Mike T says:

    The feminists who see it as groundbreaking because of ass-kicking chickboxing are morons.

    What would be groundbreaking is one where a chickboxer actually gets utterly destroyed in seconds by a comparable male who treats her with all due Freedom and Equality.

  • Zippy says:

    GJ:

    You might as well say that liberalism is so ridiculous and riddled with contradictions, so why take it seriously as a threat?

    That is very near to the point actually, except that this is a single movie. Modern entertainment is saturated with mind corrupting modernist ideas against which most people have no defenses. The idea that it is OK to watch most of it (with a discerning eye of course), but that this particular scary piece of propaganda is going to corrupt the minds of youth, is ludicrous.

  • Zippy says:

    Cane Caldo:

    It’s not “Wonder Woman”. It’s the relentless onslaught of stupidity of which “Wonder Woman” is a part.

    Sure. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I am very sympathetic to a ‘puritan’ conclusion which says that we shouldn’t consume modern entertainment at all. It is a possibility I continually re-evaluate myself.

    But it makes no sense to say we must consider WW in isolation and at the same time insist that we mustn’t consider it in isolation. In itself it is self-subverting feminist propaganda. The discerning eye gets the opposite of feminism from it, and the non-discerning eye shouldn’t be consuming any modern entertainment in the first place, certainly not without guidance. And that guidance shouldn’t be “oooohhhh, what scary scary feminism” it should be to point out all the ways in which this film, qua feminist propaganda, can’t help but undermine itself. While laughing.

  • GJ says:

    Zippy:

    That is very near to the point actually, except that this is a single movie. Modern entertainment is saturated with mind corrupting modernist ideas against which most people have no defenses. The idea that it is OK to watch most of it (with a discerning eye of course), but that this particular scary piece of propaganda is going to corrupt the minds of youth, is ludicrous.

    Fair enough.

  • Zippy,

    For the record, I think that last comment is the best elucidation I’ve seen of your point so far, and I thank you for it.

    With that said, considering the shibboleth this film is a part of I’m still finding myself skeptical that there’s no difference supporting this movie than any other piece of modern entertainment. But I get what you’re saying better now.

  • Terry Morris says:

    Here is Christian blogger Miralette Sanchez explaining how Wonder Woman is the most accurate on-screen depiction of biblical womanhood ever made, and why the ‘shield maiden’ is in fact *not* (contra Zippy) a female eunuch notable precisely for her exceptionalism.:

    http://www.marilettesanchez.com/marilettesays//wonder-woman-might-be-the-most-accurate-on-screen-depiction-of-biblical-womanhood-and-heres-why

    Money quote (one of several):

    As a woman steeped in American Christian culture, I need to be my husband’s helpmate, have a Pinterest-worthy menu plan and home decor. And “Remember, being a mom is your highest calling.”

    I don’t necessarily disagree with any of these things, but I’ve learned the hard way that it is impossible to do all these things well at the same time. So, the only thing I can do is to be sensitive enough to the Holy Spirit to discern what I am called to do moment by moment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Wonder Woman is a female eunuch at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: