Wonder Woman is like most first-in-a-series comic book fantasy movies, pretty cool action, great ironic humor, with some depth of character and a big silly battle of gods at the end. The sequel will of course be crap. But at least we’ll have WW1.
In the run up to its release, this movie became a lightning rod of feminist hope for transforming the superhero genre, and a weapon of feminist hatred against men. It proves to be neither.
It’s just another good fantasy comic book movie. With the emphasis on fantasy.
It works precisely because the notion of women warriors is an odd rarity and a biological anomaly. It’s a fantasy that does not fit reality, and that is why it is entertaining. Yes, I know Ronda Rousey could kick my butt. That is why I wrote “anomaly.” Butt the biological fact of the matter is that military reality proves that most women cannot meet the standards of warriors. It is basically not in their nature or their biology.
Third wave feminists and their leftist useful idiots believe that if they can change the narrative and promote their ideology agenda of univocal male and female identity in culture, that it will magically change reality. But it won’t. It will turn some men into emasculated geldings that they will then use and discard from dissatisfaction, but it won’t change scientific reality. And that is why they are using law to force this diabolical social engineering in our own military as well as society. They know the military is the ultimate expression of masculinity in a culture, so that is why they want to fundamentally transform it.
Wonder Woman carries a sense of originality that makes it stand out from other comic book movies precisely because of its irony… I actually love the idea. Because of course, it’s only fantasy. Side note: the depiction of an Amazonian culture of exclusively warrior women who don’t need men was truly and memorably laughable. I literally could not help but laugh watching it. On the other hand, I enjoyed the funny ironies of turning the tables with a strong woman in a patriarchal culture that protects women. We get to see some of our blind spots. Of course, that only proves that chivalry is true, because, and I hate to spoil it for rabid feminists and leftists who believe in their Easter Bunny, but Wonder Woman is not reality.
Here is some truth. The truth will not be accepted by social justice warriors, men-haters and bitter feminist victims, but it will remain the truth. Yes, some delusional women will see WW as empowerment of equality, but in truth, she is more of a male fantasy, created by men, that feminists want to culturally appropriate and subvert into their own myth.
So here’s that truth: Ultimately, Wonder Woman works because she is a beautiful sexy woman, and men like to watch beautiful sexy women in action. If you don’t believe me, then imagine the box office if Wonder Woman was played by Tilda Swinton or Francis McDormand. I’m not saying those women are ugly. They’re not. And they’re fantastic actors. But they are not beautiful and sexy like Gal Godot.
(And for those who love sexy mature women, there are the awesome actresses Connie Neilson and Robin Wright as matriarchal queen bees. –Yes, MTV fools, I used the word actress instead of non-gender specific actor)
Newsflash: beauty and sexiness is not inherently bad.
And for you religious fundamentalists, appreciating beauty in a woman is not inherently lustful or even sexual. I’m not supporting lust, and I don’t mean slutty when I write “sexy.” Wonder Women’s battle dress is not a teeny bikini, it’s quite modest and functional in its femininity. I am addressing the unavoidable male nature that is visually oriented. This nature can be distorted into lust, or acknowledged and dealt with through moral discipline and self-control. So stop aiding and abetting feminists in their attack on God’s created order (See Genesis 1-2). Or watch Dennis Prager’s Biblical wisdom on male nature.
Dear men-haters, and other graduate-educated leftist tools, male nature will never change. You want it to. You are trying to socially engineer it out of us. You are trying to shame us and turn us into women, or at least feminized males. But it will never work in the long run. God created us to be visually oriented, or we would never want to have sex because, quite frankly, food would be enough for us. And we therefore wouldn’t procreate. If you were successful in changing male nature, then guess what? Mankind would die, including femalekind. So effectively, successful third wave feminism leads to the total annihilation of the human race.
The main reason why men will watch Wonder Woman is not because of its depth of character, storytelling, (though it has to have those and does). But they also won’t avoid it for its virtue signaling, political correctness, or even its ludicrous Amazonian woman myth. Why?
Because men like to watch beautiful sexy women in action.
Of Gods and Men
I’ve written elsewhere about the tragic reality that in our culture, comic book/TV/movies mythology has become a religion substitute and superheroes have become God substitutes. But I’ve also written about how the apostle Paul had no problem learning and interacting with pagan religion in his time.
So, let us interact.
Despite its obvious pagan Greek religious mythology (Zeus, and the god of war, Ares, etc), I actually appreciate its mythopoeic storytelling (while rejecting its paganism). Anyone who gets Tolkien and Lewis knows that the mythopoeic meaning behind our real world experience is as real as that real world experience. It shows us the spiritual transcendent reality behind history. I don’t mean in a Platonic “ideal forms” sense, but in a biblical theological sense. The Bible uses imaginative imagery like battling Leviathan the sea dragon as mythopoeic storytelling to describe the spiritual reality behind God’s covenant salvation of his people (Psalm 74). (See my book God Against the Gods for more on this).
In some ways, mythopoeic storytelling is more truthful than realism, which often assumes an immanence that rejects transcendent truth in favor of secular materialism or naturalism (everything has a natural explanation).
In WW, Diana is in search of the god of war, Ares, who is behind the horrors of World War I. He is embodied in the villainous German leader who plans to use mustard gas to win the war. But he is also a “spirit of the age,” or a kind of worldview that affects mankind. You know, the “spirit of war.” Ares ends up saying that he did not make men do the evil they do, he only whispered to them. They did it all themselves.
Yet, he is there incarnate, like a demonic entity. And thus the mythopoeic wisdom that Walter Wink wrote about (Naming the Powers), namely that evil has both a collective and individual manifestation. Men are truly responsible for the evil they do, but when they collectivize, they create a cultural spirit, a zeitgeist, that almost becomes its own transcendent entity of influence. Notice the madness of left wing mobs, riots and violence on campuses nowadays that builds in its frenzy through the encouragement of the liberal media with its dog whistles to violence (“Resistance” anyone?). A spirit of delusion.
The Bible itself talks of this ancient way of seeing the truth of spiritual authorities behind the earthly authorities. On earth as it is in heaven. (my Chronicles Series uses this mythopoeic motif with Biblical stories).
What’s Love Got to Do With It
An interesting moment in the movie is when Ares offers to Diana the opportunity to join him as gods so that they can “return this world to the paradise it was before man.” In other words, mankind is the virus on the earth that should be destroyed. Sounds exactly like the goal of modern environmentalists who prefer an earth “uncorrupted by man.” Remember who is saying this, the villain. Nice. He is also disguised as a Neville Chamberlain character in British politics who supports “peace at any price.” Our biggest enemies are traitors in our midst who seek appeasement with evil, giving in to their demands (I’m looking at you, university student terrorists and Islamic terrorists).
Unfortunately, Diana responds to Ares’ offer with a silly bumper sticker slogan that in effect means nothing: “Only love can save the world.” The context is that she used to want to save the world, but realizes she cannot do so with one fell swoop obliterating one massive god like Ares. In all men and women is both good and bad. Fair enough. But it’s kinda funny that she resorts to that female desire to nurture that old school feminists acknowledge but modern third wave feminists deny in their pursuit to eliminate all male and female distinctions.
The truth is, even though that is an empty slogan that fools often use to oppose righteous war, in this movie, the context does show a love that involves both nurture and righteous violence.
It is out of love for mankind that the good engage in violence against the evil. As long as there is sinful man, there will always be war. And the way to eliminate war is NOT to seek peace through appeasement or being kind or avoiding battle. The only way to eliminate the evil of war that will never end in history is to never stop fighting in wars against the evil. The utopian delusion of world without war is what will create more enslavement to the evil that will not go away. In the movie, Ares says that war is a god that requires sacrifice and it gives men purpose in a dark way. But the truth is that evil men will always war, so the only way for the good to stop evil is to always fight it.
So, in a way, pacifism leads to the very warmongering it despises. It empowers tyrants.
And this is why women as a whole cannot save the world as warriors but as nurturers united with the male warrior. Because the other aspect of male nature is needed in our warriors: men’s ability to sacrifice love for a higher cause of justice. And this is exactly what Diana’s love interest, Steve Trevor, does when he sacrifices his life to save the day at the end of the story. He gives up his life of love with Diana to save the world for that day. “Love” alone as a mere feeling of compassion or romance means nothing. Real love is action and real love fights and destroys evil with righteous violence.
So, this is hopefully what Wonder Woman learned from the man she loved as her nature of nurturing was awakened because of him.
(Full Disclosure: Actually, I am married to Wonder Woman. Her hair is not black, it’s blonde, and her last name is not Godot, it’s Godawa)
David French has a great article, Feminism Has A Ferocity Problem, that addresses this issue with some clarity.
16 comments on “Wonder Woman: Women Can Be Warriors, as Long as They are Sexy”
Several good ideas here, as usual. But the best sentence is the very last one, in parentheses! And I second your endorsement of her for the Wonder Woman title.
🙂 🙂 Hi, Key!
I need to re-read Hollywood Worldviews so I can pick up on these themes again…
The parentheses comment is adorable, but Mother’s Day was a few weeks ago 🙂
I found your site through a link someone posted on twitter and I am quite impressed with what I have been reading with both this review and your Alien: Covenant one. Good, thoughtful, and dare I say, correct thinking. I think I’ll be sticking around.
This is the most cynical piece of bile I’ve read in a long time. I used to respect your opinion, Brian; when did you fall off the deep end? Men can become more than they have become, and WOMEN might want to watch this film for their own reasons, which count as much as men’s. You’ve made me very sad today.
George, Thanks for taking the time to respond. I don’t understand what you are saying. I agree with you that “Men can become more than they have become, and WOMEN might want to watch this film for their own reasons, which count as much as men.” So where do we disagree?
“Wonder Woman works because she is a beautiful sexy woman, and men like to watch beautiful sexy women in action.” Really? That’s all your left with? ‘Cuz most of the *people* I know who’ve seen the movie are women.
It won’t make the big bucks with only women. It needs to appeal to men as well. And that’s why I am saying it works, because it provides a fantasy for both women and men. But their fantasies are different. 🙂
My fantasy, as a Christian guy, is that women don’t have to have value to men to matter, but are valuable in and of themselves, as creatures of God. I’m not sure where I fit in your neat categories. Of all the comments I’ve read on FB and elsewhere, from guys, only one referring to Gadot as “hot;” the rest are a bit more controlled. (I’ve also see comments from women referring to Pine as hot.)
I went to see this movie, with my 16yo daughter, and we talked about attractiveness afterwards. Interesting, the only nude scene features Chris Pine and not Gadot. WW is referred to as beautiful, but in an above-the-belt kind of way.
The last place I expect this kind of capitulation to lust would be on a Christian blog. Aim higher, bro, and embrace the complexity of how our minds work rather than reducing us to hormones.
George, Perhaps you may have missed what I wrote that agrees with you. I addressed the difference between visual orientation in men and lust. They are not synonymous. You and I are not as different as you may realize.
Here is the quote: “appreciating beauty in a woman is not inherently lustful or even sexual. I’m not supporting lust, and I don’t mean slutty when I write “sexy.” Wonder Women’s battle dress is not a teeny bikini, it’s quite modest and functional in its femininity. I am addressing the unavoidable male nature that is visually oriented. This nature can be distorted into lust, or acknowledged and dealt with through moral discipline and self-control. So stop aiding and abetting feminists in their attack on God’s created order (See Genesis 1-2).”
It sounds like you are assuming either/or when the truth is both/and. The Biblical Christian understanding of love is that as a man I love BOTH my wife’s outer beauty and her inner beauty. But that doesn’t change male nature as created by God to be visually oriented. I sure hope you wouldn’t be quick to judge the Song of Solomon where inspired Scripture shows the man’s visual appreciation while also appreciating her quality character. But that Scripture is a bit too erotic to read to your children yet.
Did you have your daughter turn her eyes on the naked scene?
Check out this great 5 minute video that explains a biblical understanding of the issue: https://www.prageru.com/courses/life-studies/sex-and-power-visual
The Biblical road IS the high road. Even if it may not be the religious road.
I’m glad to here weren’t not as far apart as it seems, always, but, brother, in all concern, I’m not sure that you were conveying what it was you wanted to convey. How we’re wired doesn’t excuse…anything. Being wired for alcohol or homosexuality doesn’t have any bearing on the sinfulness of indulging in that wiring. I expect more from men, not less.
But apart from even that, you’re still writing as if only guys matter. All comic books movies are fantasy, and Chris Evans’ shirtless muscles are just as much as a prurient allure as Scarlett Johansen’s behind. Men might be more socialized to be visual, but that’s changing. And this movie is different. There are no side-boobs; the nudity is entirely male. Furthermore, unless you favor burkas, attractive women have every right to participate on the same terms as men. I thought this movie went out of its way to make Diana charming and substantial, not just a nice piece.
I thought I was pretty clear as I could be without engaging in a dissertation about male nature. I just don’t think you can prove from the Bible that visual orientation in men is inherently bad or evil. Song of Solomon proves it is good in the right context. (Unless you don’t believe the Bible. If you don’t, then pardon my assumption). Check out this video about male nature by Dennis Prager. It is simple and profound: https://www.prageru.com/courses/life-studies/sex-and-power-visual
I was not writing about only guys mattering. Your bias may have distracted you to only see what you are reacting against. I am talking about the female warrior myth, which is fine as an anomaly of fantasy, but in our current social milieu, it is a weaponized attempt by Feminism to deny male female distinctions by promoting the delusion that women can be warriors just like men. (THAT is social construction) The facts prove they cannot be. The facts. Natural law. The Bible. Any sane woman would not want to be just like a man. Don’t be a victim of the leftist agenda to deconstruct your God-created maleness into an emasculated eunuch. It will ultimately be unsatisfying to your wife and daughter.
My main point about the female warrior is prove in this article here.
George, stop hating yourself. Your maleness is not evil. It is God-given, to lead in your family (Ephesians 5:22-33). Denial of male/female distinction is a denial of God’s created order in Genesis 1-2.
I agree that all comic books are fantasy (Again, I thought I pretty much said this). I don’t mean to be mean here, but the belief that shirtless men are the equivalent of shirtless women, is so patently absurd, it displays ignorance of the obvious that can only be born of indoctrination in an anti-biblical understanding of men and women. Men are not “socialized” to be visual. That is Leftist propaganda based on Critical Theory that seeks to deconstruct the Judea-Christian worldview into its opposite. Men are created by God to be visual. As I said twice, visual orientation and lust are not the same thing. Lust is the abuse of the visual nature.
The very fact that the only nudity in the movie was male is another expression of the Feminist worldview. PS, I was glad that there was no female nudity, because. after all, male nature is visual, and so it is easy for us to be pulled into lust through the visual. PPS, there is a reason why male porn is visual and female porn is literary and relational. Because men are more visual and women are more verbal and relational. That’s not social construction dude, it’s created nature gone awry. Marriage is the means of channeling those natures into proper holy context.
Women are not the warriors of society and men are not the nurturers of society. But we need them both. That’s how God created it. Read The War Against Boys by Christina Hoff-Sommers. You will begin to see how this “social construction” theory used to emasculate males is destroying our very civilization.
Ugh…sorry about the typos/autocorrect gaffs. “I’m glad to hear we’re not as far apart as it would seem…”
Now I’m confused. If an actor takes his shirt off, it’s an attack by feminism–sorry, Feminism–on women’s non-visual orientation, but if he leaves it on, it’s also an attack on men’s right to be warriors or MM artists or something? It must be exhausting to be constantly under attack like this.
That’s crazy, George. Who said that? Look up the definition of “non-sequitur,” because you are drowning in one.
Binary thinking kills. Thank you for being both/and not either/or.