My response to "What am I seeing? Is she tied to a tree?" Part 2

For copyright stuff (just to be sure), I didn't post any pics in this post. I apologize for all the links. To see the Wonder Woman cover discussed here, go to the DC website: http://www.dccomics.com/comics/wonder-woman-2011/wonder-woman-31


The cover of this month's Wonder Woman, #31, depicts her tied to a tree, hunched/slumped over with her legs open, and with several arrows piercing her upper body. The DC website also includes a close up of her face, with an expression that could be pain from the multiple arrows embedded in her flesh, anger at whoever tied her up and/or shot the arrows, or could be a complete lack of feeling. It's hard to tell. Personally, I think it's embarrassment that a mere mortal male reduced her to this.


In a recent interview with Comic Book Resources- here - the artist, Cliff Chiang, talked about not wanting to over sexualize Wonder Woman and stated, "You've got to draw that thong bikini, you've got to draw those big boobs and all that stuff. I feel like we have to check ourselves and say, 'Well, is this really accomplishing telling the story that we want to tell?' "  But what about the covert messages? What are young men seeing when they look at this image?  How might young women interpret this in terms of their self image, their safety, and possible internalization of appropriate behavior expectations? It is especially poignant in light of the mass shooting event that occurred this week (article).


Mr. Chiang graduated from Harvard University with a joint degree in English Literature and Visual Arts (according to the Comic Vine bio), He, of all people, should know that underlying themes, meanings, and messages are everywhere: in movies, in books, and especially in the commercial where a man who accidentally showered with soap designed for women runs around frantically engaging in appropriate "manly" behaviors in order to counteract the effect of the soap: metalwork (!), mowing the lawn (*!@), and playing the drums (&*@!!#).


Oh yeah? Watch this drumming video.


Oddly enough, this is the same artist who created  this poster: click here. It's pretty amazing. I'm not sure what happened to bring this current cover to fruition. Superheroes should show vulnerability at times.  It's what makes them interesting, multi-dimensional characters. And Wonder Woman would be an especially good opportunity for artistic types to demonstrate emotions, based on her history and the idea that (let's face it) it's more acceptable in today's society for women to show their emotions.  But depicting Wonder Woman as she is on this cover is not a demonstration of emotional vulnerability or a step forward in developing her as a multi-dimensional character. This cover places Wonder Woman in physical pain and makes her powerless and helpless. I might have to be super careful walking by myself at night, Wonder Woman shouldn't have to be.


The artwork style in this current series is based on a style from the DC past.  So I pulled a book off my shelves, DC Cover Girls by Louise Simonsen, and reviewed the Wonder Woman section for past covers. Amongst images of Wonder Woman singlehandedly stopping trains and swinging villains over her head, there were some covers on which she was restrained. On the cover of #156 (May 2000), she is kneeling, head bowed, chained via her wrists to Devastation's oversized head. On the cover of #68 (10c), she is tied via her wrists to a buoy (with closed legs) while a torpedo aims straight at the buoy. #229 (30c) depicts her chained via her wrists to a wall with a missile aimed at her. The most disturbing to me is the cover of #205 (20c), on which she is depicted tied (full body) spread eagled on a torpedo headed for New York City with planes firing at her. She truly looks frightened.


Those covers were then, this is now.  Damsel in distress tropes are outdated and unnecessary, although someone should probably tell Michael Bay (article or a different article). An early Wonder Woman comic (reprinted in Wonder Woman: Amazon, Hero, Icon by Robert Greenberger), in which William Moulton Marston (as Charles Moulton) details Wonder Woman's origins, includes a caption stating that "at three, the wonder child pulls up a fruit tree by its roots." Now, over 60 years later, she's tied to a tree instead.


If Wonder Woman were drawn in this fashion inside the book, she would be able to get out of the situation and show her ability, strength and power.  However, by drawing her this way on the cover, she is stuck this way, helplessly preserved forever in digital memory.


I don't know what I would find if I looked through the history of Superman or Batman covers, but if someone were to currently draw either of these characters on their own covers in exactly this pose, (tightly tied, including the angle of the legs and multiple arrows slammed into their chests), and get it approved and published, then and ONLY then, should any female character be shown restrained and/or helpless on a DC cover.


When I sent the link to this image to someone via email, I was asked "What am I seeing? Is she tied to a tree?" The short answer is "yes, Wonder Woman is tied to a tree."  It is not a situation to which I aspire. If I had a daughter, I would not want her (or any other girl, such as the drummer in the video) to aspire to it either. If I had a son, I would not want him (or any other boy) to consider for a second that this is an appropriate depiction of women, or that this is an appropriate way for him to treat a woman. If Wonder Woman had been present while this picture was being created, I think she would have made it very clear to the artist that she, and women, are no damsels in distress, and that depicting the type of treatment in the image is unacceptable.


When I picked up this issue I'm sure my face fell.  I know my stomach did.  I put the book back. There is a digital-first new version of the Wonder Woman-centric Sensation Comics coming out this summer.  I'll wait for that series instead.