Why are we Even Talking About Wonder Woman’s Armpits?
The new Wonder Woman movie has fans hoping it will be the saving grace of DC movies after the blockbuster failures of Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice and Suicide Squad.
This is the first theatrical film about Wonder Woman in 76 years, which is a long-overdue leap for women in the world of superheroes. She historically has not received the same recognition as her teammates Batman and Superman. She has been relatively sidelined in television shows and movies. Until now.
So, one would assume the media and fans would be thrilled about Wonder Woman’s new movie and how she is represented as a strong, prominent main character.
Quite the contrary.
The controversy started after a recent trailer showed Wonder Woman’s armpits have been edited to be lighter and smoother to the rest of her skin. This discoloration is incredibly noticeable, as the camera pulls in to her upper body and face to take up the frame.
For reference, she is throwing an entire tank over her head toward the enemy soldiers in this scene, but people decided her armpits were more worthy of conversation.
What makes this story even more interesting is the studio reedited the trailer with adjustments made to her armpits, making them tanned and more even toned, which the comparison images soon circulated on Reddit.
This made fans question if Wonder Woman has time to tan her armpits. This also gained ground by some feminists claiming Wonder Woman should have armpit hair because where would she find a razor in the Amazon? Or maybe demigods don’t have body hair?
This feminist debate spiraled even farther into mainstream media, as it was featured in the New York Times and Maxim. The main argument made by feminists is should feminism be disregarded so the female superhero complies with feminine stereotypes?
Essentially, should the figure of female strength in the male-dominant industry have to still uphold the ideal female aesthetic to be powerful?
Feminism is defined as the movement for equality of people of any gender. So, if we switch the argument around to a male main character, we would not be having this discussion. I have seen no tweets about Thor’s armpits being distracting.
So, the argument present in these articles is about the embodiment of a strong woman in a male dominant industry is still subdued to the patriarchal studio ideals. In other words, the male audience has more say in what Wonder Woman should look like because armpit hair would be “gross”.
This is best embodied by the conservative publication, The National Review, which said:
“That’s who Wonder Woman is. There is no room for debate about what Wonder Woman should and should not look like, because DC Comics already decided what she looks like when it created her in 1941: She always has a fresh blowout, she fights her enemies club attire, and she does not have armpit hair.”
Why should the modern-day Wonder Woman have to still be sexualized to be powerful? Why do her looks even have to be a factor in the conversation? Is her power dependent on her beauty?
At the end of the day, in my completely unprofessional opinion, I think we as the audience should take what we can get at this point. This movie features a female superhero in a dominant, fierce and powerful representation. That’s nothing to diminish! I can’t wait to see this movie.
But yet, the general public and media are discussing her body hair. It doesn’t matter that she’s literally throwing an entire tank over her head, proving that she is stronger than most of her male superhero counterparts.
At the end of the day, Wonder Woman is strong and more powerful than Captain America or Superman, but thank goodness her armpits don’t look weird anymore.
