Jenkins explains Wonder Woman isn't a feminist, "doesn't have a chip on her shoulder"

From Theresa Harold's "Why Wonder Woman isn't the feminist fantasy we've been told it is" (METRO):


But enough already with the gushing think pieces citing Wonder Woman as the role model little girls need.

What about Katniss Everdeen? At least she didn’t have to wear a teenager’s wet dream of a costume to fight in.

Oh, but it’s practical, the film seems to argue, with its shots of Prince trying on cumbersome WWI-era dresses. No, it’s not. What’s practical about having that much flesh exposed when facing gunfire?
And if being semi-naked is the most practical mode in which to save the world, where is Batman’s mankini?

Don’t even get me started on the impracticalities of leaving her long hair down during action scenes. Most women I know can’t even do a spin class without putting their hair in a ponytail. The real wonder here is how it didn’t annoy the hell out of Gal Gadot having her hair fly in her face every time she ran.

[. . .]

In interviews, director Jenkins has said, ‘[Wonder Woman] doesn’t have a chip on her shoulder. That was something I felt … that I really brought in. We had a lot of conversations about feminism and her point of view. She’s not a feminist. It never occurred to her that she would treat somebody differently to somebody else, which is the stronger statement.’

Saying you’re not a feminist, you just believe in equality, is like saying you’re not a vegetarian, you just don’t eat meat. Mind you, considering this film barely scraped the Bechdel test, maybe Jenkins is right to believe that Wonder Woman is no feminist icon.