As I see it there are just as many reasons to use a fictional character as a real human. This “ambassadorship” is not necessarily a real position, with no real duties (they could have chosen Harriet Tubman and nobody would complain, except Harriet Tubman is long dead and can’t fulfill her duties, whatever they are.)
In short, they are only choosing a symbol, and symbols by their nature are not “real.”
Notice that Red’s the envoy for inspiring climate action… another entry on the list of “things that senior politicians rarely actually care about”.
I’m more annoyed by that one, actually… at least Wonder Woman is (a) art with actual emotional content and meaning, and (b) relevant to the role she was appointed to.
And we have Winnie the Pooh, the ambassador for friendship, i.e. not a real political issue requiring actual action.
The UN does actually have a mini-tradition of appointing fictional characters as honorary ambassadors. And that’s not wrong in itself; it’s kind of fun.
What’s wrong is that they’re appointed to areas which are then neglected by the actual people and politicians. What Wonder Woman’s appointment implicitly says is that gender issues are less important than arms sales or economics. (Has the UN ever appointed a fictional character as ambassador for economic development or nuclear disarmament? No. There’s a reason for that.)
Tara Peterson is entitled to her view. At her age, I would have shared it. Part of me still does. But I have a more nuanced view of feminism nowadays.
(Plus, the new WW movie is guilty of giving the Themyscirans really bad “sexy” armour. By which, as usual, I mean “does not in fact even protect the lungs”. But that’s my personal knowledge of armour talking; it’s not relevant to the UN thing.)
Hindsight Lad would have been a better choice.
Winnie the Pooh makes sense, but how does a rage-filled bird whose entire existence is focused on destruction promote happiness and friendship?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
