Sansa's Little Bird Speech: Survivors, not Victims.

*Alert: I'm going to talk about my own experience here, because this hit really close to home and trying to pretend I don't have skin in the game would be disingenuous.*

The misplaced self-righteousness here is appalling.

Everything that we experience and what we do with those experience is in fact what makes up our identity. Anyone who has been raped can never get away from that fact. We cannot forget, and we cannot ever act like it never happened. I will never be able to go into a romantic or sexual relationship with anyone without discussing boundaries first: because I was hurt, and because I hurt someone else. I can't just "fall for" someone like I did back when I was sixteen. But that does not mean I can't have a satisfying sexual and romantic life. I have a wonderful girlfriend, and I have had and will have other partners. I have found a new system for protecting myself while allowing for fun. I have had amazing experiences in romantic and sexual relationships because I decided to ditch the rom-com model of romance.

Sansa in this scene is not forgiving her abusers: and she is certainly not saying that she or Sandor are defined by their abuse. Her abusers are dead for the most part, or they are far away and unable to touch her. The same is true of Sandor. Rather she is saying that it is now time for Sandor to become his own person and see himself in that light. Sandor is just like Sansa: an idealistic person who believes that his dreams were crushed by his abuse. For so long, Sandor has believed in nothing and indeed been suspicious of people who believe in something. But, Sansa is saying that this attitude is wrong. After all, she achieved her dream of being a Lady: not despite, but because, of those who tried to abuse her. If Joffrey had been nice to her she would have been killed with him at the Purple Wedding. Instead, she saw that no bully stands forever. That gave her the courage to kill Ramsay Bolton herself. She has destroyed her abusers and stepped on their metaphorical broken bodies to become Lady of Winterfell. Her abusers are pathetic idiots, not people to be afraid of, or even angry at. Certainly, they are not people who can control her or define her: they are dead. So is Gregor Clegane (although his corpse has been animated, he is functionally gone) and Tywin, Littlefinger, and Joffrey: all of whom used to mock Sandor. The only person who hurt both Sansa and Sandor and is still alive is Cersei: who is definitely doomed in the last episode.

Remember Maggy the Frog's prophecy? most theorists have assumed that the "younger brother" referred to as the person who will kill Cersei will be one of her younger brothers: Tyrion or Jaime. Well, it won't be Jaime: however much he might have changed, Jaime will never hurt Cersei. His love may be immoral, but it is sincere. It won't be Tyrion either, although Cersei thinks it will be. He demonstrated that last season after the Dragonpit Meeting. He is unwilling to hurt Cersei even though he doesn't like what she's doing. Cersei is using the corpse of Gregor Clegane as her bodyguard. It won't be her younger brother who kills her but his younger brother: Sandor. And it will be Sansa, the other person whom Cersei has most deeply hurt, who will set up the prophesied moment. What she is trying to do is get Sandor to an emotional and mental place where he can confront Cersei, and defeat her. Normally he runs away from abuse, unwilling to face it.

Dealing with abuse requires going through the stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance, and finding meaning. Sansa has successfully done this: and this is what her statement indicates. She has found meaning in what happened to her. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, that she has created meaning: and I think this is perhaps what David Kessler, author of "The Sixth Stage of Grief", really meant. The idea of meaning as something that lies around waiting to be found is a little bit silly. Sandor however is hung up on depression. But, in order to understand why our article writer is wrong, and why the people who have objected to this scene are wrong, we need to discuss the fifth stage of grief: acceptance. Here is what Kessler's website says about acceptance:

"Acceptance is often confused with the notion of being 'all right' or 'ok' with what happened. This is not the case. Most people don't ever feel 'ok' about losing a loved one. [gah, why does this need to be said?] This stage is about accepting the reality that our loved one is gone, and recognizing that this is new reality is the permanent reality.  We will never like this reality, or be OK with it, but we can learn to accept it. We must try to live in a world where our loved one is missing." Someone who suffers rape, or indeed any trauma, cannot ever go back to living as if they never suffered. Suffering permanently changes a person. Accepting our trauma means accepting that change in ourselves. It means learning to live as a changed person.  Remember the end of Lord of the Rings? Frodo cannot stay in the Shire or indeed anywhere in Middle Earth. What he suffered was too great. He must pass into the West: only there can the new Frodo find a life. The new Frodo who speaks elvish and has more in common with the elves than he does with other hobbits. Frodo journeys into the West because he accepts this reality. Likewise, we must metaphorically journey into the West.

What Sansa is saying here is that the proper way to deal with abuse is to change the system which allowed the abuse. In order to do that though, you need to have dealt with and found meaning in your own suffering. Sansa has not simply killed those who abused her. She, with Jon's help, has changed the system. Theon doesn't change his behavior because of what Ramsay did to him. Theon changes his behavior because of what Jon and Sansa did. While it is true that Ramsay held a mirror up to Theon, showing him who he would become if he continued to act in an abusive manner: that is not enough to change anyone's behavior. What will change someone's behavior, is seeing another way to get what they want.

You see, for all that the Starks talked about honor their talk was always somewhat hypocritical. They could talk about honor, because they were too feared for anyone to challenge them. Why? because of the Boltons. The Boltons were the Starks' bannermen: and known for sadistic torture. Their castle, the Dreadfort, was supposedly impregnable. Because the Boltons who were feared bent the knee to the Starks, the Starks benefitted from their terrifying reputation. Jon, in a single afternoon, destroyed that legacy that had endured for centuries. Jon could do this, because he does not need fear to rule. Unlike the Starks of modern times, the ancient Starks were up against far greater forces: forces they could not defeat, only ward against. They also could not rule through fear. Jon understands this. This is Jon's reason for his altruism, for his self-sacrificing generosity. Jon knows that if he is to keep the people together in the coming Winter, he cannot do it with fear for his enemy is far more fearsome than he can ever be. He must rule through love, like the ancient Starks did. When Lyanna Mormont stands up and says "I know only one King, the King in the North, and his name is Stark": this is what she is telling Jon. The ancient Starks ruled because they were loved, not feared, and therefore the Boltons are disposable.

Jon has the courage to disbelieve the legends that say the Dreadfort is impregnable.  He realizes of course that it would be impossible to take with conventionally available siege weapons, but he also realizes that he has access to an unconventional siege weapon: Won-won the Giant. Won-won may not be a brilliant thinker, but he would never fear a human: he's a giant after all. He also surely understands two things: 1) that the assault on the Dreadfort will likely kill him and 2) reciprocity. Anyone can see the fort is extremely well defended: but Jon sacrificed himself for Won-won and his Wildling friends. Therefore, Won-won sacrifices himself for Jon. Because of that, Jon is able to completely expose the legend of the Dreadfort as a lie. It is not an impregnable fortress, and the people who live in it are not monsters. It is a castle, and with the right person's help it can be taken. The Boltons are men, who can be defeated. Sansa takes advantage of Jon's assault and his wounding of Ramsay to deal the final blow: setting Ramsay's dogs on him as she leaves with Theon. Not only is the Bolton family completely wiped out: but their legacy is totally destroyed too. This was possible because it was built on a lie: a lie about what strength means. Ramsay is not strong, for all his boasting and swaggering. He is weak, because he is fundamentally alone. Because he rules by scaring and abusing people, as soon as someone isn't scared of him, he can be taken down. Jon isn't scared of the Dreadfort or the Boltons the way other people are: because he has been at the Wall. He has see White Walkers and other things far scarier than Ramsay Bolton. That give Sansa the opportunity to take out Ramsay that she's been waiting for, and she strikes using Ramsay's own weapons against him: his hungry dogs. She has been abused by Ramsay, and she has watched him abuse others. Because she saw the swaggering and boastful Joffrey be taken down by the Tyrells, Sansa understands that she does not need to be afraid of Ramsay either. She puts on a show of obedience, but is actually plotting against him. As soon as he's vulnerable, she goes for it. Although Jon and Sansa had no way to communicate, they are still working together: such is the strength of their relationship.

Thus, Sansa inadvertently teaches Theon what true strength is. True strength is found in building relationships with others, not in swaggering and boasting, not in an aura of invicibility. The Dreadfort and the Bolton family's power were founded on a lie: the lie that the Boltons were not quite human. Like, legit, for a long-ass time I thought the Boltons were going to be revealed as descendants of White Walkers. Nope, they are just humans. The Bolton's are not invincible, nobody is. True strength does not come from being invincible, from being never hurt. True strength comes from perservering and surviving through suffering, and coming out on the other side of it. True strength comes from confronting one's abusers, and learning to live with the scars they've given you. Now that this belief has been revealed to be a lie, so the system which gave the Boltons and people like them power has been revealed as unjust. That is, it can no longer be justified to the common people: or indeed to the knights who directly serve the lords. Jon and Sansa together have taught the common people in the North that they should not give their allegiance to a leader who is simply scary: because there exist leaders that they can love. It is Brienne who puts this into words and action: after she saves Sansa and Theon from the Bolton's thugs. She swears allegiance to Sansa, and during this scene says "I've looked a long time for a lord I could believe in".  This confirms that Lyanna Mormont and the northerners aren't simply obsessed with the Starks for the sake of tradition: Brienne is originally a southerner.

Sansa and Jon are taking a wrecking ball to the abusive system that for centuries has held sway in Westeros: aided by the chaotic aftermath of the War of the Five Kings, Cersei's madness and the danger posed by the White Walkers. Jon is probably not conscious of this: but Sansa is. She is able to do this because she has herself suffered under the old abusive system. They are slowly but steadily building up a new society: with people like Brienne, Theon, Sandor, Bran and Thoros of Myr. People who were outcasts in the old system: people who have suffered under the old system. But let us remember the Sansa we met in Season 1 Episode 1. Could that Sansa have done what current Sansa is doing? Would she have been able to break the abusive system with a flick of her wrist? no. That Sansa did not even realize the system was abusive. Only because she suffered did Sansa become aware of how unjust the system is, and how to break it. This is an uncomfortable truth: suffering is not meaningless. Suffering does indeed make people stronger, braver and wiser. That does not justify it: just as the wealth generated by war does not justify war. Wealth is only desirable because it is a way to minimize the pain of an unjust world. Strength is only desirable because it is a way to minimize the pain of an unjust world as well. If the world was more just, we would not need to be as strong. This is the answer to our article-writer's objection. Sansa has found meaning in her suffering: that is a good thing. It does not mean that her suffering was justified or that she is unwilling to change the system which made her suffer. The meaning that she has found for her suffering is in fact to break the system. The same conclusion that Danaerys and Jon and others have come to. Now she is persuading Sandor to accept this view as well.

This author erroneously assumes that if women are not portrayed as helpless victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault then the problem will never be addressed. The author is assuming that what motivates people to help others is pity. That is simply not true, as any beggar would be able to tell you. Rather, pity largely prevents any significant action from being taken to bring justice or change. Think about cancer. When I was a little kid, people who got cancer were objects of pity even well after their cancer was in remission: they were victims. They were also outcasts, unacceptable in normal society. Now, we speak of cancer survivors: even though the people may not have actually "survived" but only be in remission. But this change in words was deliberate. Nobody likes a victim. They are a burden on others: worthy perhaps of gentle treatment, but not of respect. Certainly they are not acceptable in normal society. So, why are we encouraging the victimization of abused women? We should not be calling people victims of domestic abuse or rape. We should be calling them survivors: as we did with the hashtag #BelieveSurvivors. It wasn't #BelieveVictims because they aren't victims. Sansa is not a victim: so she shouldn't talk like one. I'm not a victim, my mom is not a victim, my girlfriend is not a victim, my brothers' girlfriend's mom Tamara Kincaid was not a victim. She was a firebrand of a lady, despite a degenerative illness, who went out fighting for all the abused of this world. We are not victims, we are survivors. We do not want pity, we want change: and we have the power to make it. Our suffering was not meaningless: and it will only be meaningless if we fail to make any change in the abusive system that has oppressed those like us for so long. We will start by changing how we define ourselves, and how we speak of ourselves. We will stop speaking of ourselves as victims, and start speaking of ourselves as survivors. We will stop concentrating on the downfall of individual abusers: and start concentrating on the system itself. We will expose the powerful abusers as the frauds they are, and take a wrecking ball to the abusive system as their illusions collapse around them. We will take power not despite what was done to us, but because we have survived it and learned from it. The system has produced the instrument of it's own destruction, as abusive systems always do. And we will dare to imagine a new type of society that no longer rewards this abusive behavior.

Oh, and the writer made a factual error. Danaerys Targaryen did not fall in love with her rapist. It was never implied that she objected to Khal Drogo having sex with her. This was made abundantly clear in the books because we saw the meeting of Dany and Drogo from her perspective. She is indeed terrified, until she actually sees Drogo and realizes he's pretty hot. As soon as he opens his mouth, she realizes he's actually nice even though he looks scary. She's basically like 'oh, ok, I can live with this' as Drogo leads her away. She is kind of weirded out by the Dothraki wedding, but not to the point that she wants to leave. As soon as Drogo takes out Viserys, Dany is 100% ok with being his wife (and that's before he does anything sexual with her). The book also makes it clear that she didn't find the particular sexual position he wanted to use painful or anything: she just realized it wasn't what she really liked. She wouldn't have eaten a horse heart if she wasn't fine with Khal Drogo (even though she didn't exactly love him yet).  The person who abused Danaerys from her own perspective was Viserys, not Drogo. The nature of the TV show means that perhaps wasn't quite as clear as it was in the books.

Tormund Giantsbane: the Purpose of the Fool

*Warning, a lot of crude language and mental images you don't need ahead*

Tormund Giantsbane is hilarious. He's so funny, it can be hard to see him as anything other than just the comic relief. He does play that role, especially in the rag-tag band that Jon Snow assembles to go north of The Wall in season 7 of Game of the Thrones. But Tormund is more than just the guy with the great jokes, and that stupid story about fucking a bear. Yes, he is that one character who constantly talks about penises that seems to be obligatory for HBO shows (at least since Spartacus, and Gannicus saying the word "cock" in every sentence).  Tormund has more colorful words for the male genitalia, but almost everything that comes out of his mouth has something to do with sex. Not just jokes either, even in his more serious moments he's more often than not talking about sex: either giving advice to Jon Snow, or moaning about how Brienne won't notice him. But he isn't just a nymphomaniac: he doesn't have the nihilistic worldview.  In fact, Tormund is the antidote to the depressing and cynical world he inhabits: and his seeming obsession with sex is part of that. He doesn't talk about sex the way that other men in Game of Thrones talk about sex. Even the "good" characters like Ned Stark talk about sex more often than not as a type of conquest: a way of asserting one's will over someone else.  Most of the female characters talk about sex this way too, and experience it this way.

The negative and positive sides of this are explored in the characters of Sansa Stark and Margaery Tyrell. Sansa is on the receiving end of sex as conquest, not once but twice: strongly shaping her view of sexuality and marriage. She becomes frigid because she has been hurt, closing herself off from others. This even extends to people who can't be sex partners, including her sister Arya. Margaery Tyrell is on the perpetrating end.  She uses sex as conquest to control Thommen Baratheon, getting him to idolize her by objectifying and coddling him. This is a problem ultimately, because when he is confronted with real responsibility he simply can't deal with it.

Even Danaerys was brought up thinking this way about sex, and all on her own discovered a different attitude towards sexuality. This is why the relationship with Daario Naharis is important to her character arc: he shows her the world of affirmative sexuality, completing her recovery from the trauma inflicted by her brother. 

Jon is similarly hung up about his sexuality, because he believes he is a bastard. He is too genuinely kind to want to bring a child into the world who is going to suffer the way he has suffered.  The only way he could express his sexuality was among the wildlings, where if Ygritte had a child by him then s/he would be treated the same as any other. At least, until his death and rebirth.  At this point, his old identity as Eddard Stark's supposed bastard son is stripped away. He is simply Jon: not a bastard, not a brother of the Night's Watch, but a man. A man who can be a King. As the only (at that time known) surviving male in the Stark family, he is named King in the North: a position he could not have held if he were a bastard or a brother of the Watch. But these old positions in society have ceased to have meaning: because Jon has awoken to a broken world. Now Jon can begin to think of sex in a new light: not as a way of exerting control over someone, but as yet another way of helping others. Tormund is there to show him how that is accomplished.

You see, the reason why Tormund makes jokes is because Tormund wants to make people laugh. I know, I know, that sounds extremely obvious but if you think about it that makes him something almost miraculous in the world of GoT.  Tormund, is a nice person.  He just wants to make people smile. He's untouched by the Machiavellian machinations of the other characters. He has a nose for bullshit, and doesn't touch it with a ten foot pole. He doesn't care about his own advancement: he just wants people to be safe and laughing. Of course, this does actually get him advanced: to lead a band of wildlings. The way in which Tormund's way of talking about sex is different from the other characters is highlighted by the way he becomes the leader of that wildling band. Rattleshirt, like most of the men in this world, thinks of sex as conquest. He insinuates that Tormund plays the submissive role in sex with Jon i.e. that Jon has conquered Tormund. But let us contrast this moment with another before we examine Tormund's reaction. Sandor Clegane much later on insinuates that Tormund would submit to him in sex. In that case, Tormund reacts by misdirecting the conversation: he shows no sign of being offended, if anything he almost sounds interested (like I said, mental images you don't need).  In the case of Rattleshirt however, Tormund goes ballistic and kills the guy. Why? because Rattleshirt is insinuating that Jon would enjoy dominating another man. This is an insult to Jon, a man so altruistic he's willing to die repeatedly for others. Tormund knows if he doesn't stand up for Jon, then no one will.

For all that Tormund talks about sex constantly, he doesn't actually do any.  That isn't the point though. While everyone else is talking about death: Tormund is talking about life. Everyone else is unhappy, cynical and depressed: but Tormund is focusing on living, on finding joy in life and bringing that to others. He understands that it is especially now, as the long cold and dark winter full of horrors begins, that people like him are needed most. People kissed by fire, with red hair and sunny spirits. There's an even deeper layer to it as well. Sex is honest, you have to get naked to do it. You can't lie about who or what you are, to someone you're having sex with. Tormund talks about sex to show he's being honest: and to get others to be honest with him. It's a way to cut through the bullshit to find out who someone really is. Tormund understands something crucial that many people in this world don't seem to: flattery isn't complimentary, it's denigrating. Lying to someone about how good they are, or what they are capable of is an insult to that person. It's telling them that you think they are stupid enough to swallow your lie. When people start to deify Jon, Tormund quietly cuts through that: with a dick joke of course. This isn't just because it's Tormund's signature style. It's because joking about his penis reminds everyone that he has one: i.e. that he is a man. In fact it reminds everyone that the best and most wonderful thing about Jon, is that he is a man: not some theoretical divine being who cannot be truly known.

Of course, Tormund understands why people deify Jon. This is a world where men, especially men with power, routinely sacrifice others for their own self-interest. Here is Jon, who has already sacrificed himself for others and is willing to do so again. This is outside their understanding and expectations. But what Tormund is saying, is that Jon can be understood. He has motivations for doing what he does, which any of them could understand and relate to. Understand, relate to, and copy. People love and revere Jon because of his passionate commitment to serving others. But Tormund knows they could go beyond simply obeying his commands, bending the knee, or treating him with reverence. They could try to be more like him. They could try to put aside their selfish concerns, and see the larger picture. See the dangers posed by the oncoming winter and how they could use their resources to help more people than just their immediate family. Tormund isn't just lightening a tense and awkward moment, or saving Jon from embarrassment, he's making a radical statement about human nature. That's one deep dick joke right there.

Daenerys Stormborn and Wonder Woman-The Warrior Matron

Boudicca, Zenobia, Artemisia, Theodora, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Yoko Ono, Victoria Beckham, Queen Elizabeth II: strong women of history yes...but also all married. Yet in fiction, we almost never see this: certainly not with human characters (elves and/or space elves are often an exception). Our fictional strong or warrior women are single or even actively disinterested in men. Almost all our strong women in fact fall into a single archetype: the shieldmaiden. There is, of course, nothing wrong with this archetype or creating characters based off it. It simply shouldn't be the sole archetype for strong women. Not every woman wants to be that person, not every woman can. Some women desire men. Some women want a family. Some women enjoy their sexuality, and want to share it with someone else. Why can't we consider these women to be just as strong as the unmarried women? 

Because when she takes part in sexual activity, according to our society, a woman becomes impure. She is demeaned and degraded in the act, no matter how much the man who does it loves her. After that point, she is no longer a full human being. She is a wife, and not assumed to have the same capacities as she once had. Something was taken from her, but what? The answer of course, is nothing, and this ideology is absurd. Most of the strong women we know and love in history, were in fact married women. We also at one point told stories of women who were strong, not despite but because of their families. Women who were loved by men not despite but because of their strength. Women like Daenerys Stormborn and Wonder Woman. 

Daenerys (or Dany) doesn't exactly start out seeming like she will become a warrior mother, the Mother of Dragons. She starts off as a scared girl being abused by her brother, who is her only family. He then packs her off to the seemingly savage Dothraki. But, this is Game of Thrones and so all is not what it first seems. Khal Drogo is not the stupid oaf he first appears to be. More than being unexpectedly intelligent however, the Khal is also more interested in Dany as an individual than he has any reason to be. He demonstrates this by giving Dany's brother his well-deserved comeuppance. Later on, there is a tense scene where Dany attempts to communicate her sexual preferences to her new husband in the few words of his language that she knows. Props to GRRM here for delivering appropriate suspense despite the sensitivity of the material. He really keeps the reader on tenterhooks for a while wondering how Khal Drogo will respond. 

Of course this is Game of Thrones, Drogo immediately accommodates her preferences: subverting the expectations of readers around the globe. This gives Dany an inkling that he might truly love her, not simply want to get rid of his wife's enemies. So, she asks her handmaid to show her other sexual techniques. Although this is initially framed as an attempt to seduce Drogo, it soon becomes obvious that isn't really necessary plotwise. But law of conservation of detail: why then does GRRM write out these scenes in excruciating detail? They aren't sex scenes, there is no attraction between Dany and her handmaid Irri and they are doing all of this while fully clothed. There is another purpose to these scenes: Dany is gaining control over her sexuality. 

Sexuality is a form of power, that is why discussions of it are so fraught and so politically charged. Sex is the basis of politics and ultimately warfare, but also art, spirituality and every other form of cultural expression. In gaining control of her sexuality, Dany is gaining the tools to change the world. Khal Drogo [spoiler alert] dies, and Dany expertly turns the tragedy into the beginning of her own story. From fire and blood, she gives birth to dragons: from Dothraki and mercenary she gives birth to a nation. A nation built on the ideal of freedom and justice for all. As she later says to Varys: not to turn the wheel, but to break it. To establish a new order upon the world. But first she must survive the winter.

Wonder Woman is a different, but equally interesting sort of Warrior Matron. She's different in part because she looks to us like she is going to be a shieldmaiden type of heroine: a warrior woman, who has a pretty poor opinion of men. But then she meets a man who changes her opinion about men, and humans in general (since she apparently isn't, despite looking exactly like a human).  Thus, more directly than Daenerys, Wonder Woman is a subversion of the shieldmaiden trope: and given the author it's reasonable to assume that was the intention. She has to teach this man a thing or two about the right way to treat women, but unlike most men in the WWI era would have been: he's an eager student. 

Wonder Woman is placed opposite Ares, a representation of the toxic masculinity inherent in Colonialism. Ares in Greek Mythology is both brutal and bloodthirsty, but also daft as a post and emotionally fragile. He's all ego, and when something threatens his ego he throws a tantrum. When Diomedes spears him in the Iliad, he goes running to his mommy like a scared child. He romances Aphrodite, but also abuses her such that she's constantly running between him and her actual husband Hephaestus. Far from representing an ideal man to the Ancient Greeks, he was something of a joke. A god to be feared for his power, but laughed at behind his back.  

Diana (Wonder Woman) represents what Ares is missing: the calming and rational feminine spirit. She represents how Europeans (but not Americans-subject for another post) largely became disillusioned with the idea of Colonialism, upon seeing the horrific violence that it took to maintain Colonial control. But of course, Ares is immortal: he is an ideology, this egotistical ideology of Colonial Empire. He was only defeated, not killed. He returns again and again. Diana however, is also in the world still. Again, she represents an ideology: of protecting the weak and teaching the ignorant. 

She is not fighting for the Allies because she sees nothing wrong with what they are doing, but because she sees that they have the potential to be something better with her guidance. They have the capacity and willingness to learn.  She is still working with men, teaching them how to embrace the feminine both within themselves and outside themselves. Rather than sequestering herself away and letting the world burn like the rest of her tribe, Diana is here with us. She is fighting against DAESH in Syria, and working with survivors of sexual assualt. She is speaking against sexual predators, and for women's rights. She was there when the Southern Baptist Conference, formally split from the Republican Party and acknowledged it's unfair treatment of women.  

Wonder Woman fights for the world, because she has found a man worth fighting for. An inversion of the trope that we typically see in literature where the male warrior (the most recent example being Harry Potter) fights for the female love interest.  Not that there is anything wrong with this, it is very realistic after all. Nothing motivates a person to fight more than the thought of their loved ones being in danger, that is how we are hardwired as human beings. It is simply that we do not often acknowledge that women also fight for their loved ones: indeed, that is typically the only time a woman will fight unless she is in a political position where it is required. This is because women prefer to avoid situations where their physical bodies might be damaged, at least if they ever plan on having children. Wonder Woman has sometimes been slammed as sexist because of this (and, to be fair, her costume), but this is actually the opposite of sexist. It is an acknowledgement that women feel sexual desire, and behave similarly to men when they feel it. If that isn't feminism, I don't know what is.