It is interesting how different an artform can be interpreted, whether it is a movie, comic, character, book or any other artform for that matter.
Wonder woman is according to William Moulton Marston a distinctive feminist role amongst all her fellow associates in the Justice League.
Wearing very tight and very revealing, if I can call it suite. Leaving her female abundance very clear for the male spectator to clearly enjoy viewing.
This clearly shows that the female character, even though she is proven to be a feminist icon. Lets us believe that she is an object of pleasure to gaze upon.
My point in this confusing rambling input, is can I or any one else for that matter create or produce anything thats not considered a social ideology or against any ideology?
It can create so many questions, for example why isn't WOnder woman black or if she was would that be a negative standpoint?
Laura Mulvey's germinal essay "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" (written in 1973 and published in 1975) expands on this conception of the passive role of women in cinema to argue that film provides visual pleasure through scopophilia,  and identification with the on-screen male actor. She asserts: "In their traditional exhibitionist role women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact so that they can be said to connote to-be-looked-at-ness,"
Wonder Woman is a fictional character, a DC Comics superheroine created by William Moulton Marston as a "distinctly feminist role model whose mission was to bring the Amazon ideals of love, peace, and sexual equality to a world torn by the hatred of men."