This week the United Nations named Wonder Woman honorary ambassador for the Empowerment of Women and Girls. Apparently she “will be tasked with raising awareness about Goal 5 of the UN Sustainable Development Goals”. This “seeks to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls by 2030”.

Good for her. After all, the task is a bit too challenging for the United Nations alone.

There is precious little empowerment going on in significant parts of the world. Oppressive religions and dictatorships abound. According to the United Nations Refugee Agency an “unprecedented 65.3 million people around the world have been forced from home.” A few flips of the whip from Wonder Woman should fix those problems.

When you think about it, harnessing Wonder Woman to the pursuit of worthy goals is a game changer.

Until now politicians have been rewarded for committing to worthy goals in the distant future on demand. United Nation-led climate change goals for 2100 are a case in point. Worthy goals feel good. They demonstrate “our” good intentions. Their emptiness has been a bit of an embarrassment, but with Wonder Woman on hand that problem disappears–doesn’t it?

What about the United Nation’s Goal 1 in this series? It is to “end poverty in all its forms everywhere”. What decent person could oppose that? Even better, the goal reportedly requires signatories, including New Zealand, to halve the proportions of those living in poverty “according to national definitions” by 2030.

But how can Wonder Woman achieve this goal without a national definition? Happily, the recent UN Committee on the Rights of the Child's report on New Zealand spotted this problem. It recommended that the government proclaim a national definition of poverty.

Prime Minister John Key pointed out that there was no generally accepted definition. Why not focus instead on those who really need help? Good question!

Professor Jonathan Boston proposes multiple official definitions. Halve the incidence according to every definition regardless of cost and efficacy? Yet, if addressing poverty is the moral thing to do, as Boston argues, surely it matters how it is defined and surely the cost is also a moral issue?

Would Wonder Woman care how it was defined? Perhaps not. But those bearing the cost will care.