30 Blog Posts In 30 Days - Day #2

[blythechild]

Okay, so in my commitment to 30 blog posts that, you know, say something, today's topic is the 'Strong Female Character' in fiction and why we should hate her (thanks to x_los for the link

Comments

[minouette]

Coincidentally, I also followed a link to that article, and also got bored and quit reading. I do think that it doesn't make sense to hold 'random female action hero' up in comparison with 'Sherlock Holmes', but I do think that there might have been a case to be made that:
a) a lot of movies these days which Studios are willing to invest in are action movies
b) movies starring women are really rare
c) because there are so many blockbuster style movies, a movie starring a woman is more likely to be one of these
d) it is assumed that audiences will only pay to see kick-ass women in action films (rather than more nuanced female characters) to the point where even comparing apples to apples, female action heros tend to be more constrained to some sort of stereotype of 'strong' than male action heros

That might have been an interesting and reasonable thesis to pursue. Perhaps you could still find counter-examples, but I would suspect she might have been able to make an argument and perhaps even backed it up with numbers. So, I don't think the whole premise was useless, but the execution did lack a lot to be desired.

The thing about feminism is that it is a movement to represent 50% (and hence, in effect 100%) of humanity. Therefore, it is rarely homogeneous and can be filled with voices which are contradictory. Now I'm going to disagree with you. I don't think there is any inherent feminist argument that women are different than men (except for the undeniable biological differences, like reproductive systems, hormones and sexual diamorphism - i.e. size and strength on average). In fact, while some people (who may call themselves feminists, and may in other ways be quite reasonably feminist) may talk about ways in which women are different, usually this is in fact 'benevolent sexism', and like all sexism is in fact anti-feminist. Just because a stereotype isn't inherently insulting (i.e. black people are better dancers, women are more nurturing) doesn't mean it isn't racist or sexist or can't end up hurting people, for instance by leading to assumptions about appropriate roles. I think there can be a feminist argument that women are socialized differently than men, or that they have different life experiences because we live in a very unequal society, which is a different thing altogether.

I completely disagree with you about acheiving equality, because as you say ours is "a species that for 50,000 years, give or take, males have assumed the primary role due to their physicality". Therefore, to expect to acheive equality without actively promoting it, is likely to take another 50,000 years. Biases exist and they are firmly rooted. Afirmative action means that given equally qualified candidates, one should hire the one who belongs to an under-represented group; this is a good thing. Calling out sexist bullshit where we see it is also a good thing. This means, it's also good to call for better critism when you read half-assed critiques... but in my mind it doesn't mean the whole enterprise is misplaced.

I like the whole feministfrequency 'Damsel in Distress' critics of tropes about women in video games, for instance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6p5AZp7r_Q

[blythechild]

I absolutely agree that the author could've made a much more successful argument (and one that I might have paid attention to) if she'd either compared literary characters to literary characters, or made her thesis about female characters in modern film.

I did not suggest that we do not actively promote equality, I just question the predominant ways in which we are pursuing this (I was sorta exercising my own absurdium in suggesting that we attack it in such a basic way). I do not agree with you re: affirmative action, mostly because the idea is based on an absolute equality of candidates before selection, and I find that that almost never happens in real life. It is a good theory, but much like political correctness, is a mask to make us feel that our '-isms' are evolving to a better place instead of just creating new ones in it's wake.

Damsel in Distress is an excellent series, although a lot of it is lost on me because I am not a gamer. She does have fantastic knowledge of the medium though - sorta mindblowing!

[minouette]

You can disagree of course. The thing is though, that often perceived differences in quality of candidates is in fact due to our biases. In my experience, we still need to force people to think about these things. I know some very smart people, who don't think they are sexist, who believe some really stupid things (i.e. there are not many women in physics because women don't like physics... which you can actually prove is untrue with hard statistics). If you work in a highly male-dominated field, you find for instance, that professors go and ask their networks (which tend to be all male) for suggestions for candidates, and the suggestions tend to be all male... even if every single one of them believes that there should be more women in the field, or that women are equally capable. Also, in a lot of really skilled fields all job candidates who make the short list are 100% qualified to to the job. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, but ranking these entirely qualified people is inherently arbitrary. And such inherently arbitrary selections if unchecked will always go to people with whom we feel more comfortable (i.e. alike). I think it's a very small imposition on people, and it is the way to get to a place where we might change out '-isms' as you put it.

[blythechild]

I think that we'll have to agree to disagree on this one ;)