but they can never be what she was to me

[musesfool]

See the awesome ladies of my icons! I know I was supposed to only do fictional ladies, because real, live women are not tropes and should not be reduced to one dimension, but the real ladies are awesome, too, and I like looking at all my pretty icons

Comments

[spectralbovine]

When characters as well-fleshed out as Sarah Connor, Ellen Ripley, Dorothy Zbornak, Mystique, and Azula are all reduced to one simplistic face and so fail this version of the "strong female character" test, maybe it's the test that's flawed, not the characters.
Seriously.

[musesfool]

Right? There is some serious wtfery going on where Ellen Ripley is reduced to "Final Girl" and Sarah Connor to "Mama Bear" and Dorothy Zbornak to "Wet Blanket."

[spectralbovine]

If you can use a phrase to describe a woman, she's not a strong female character!

[musesfool]

Apparently! Of course, no one would ever try this with male characters, because they are nuanced and never tropes.

[dotificus]

no one would ever try this with male characters, because they are nuanced and never tropes.

This is a fandom thing? Seriously? That the male characters in fiction that fandom is drawn to are always nuanced?

[musesfool]

Some people will argue that. Of course, we have many, many examples of poorly written male characters (and male characters who barely speak) getting a huge fandom following, while fans dismiss the women as poorly written. It's a lot of bullshit, is what it is.

[sistermagpie]

Reading that makes me wonder exactly what female character could make the cut. I assume all the Golden Girls are just types? Their detailed histories and relationships doled out over the course of a long-running show, of course, mean nothing.

[musesfool]

Well, Blanche was reduced to Slut. Sophia and Rose weren't featured.

But yeah, apparently even though the show was about Dorothy's relationships with the others (and their relationships with each other), apparently she can't carry a show.

What the fuck ever.