Why yes there are meta & other icontests out there and here be necessary reminders

[red_satin_doll]

Your Madame Ambassador of Meta (according to punch_kicker15) and Patron Saint of Icons (per eilowyn, and when the heck did this happen anyway?) has been remiss in her duties. And is speaking of herself in third person. This cannot stand. So herewith:

** Foz Meadow's essay, Gender, Orphan Black and the Meta of Meta says everything I want to say, beautifully, cogently

Comments

[tigerpetals]

Thank you for the birthday wish! It was nice; I took a walk by the beach at sunset. I'm glad you enjoyed the read. I've only read one of Gillian Flynn's books so far--Sharp Objects--and it lived up to what people had said about it; I loved the heroine. I'm looking forward to reading the rest, as well as some of the other books mentioned in the essay. By the way, here's Gillian Flynn's brief article talking about female violence and bad girls: http://gillian-flynn.com/for-readers/ It's what finally made me read Sharp Objects

Predictably enough, someone complained about her turning the article into a "feminist rant". There's always at least one of those in the crowd.

But of course! I avoided the comments.

So we dislike in female characters what we dislike in ourselves, whereas we can like flawed male characters because there's a degree of difference (ergo safety) in identifying with them. And we've been taught that "boys will be boys."

Yes. I try not to do that but it does happen to an extent. Not so much the male characters part because I've grown less drawn to them over the years and have become quicker to see their flaws without the "boys will be boys" glasses to add endearment. But sometimes I do get irritated or angry at a female character being unpleasant. I'm not supposed to be unpleasant, I don't get away with it, so why should she? There are times when that makes me root for her instead, and I work against the negative reactions when I have them, but I can and do have them. It's usually expected, even. Add the message "she gets away with it because she's beautiful or wealthy" and the character is often deliberately made unsympathetic unless or until punishment is dealt out to make her a damsel and perhaps reform her. Not necessarily a character arc from her point of view exploring her flaws and good traits and how she navigates them, but a parade of suffering to humble and scare her.

It hasn't been safe for us to be angry and we haven't been trained in being assertive, in saying no.

What we have been trained to do is to defend men and to be angry at other women on their behalf. Which we end up using as indirect ways to defend ourselves or gain protection. Other women aren't just competition--they're potential threats to the rules. If the rules are uncertain, what can we depend on to give us protection and guarantee rewards? If they're there and other women are rewarded or go unpunished for not following them, it's not fair when we get punished, and then what?