Language matters
I've wanted to say something about the criticism of some female characters as "men with boobs/breasts" for quite some time, but I don't think I ever have, on account of not being sure my criticism of the criticism matters.* It finally occurred to me that most of the problems I have with the phrase are valid regardless of my own gender.
(I should note that this is not to say that there are not fictional characters who are horribly poorly written and may well be the literary equivalent of the strange inhuman creatures drawn by certain comic book artists. I just think that there are better ways of saying "I don't really believe in this character because of....." or "This author does a terrible job of writing women. For example...." or "A character with every macho trait ever isn't actually any better when they're a woman." or... )
Problem one: it is/sounds very gender essentialist. Men are like X, women are like Y. A woman who is like X is a man with boobs. Even if one's criticism isn't that, the phrase makes it sound as though it is. (It also opens one up to the counter argument that genders might be trained differently in Otherlandia, so your criticism doesn't apply, when it actually does because that's not the real problem.)
Problem two: some people are men with breasts. That is to say, there are female bodied people who are actually male - because they are transgendered, intersex, etc. I doubt the people using the phrase really want to conflate actual people with bad writing. (And if they do, I no longer care what they have to say.)
Problem three: (unless this is part of one) instead of saying - as I believe is intended - that we shouldn't devalue the qualities stereotypically assigned to women, or only value women who have more stereotypically "male" traits, it can come off as if we should only value stereotypically female women. Which is just as problematic as the first. There must be a way to say, hey, there are a lot of valuable and important qualities that we've gender segregated, when we should consider them valuable and important, period. People are brave, vulnerable, strong, kind, nurturing, stubborn, enthusiastic, tender, loud, quiet, pushy... (I could be here all day) and we shouldn't treat qualities as somehow only good if one gender displays them, nor should we only treat the qualities stereotypically assigned to one gender as good.
Problem four: (or possibly one c or three b) it can make real women who aren't stereotypically female feel like they're being called less of a woman. And also runs the risk of conflating personal preference with sexism based rejection ("I don't like to wear dresses." is not the same as "Dresses suck! Because they're giiiiirly. Ew."). Some people are into clothes [or any other "female" coded thing] and some people aren't. Likewise for "male" interests. That doesn't mean they reject the things they're interested in. (Which is not to say we shouldn't side eye fiction that portrays all good female characters as not being into female coded things. That does suggest some nasty sexism going on in the writer's head. Bonus nasty points if they've made all their female villains feminine.)
I do think there are writers out there - both male and female - who can't write female characters who aren't some type of pile of stereotypes. And I do think it's bad for fiction to devalue or vilify femininity and traditionally/stereotypically female values. I also think that a much larger range of female characters would be nice to have.
I also suspect that one reason various works of fiction get criticized for having their only female character have mostly "masculine" virtues is that they only have one female character. Do not do this unless there is a very good reason for it.
*Feminist criticism gets really confused when you're genderqueer/genderfluid/whateverthefuckIam. :/
This entry was originally posted at http://smurasaki.dreamwidth.org/129457.html.
(I should note that this is not to say that there are not fictional characters who are horribly poorly written and may well be the literary equivalent of the strange inhuman creatures drawn by certain comic book artists. I just think that there are better ways of saying "I don't really believe in this character because of....." or "This author does a terrible job of writing women. For example...." or "A character with every macho trait ever isn't actually any better when they're a woman." or... )
Problem one: it is/sounds very gender essentialist. Men are like X, women are like Y. A woman who is like X is a man with boobs. Even if one's criticism isn't that, the phrase makes it sound as though it is. (It also opens one up to the counter argument that genders might be trained differently in Otherlandia, so your criticism doesn't apply, when it actually does because that's not the real problem.)
Problem two: some people are men with breasts. That is to say, there are female bodied people who are actually male - because they are transgendered, intersex, etc. I doubt the people using the phrase really want to conflate actual people with bad writing. (And if they do, I no longer care what they have to say.)
Problem three: (unless this is part of one) instead of saying - as I believe is intended - that we shouldn't devalue the qualities stereotypically assigned to women, or only value women who have more stereotypically "male" traits, it can come off as if we should only value stereotypically female women. Which is just as problematic as the first. There must be a way to say, hey, there are a lot of valuable and important qualities that we've gender segregated, when we should consider them valuable and important, period. People are brave, vulnerable, strong, kind, nurturing, stubborn, enthusiastic, tender, loud, quiet, pushy... (I could be here all day) and we shouldn't treat qualities as somehow only good if one gender displays them, nor should we only treat the qualities stereotypically assigned to one gender as good.
Problem four: (or possibly one c or three b) it can make real women who aren't stereotypically female feel like they're being called less of a woman. And also runs the risk of conflating personal preference with sexism based rejection ("I don't like to wear dresses." is not the same as "Dresses suck! Because they're giiiiirly. Ew."). Some people are into clothes [or any other "female" coded thing] and some people aren't. Likewise for "male" interests. That doesn't mean they reject the things they're interested in. (Which is not to say we shouldn't side eye fiction that portrays all good female characters as not being into female coded things. That does suggest some nasty sexism going on in the writer's head. Bonus nasty points if they've made all their female villains feminine.)
I do think there are writers out there - both male and female - who can't write female characters who aren't some type of pile of stereotypes. And I do think it's bad for fiction to devalue or vilify femininity and traditionally/stereotypically female values. I also think that a much larger range of female characters would be nice to have.
I also suspect that one reason various works of fiction get criticized for having their only female character have mostly "masculine" virtues is that they only have one female character. Do not do this unless there is a very good reason for it.
*Feminist criticism gets really confused when you're genderqueer/genderfluid/whateverthefuckIam. :/
This entry was originally posted at http://smurasaki.dreamwidth.org/129457.html.