I should totally be headed to bed right now, but this topic is on my mind and sort of refuses to geroff. I can only hope to dislodge it through writing
( Read more... )
obvious comment is obvioustempestsarekindNovember 5 2009, 18:10:19 UTC
Martha Jones! I suppose that the ladies of Doctor Who can be described (and have been described!) as "plucky," etc. (Doesn't Ten refer to Donna as the plucky young girl who helps him solve crimes, in "The Unicorn and the Wasp"? I love that she looks like she wants to deck him after this description.) But what I like about them is that actually, they get on with the business of saving the world not by being especially kickass (in the literal sense, or even in the "takes no guff" sense) (did I just say "guff"? How old am I?), but by discovering their own personal strengths and using those.
I want to come back to the question of "relating" to characters at some point, when I'm not half-starved and sleep-deprived (hence the wackiness of this comment), because I *don't* often feel that I relate to characters, male or female, but I sympathize with many, and I want to think about how that breaks down along gender lines, if it does. And I definitely need to think about what I look for in heroines...
Also, I think your observation about attraction is a good one, because there are quite a few male characters I could imagine having a crush on (at the moment, Benton Fraser from Due South, omg he is principled. And unfailingly polite. And slightly out of touch. And he keeps saying all this stuff that makes me read him as "lonely little boy." So many of my buttons, right there). And that might skew the results toward male characters; I don't know.
Re: obvious comment is obviousthepresidentrixNovember 9 2009, 20:20:52 UTC
I think the women of Dr. Who are, as a class, great examples, actually. I certainly don't mind that they're brave or that they come through in a crisis, but I appreciate that they don't all seem obviously wired to do that from birth, y'know? They have to grow into their strength the way, imo, male characters get to do more often.
Maybe it helps that they're supporting characters, and they don't have to drive the plot all alone. Because it's not that I can't think of any examples of women I identify with, it's more that I'm disturbed by this trend I see in so many stories I like. Either I think the story is great but the female characters are sadly uninteresting, or they are interesting, but they have to be extraordinary in some (often stereotypically masculine) way. It's like there's this fear that when you put a woman front and center, she can't be just anywoman, she has to be a kind of superwoman, or she doesn't merit that focus.
Of course, I'm sure there are a gabillion exceptions to what may not even be a rule. And I'm less overwrought about this, anyway, than I was the other night, LOL. But one can only hope there will come a time when we're interested enough in women to treat female characters as more routine. Make it less important for them to be unassailable.
Re: obvious comment is obvioustempestsarekindNovember 9 2009, 20:36:26 UTC
there's this fear that when you put a woman front and center, she can't be just anywoman, she has to be a kind of superwoman, or she doesn't merit that focus.
Oh, I totally agree! I think this happens a lot, though I'm not entirely sure *why*: I think sometimes it is a feeling that to be "interesting," a woman has to be "more like a man" (er, who let Henry Higgins in here?). And then sometimes I think it stems from worry about showing women in the "weaker" position, doing stereotypically female things that are negatively inflected. I've had this conversation with a friend, who has somewhat rigid notions of what it means to be a feminist: things like getting married, or wanting kids, or shaving your legs, are all a part of the way women are shaped by the patriarchy, rather than valid personal choices that one might make. Sometimes I think that modern storytelling media are often still stuck in that mindset. And a lot of female characters have to bear the weight of that.
So, I agree--more "assailable" female characters, please!
I want to come back to the question of "relating" to characters at some point, when I'm not half-starved and sleep-deprived (hence the wackiness of this comment), because I *don't* often feel that I relate to characters, male or female, but I sympathize with many, and I want to think about how that breaks down along gender lines, if it does. And I definitely need to think about what I look for in heroines...
Also, I think your observation about attraction is a good one, because there are quite a few male characters I could imagine having a crush on (at the moment, Benton Fraser from Due South, omg he is principled. And unfailingly polite. And slightly out of touch. And he keeps saying all this stuff that makes me read him as "lonely little boy." So many of my buttons, right there). And that might skew the results toward male characters; I don't know.
Reply
Maybe it helps that they're supporting characters, and they don't have to drive the plot all alone. Because it's not that I can't think of any examples of women I identify with, it's more that I'm disturbed by this trend I see in so many stories I like. Either I think the story is great but the female characters are sadly uninteresting, or they are interesting, but they have to be extraordinary in some (often stereotypically masculine) way. It's like there's this fear that when you put a woman front and center, she can't be just anywoman, she has to be a kind of superwoman, or she doesn't merit that focus.
Of course, I'm sure there are a gabillion exceptions to what may not even be a rule. And I'm less overwrought about this, anyway, than I was the other night, LOL. But one can only hope there will come a time when we're interested enough in women to treat female characters as more routine. Make it less important for them to be unassailable.
Reply
Oh, I totally agree! I think this happens a lot, though I'm not entirely sure *why*: I think sometimes it is a feeling that to be "interesting," a woman has to be "more like a man" (er, who let Henry Higgins in here?). And then sometimes I think it stems from worry about showing women in the "weaker" position, doing stereotypically female things that are negatively inflected. I've had this conversation with a friend, who has somewhat rigid notions of what it means to be a feminist: things like getting married, or wanting kids, or shaving your legs, are all a part of the way women are shaped by the patriarchy, rather than valid personal choices that one might make. Sometimes I think that modern storytelling media are often still stuck in that mindset. And a lot of female characters have to bear the weight of that.
So, I agree--more "assailable" female characters, please!
Reply
Leave a comment