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

[draycevixen]

I think sometimes characters have to go to extremes to show that anything is possible. Why can't a woman be a strong action hero? If the argument is because most women couldn't manage it then I'd like to make the point that most men couldn't manage it either. I enjoy action films in large part for how ludicrous they can be.

What I don't like is when they're not consistent. The type of person that it would take to be a successful CIA agent, male or female, isn't going to get all EMO at the drop of a hat. Yes, Sydney Bristow, I'm looking at you.

[blythechild]

The article claimed that modern audiences were being duped by all of the female kick-ass-y, but that really, these action women speak less, matter less, get away with inexcusable actions that their male counterparts wouldn't, and, in fact, still require regular rescuing - SO WE HAVEN'T REALLY ACHIEVED ANY KIND OF EQUALITY BY LETTING WOMEN LEARN KUNG-FU. IT'S JUST A NEW FORM OF REPRESSION - NOW, WE CAN ONLY KICK ASS. WHY CAN'T YOU ALL SEE IT?!?

*exasperated sigh* I really wanted to type a lot of sexist insults after I read it...

[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

[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

[blythechild]

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

[vegawriters]

Where is it decreed that women are so much more noble or evolved or enlightened than men?
Thank you. Kicking ass and taking names is part of the appeal of a lot of "feminist" character traits. The key to writing feminist characters is putting them on par with their male counterparts. If everyone in the story is a fighter, she's a fighter. If everyone in the story is a lover, she's a lover. Her conflicts need to be as real as those of the men.

Part of their role in literature is to motivate and define male characters, but there's no denying their inherent strength as individuals and NONE of them bodyslammed anyone.
Again, with the yes. And if you look at it from the opposite side, part of the role of those male characters is to define the women's traits.

The assertion that being identified as 'strong' limits a female character from achieving anything else, is self-imposed, obtuse, tinfoil-hatting from folks who claim to be tearing the delusional veil of sexism from our eyes. I'm dealing with this right now in the novel I'm

[blythechild]

As I mentioned to my friend, Minouette, above, I'm not actually advocating a brutal equality here - it was more of a "what if" thought exercise because I DO believe that a lot of gender equality complaining is more about expectation rather than working for it. I also told her that we'd have to agree to disagree about affirmative action. I see both the points that you and she made, but I do not agree. *shrugs* I AM, however, delighted that this posting has brought about this debate!!!

I'm not sure where your writer's group is getting that Gina isn't strong because she is the victim of sexual harassment. Is it because they don't see her reacting to it? This seems like another example of 'female characters can only be one thing'. Gina could be a very strong character but does that mean that that nothing touches her? That it isn't possible that another character should seek to make her into a victim even though she's strong? Isn't conflict the heart of any good story? Maybe I just don't get it.

[vegawriters]

Regarding Gina (since we're going to have to agree to disagree on Affirmative Action) the debate in my writer's group came about after I rewrote my introduction of her

[blythechild]

That's interesting.

I guess that it fundamentally comes down to how attractive we find characters. It's funny how the women in your group appear to view Gina as an avatar whereas the men see her as someone separate from themselves and judge her instead.

I don't particularly espouse the idea that we can only relate to characters that we like or are attracted to (although it certainly makes it easier when we do). To use a popular example (which you may or may not be familiar with) - in The Song of Ice and Fire book series (Game of Thrones), I am impressed with/interested in/scared of Cersei Lannister even though she is E.V.I.L. and openly unrepentant for her incestuous relationship with her brother. On the other hand, the character of Sansa Stark is so thoroughly vapid, fearful, and generally useless (she's been held hostage for 3 ENTIRE NOVELS) that she makes me foam at the mouth in feminist rage whenever she wanders into a scene. She's also meant to be one of 'the good guys', which makes it all so much worse in my opinion.