A lesson in vocabulary.

Sep 14, 2012 21:40

So I'm reading this little blurb about how Cobie Smulders' now husband introduced her to comic books when I happen upon this line:

"[Smulders] plays feisty Shield agent Maria Hill in Joss Whedon's comic book blockbuster Avengers Assemble."

Can you spot the problem, here? The problem, the word that my brain catches on and balks at is "feisty"" ( Read more... )

sociology, feminism is hot

Leave a comment

Comments 3

(The comment has been removed)

shadowenangel September 15 2012, 04:44:10 UTC
This wasn't a fandom post, thank god. It was on an entertainment news site. So it wasn't just somebody talking, it was an actual, professional writer referring to the character this way. (Avengers fandom is generally very fem-positive. We have a lot of awesome female characters.)

My issue isn't that it has a negative connotation, necessarily, so much that it has a dismissive connotation. Someone who is feisty may be admirable, but they're not a threat, and female characters are consistently described this way in various kinds of media. It's a small mis-phrasing, but it represents a larger problem with the way we talk about women in fiction and women in general.

I'm on my soapbox for the night, apparently. I promise I'll put it away soon. ^_^;;

Reply


tj1380 September 17 2012, 11:52:28 UTC
I know part of the problem is old-fashioned sexism, but a lot of entertainment writing is like this. If I were to believe everything entertainment writers said, I would assume that all female celebrities and perhaps women in general are shallow, catty, weak-willed stereotypes who only care about finding Prince Charming and living happily ever after while having lots of babies. Entertainment writers seem to assume that almost all women are like this. Those who aren't can only aspire to be "feisty," a cutesy little term that describes a woman trying to be like us strong menfolk, which is of course adorable.

In other words, entertainment fluff pieces are really sexist, not to mention aimed directly at the lowest common denominator. There's a reason why I try to ignore them at all costs.

Reply

shadowenangel September 17 2012, 17:41:47 UTC
Exactly. It's the ubiquity of this language and the assumptions behind it that make it so damaging. Though I think that ignoring that kind of writing is also part of the problem, which is why I didn't just roll my eyes and close the tab. We need to call it out, shine a light on it, and say, "This is what you're doing, and it's not okay."

Reply


Leave a comment

Up