Femininity not Popular?

Have you ever seen "Death-Proof" by Quintin Tarantino? That movie addresses femininity and masculinity in women in a very interesting way.

 

I watch almost -0- TV, so I don't really know how they portray women there.

When I'm not reading books forced upon me (i.e., stuff for school), I read mainly YA lit. Melina Marchetta, an Australian writer, is fantastic. Her protagonists are feminine, fiery, assertive types. Then there's Sarah Dessen whose protags are average girl types, but non-assertive, who go through difficulties that force them to bring out their voices, so to speak. Two different type of young women, both types very feminine. I could give you 30 more examples.

I would consider Bella to be feminine--if being unfeminine means acting aggressively (brazen, brash attitude, crass language).

The dystopian & sci fi fiction I've read in the past year or so would also be pretty much the same--women/girls portrayed as feminine.

Maybe it's the type of books you're reading, or perhaps the horror genre? I think sci-fi/thrillers may tend to do the brash/brazen type of women?

 

I personally detest feminine characters. Characters that are blatantly there to be damsels and brainless females are characters I'd rather see get run over by a bus.

For example, I strongly detest Orihime from Bleach because she's just that. Her power of healing, though argueably useful in certain situations, is pretty much all she has of value besides an extremely weak physical attack. She's pretty much a ditz and to top it all off, she thinks about the main character (Ichigo) almost every waking moment.

Rukia (the other main female), in contrast, is strong-willed and doesn't like to be seen as weak. The one time I know of that had her as a damsel was when she was going to be executed in which everyone of the main cast and some side characters had a big quest to save her. Other than that time, Rukia knows how to take care of herself and is smart. She encourages Ichigo rather than holds him back the way Orihime does.

Also, feminine characters aren't that popular in this day and age. I personally like tomboy girls. Actually, I just like female characters who are strong, because Rukia, even though she's strong, wears dresses and dresses like a girl.

 

It's because of the feminist bias in the media! Feminists don't like feminines because they undermine everything they're working for.

 

I would pretty much say it's the same reason SA Mitchell said. There weren't very many lead characters that were female for a long time and the male leads are never feminine.

For an adventure story to take place you need an adventurous character- male or female. I do find that older feminist writers trying to push that movement, make their characters very masculine.

Masculinity is, in general, more well accepted in our culture. A male leading character cannot be feminine, unless times are going to change him, or it's a comedy or a fiction making a point about it.

It's not simply that female characters can't be feminine, but the qualities of femininity are not "able" to carry an adventure story though. Deviation from this would be literary fiction, not genre. Even in the supposed literary fiction there are books that boost the idea of the masculine being an underlining nature of mankind, rather than feminine qualities.

All character have their place and there are more characters than the tomboy and damsel in distress.

 

I think you need a mixture of more feminine and more 'masculine' women, because after all it takes all sorts to make a world doesn't it?

But I also think, that if you are going to have masculine female characters they also show a more vulnerable side every now and again otherwise they seem like walking cliches. Example: Arya in Eragon was very 'I can take care of myself' and very in his face about how strong and independent she was. I found her annoying. Then in book 3 of the series there was a chapter where the mask slipped and revealed that beneath all that was a very damaged person barely holding it together, and I instantly began to warm to the character and wished that we could have seen this side to her sooner.

 

Eragon was the first book by a young author. It showed so much I never read the series. I suppose he must've developed more depth and style as he continued.

There are strong women, who aren't emotional messes on the inside. They're just strong women. It's a bias to say there are only strong men. Of course there should be background to them and complexity, but not everyone is faking it. There's an easy way to create a strong person verses a weak one (male or female)- they're happy and well adjusted.

 

Yes, but who wants to read happy and well adjusted people when you can read about nutters with a suitcase full of emotional baggage. And I include men as well as women in that statement. Neon Genesis Evangelion owes a great deal of its iconic status to the fact that there isn't a single character who isn't a neurotic mess (except perhaps Fyutski).

As for there being strong women who are just that, I'm sure there are but are they as fun? Take, for example, Starbuck from the revamped Battlestar Galactica. She was hard as nails and pretty awesome, but also had problems that elevated her above a fighter pilot cliche and into a great character from a great series.

 

I cannot believe you referred me to an anime and Battlestar Galactica.

 

"Well behaved women seldom make history"
~ Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Does this sentiment adequately frame why "feminine" characters are rarely given lead roles?

 

What's wrong with referring to Japanese shows? Cuz that's what it is, TV, not a genre. Don't make the mistake of lumping every animated TV show and movie from Japan into one category. There are lots of great examples of characters in animation from Japan.

 

No, not really. Ulrich was talking about women in history who led quiet lives but did noteworthy things that never got documented.

However, the OP is saying that feminine characters don't show up in lead roles. She explains that a non-feminine female is one who acts brashly, brazenly, aggressively; even a tomboy. That may be the personality type used in certain genres, but it is not the norm in "general fiction" today.

Look at the women in Jodi Picoult's novels, or bestsellers like The Lovely Bones or The Time Traveler's Wife or even the Mary Russell series (The Beekeeper's Apprentice). There are a variety of women there, all of whom do not act in a masculine manner. The Mary Russell series has a young woman who is bookish and assertive; but that doesn't make her unfeminine/masculine.

Also, I think it's stereotyping to consider brash, brazen, and aggressive to be masculine characteristics. A man can be fully male without behaving contemptuously.

Edit: Oh, just to add - I think we could say uninteresting characters seldom make good stories.

 

I'd like to point out a real person, Madam Curie, who is of note in history. While the books never say anything about her personality (thus she could very well have been feminine) her work was very masculine. She dabbled in radiation and did groundbreaking research. I suppose you could say she was "well behaved" though I'm not familiar with her trials and tribulations.

And looking at the original title - it's just "not popular" to be overly feminine. Men like a certain amount of confidence in women - does that make the women masculine? Not necessarily.

I think that it comes down to confidence, really. This is why I feel that the quote I posted reveals the sentiment behind this perception. It's not "acting masculine or feminine" it's about how confident your characters are. Confidence may be the wrong word, because many main characters are actually weak, yet they work hard to overcome their problems.

 

The funny thing is that madam curie has become famous because she's a woman. How often do you hear about the accomplishments of her husband? He was her equal in every way and has been all but forgotten by everybody except science historians.

 

I think my problem is the way feminine has been defined by some posters as something negative. Feminine is not synonymous with weakling or damsel-in-distress. Feminine is, I believe, just referring to the various traits that are more typically female than male.

Masculine is not a negative word; feminine shouldn't be either. Someone whose character or personality is weak is just that--weak. The fact that some view weakness as a feminine trait shows the subtle gender prejudice that apparently still exists today, even when it's about one's own gender.

 

I think part of the reason there are so few lead feminine characters is what is going on in this thread. Yes, feminine traits are modesty, delicacy, attention to appearance, politeness, respect, etc. Masculine traits are brazenness, aggression, assertiveness, cruelty.

Labels exist so that we can more easily understand the world around us. Just because someone exhibits a masculine trait does not mean they're male. The fact is, all of the traits I listen (well, most of them) can be seen as negative. They can also all be seen as positive. I understand that English, as all languages are, is fluid. I also understand that if too many definitions flow into one another, they lose their meaning.

I think the OP is completely right that there aren't enough feminine lead characters. I think part of the problem is that male authors tend to have male protagonists, female authors--don't lynch me, now--either have feminist qualities or are writing romance. Wait! I know. How dare I say that? Think about it, though. Yes, yes, I'm sure you have examples proving me wrong. But how rare are those examples? The OP isn't say there aren't any feminine lead characters, just that there aren't many. And there aren't.

Meek, timid characters almost always "grow a backbone" in the duration of a book. Feminine lead characters almost always need a man to save them. The feminist-leaning authors (not feminazis, pardon the phrase) want to create a strong female character who can direct the action. In romances, the woman's femininity is what draws the man to her, but in most cases, it's her masculine grit that wins him over.

And yes, grit is masculine. If one is to assign a trait a gender, that is what it would be. It does not mean women can't have grit, nor does it mean men always do.

What *I* think is missing most from the world of novels are interesting, compelling feminine characters.

It is entirely possible to move a book along, engage with the reader, and create a strong impression with a feminine character. What happened to women using their feminine wiles to get what they want, for example? Nearly all women who seduce their enemy into compliance, in books, at least, are considered "bad" characters, even if it's for justice. Yet women who storm into an office with a gun in their hand and a steely look on their face are "good," strong characters.

I'm sure there are plenty of feminine lead characters out there. They are, however, GREATLY surpassed by the number of tomboys, particularly in YA novels. The pretty, well-coiffed girls are the bad guys, and the plain, jeans-wearing tomboys are the good guys who get the quarterback in the end, because really, any girl who cares about her hair that much can't have a personality.

I'd say that, as much as I think the character's a charicature, Elle Woods of Legally Blonde is an example of a feminine lead character. But she's dumb (no matter how well she does in the courtroom, that character is pretty dumb). Bridget Jones is, I would say, my favorite example (she even comes off as more feminine in the book than in the movie). What is uninteresting about her? Almost nothing, yet she's incredibly feminine. Insecure, silly, concerned with her appearance, gossipy, etc. Those are feminine traits, and she's got 'em. Katherine Heigl's characters are also strong feminine lead characters. Allison in Knocked Up, Jane in 27 Dresses, and, I suspect, her character in the upcoming The Ugly Truth (I sound like a posterboard). Beautiful, polite, restrained, responsible, organized, self-questioning. But those characters aren't boring, and though Jane certainly lets herself be a doormat a lot of the time, she manages to find inner strength and blah blah without sacrificing her femininity.

I'd like to see more characters like that, especially in novels, and particularly in the modern fantasy genre. I'm up to my eyeballs in ass-kicking heroines. I realize that none of my examples fight vampires and werewolves, but I can think of characters in many of the series I love who would do excellently as a lead character, and are very feminine. In that genre in particular, I do see a lot of feminine women cast as villains. They seduce, deceive, etc, but it's the intent of the actions and not the actions themselves that make a villain a villain.

I'm sort of rambling at this point, but I feel like I've said most of what I want to say.

 

Maybe the problem is your definition of feminity. Prissy, simpering, and airheaded is just not very admirable. Secure, confident women who are comfortable with their sexuality are the new feminine.

 

Hey, if you want feminine leads just start watching anime. They have an entire genre devoted to it.

 

Never once did I say that femininity is synonymous with stupidity, ineptitude, prissiness, and weakness.

Watch Remington Steele or Caroline?, and pay particular attention to Stephanie Zimbalist's characters. That should clarify once and for all what I mean by "feminine." I won't bother any more with verbal descriptions of femininity since most everyone here seems to translate them in a way which I did not intend.

 

Wrong. Secure, confident women who are comfortable with their sexuality are the new female.

Would you consider a secure, confident man, who is comfortable with his sexuality, to be feminine?

I didn't think so.

How about a prissy, simpering, and airheaded man?

Ah, you see now, don't you? Those ARE feminine traits. Security and confidence might not be masculine traits, but they aren't feminine. Don't confuse female with feminine.

 

Finally! Someone actually understands what I'm saying!

 

No, I totally get what you're saying.

Here's your original question:

A lot of the comments have been about TV shows or movies or anime, but I'm talking strictly novels. Once again, I'm saying that if you take a look at General Fiction and Young Adult Fiction, you will not see female leads mainly being written as tomboys who act, talk, and/or dress in a masculine manner. There usually is no villain.

Now the stereotype as you describe it may be found in adventure/thriller type novels, but you didn't limit your comment to any particular genre. Also, where masculine women (as you describe) are found in adventure/thriller novels, is it because of the occupation of the character? Is she a galaxy bounty hunter or a detective/police officer as opposed to a girl in high school dealing with her father's death (The Truth About Forever-Sarah Dessen) or a girl w/lymphoma and a sister who's a genetic match (My Sister's Keeper-Jodi Picoult)?

 

I have good news for you then. Read Sarah Dessen or Deb Caletti or Laurie King or Jodi Picoult or Robin McKinley or Charlaine Harris or Sophie Kinsella or Audrey Niffenegger if you want to read those kinds of characters. These writers write those kinds of heroines. Some of them start off as weak, submissive types, but they gain backbone in the end.

The "pretty, well-coiffed girls" in YA novels you mention are only one section of YA. I hate the Gossip Girls and Luxe series. There's so much more to YA, though. Sookie Stackhouse in Charlaine Harris's books would probably be a character you'd love.

 

These days I more or less exclusively write stories where the main protagonist is a young girl. And since I also almost exclusively write adventure stories where danger lurks behind each corner and people get punched in the face on occasion, I suppose I can't avoid making them somewhat tomboyish.

I don't really intend to make them tomboys, though. To me, "tomboy" indicates not a girl with traditionally masculine traits, but a girl who has very boyish interests and attitudes. (Sports, fixing cars and what have you.)

My typical heroine is brave, intelligent, reliable, practical, curious and a quick thinker. She's usually very intrepid and tends to find trouble rather then the other way around, but she doesn't rely on others to save her when she does end up in trouble.

Aside from that, I don't mind them wearing skirts or dresses, gossiping over the phone and fawning over boys.

Thing is, I don't really consider traits like "brave, practical and intrepid" to be typically male or female. These are just the traits I need to make a decent heroine out of her.

Case in point, the protagonist of my current novel project is a twelve years old girl who grew up in a normal English town and hasn't been in a serious fight in her life. She can't battle her way out of a tight spot, she can't jump tall buildings and she can't shoot fire from her fingertips. These are things she will learn along the way, as the story goes on and she grows. But starting out, there's really no reason she shouldn't be just a girl, so that's what I have to work with.

 

I think having definitions of what is "feminine" and what is "masculine" in and of themselves are kind of problematic. If a guy is shy and quiet, does that mean he is feminine? Not necessarily. So, if a girl can beat the crap out of you, does that mean she's necessarily masculine/tomboy? No, not really either - she could still care for a children, and enjoy cooking, which would make her feminine, right? But then again, she likes to fight too, so then what would she be?

Putting such tight constraints on character personalities makes it a lot easier to fall into stereotypes or archetypes. People are people, and, to varying degrees, everyone has some "feminine" traits and "masculine" traits. It doesn't really matter which "side" of the person is dominant; what matters is how these various traits interact to form a unique and interesting character.

I often have a lot of female characters that can kick ass. However, even all these characters are different; some are more similar to the archetypal female, caring and sweet and what not; others are almost like men stuck in a woman's body, they being extremely vulgar and violent. The kicking ass part, however, is not important.

What is important is why they would kick ass, and many how. A woman that punches a man in the face to protect her child is definitely different than a girl who beats the crap out of guys just because they made a pass at her.

The same would apply for men, anyhow. It doesn't really matter what they are on the outside as much as why they are like that. As we have seen many times, just because a girl wears dresses that doesn't really tell much - she could either beat you up or be the sissiest most useless damsel in distress.