Gender, power, feminism, patriarchy...

Absolutely not - all people are influenced by the things they read/watch - to what degree is another matter. This is not about intelligence, it is the way the human brain works. We are social creatures and we try and fit in with society - regardless of whether it is in our best interests or not.

 

I can give you notions from my life experience as a soldier in the Israel Defense Force (from which I'll soon be released).

Recruitment to IDF is compulsory. As such, it approximately has an equal amount of men and women in most units/roles. This results in situations where women are in charge of men, and vice versa. It also results in situations where women have to take men-held roles, and vice versa.

I have noticed occurances where perfectly feminine girls are matured into military oriented servicewomen. They'd have peculiar characteristics of a feminine girl who has thought-processes, leadership-style and general attitude that's more expected from men. Again, without giving up on femininity. You'd literally see girls who at one moment talk about their boyfriend and fix their hair while the next moment they materialize a meticulously planned excercise.

I must also stress on the fact that, since manly attitude affects women in the military. So does female attitudes affect men. I can tell you that I've learned to be a lot more organized, tidy, socially sophisticated and intuitive - due to nurture of a female officer.

All of this just goes to prove that both mindsets and roles that are generally considered dichotomic, can, and must be, in fact, incorporated to a realistic setting of a defense force (and boy, how realistic is defense in Israel). Let me put this in other words: The military would be a much worse organization without the social and mental influence of feminine values.

So what do I see as a strong female character? Well, you'd guess it - a fine Israeli female soldier/officer. They don't have any pretentious feminist values and they're not trying to take over the place of men. However, their pragmatic role dictates that they cannot be weak, gentle and passive.

 

To me, the dividing line between a reactive character and a passive character is this. A reactive character may not proact, but they will act once they had been well, acted against. Passive characters will do nothing, regardless of what has happened to them. To take a character that's actually really messed up as an example, I'll take Sato from Welcome to the N.H.K.

Okay, Sato is a hikikimori. Not only that, he gets tricked constantly, and constantly falls into addiction, while also having attempted suicide at one point. But, he still does react to things. Even though most of the time he just sits around in his apartment, he still acts when the situation calls for it. Even he, a hikikimori who is usually one of the most inactive people ever, is still more active than Bella. For example, when one of the other characters offers him a deal, he could've stayed in his apartment. But, he still takes the effort to go meet them, and actually makes a complex excuse while he doesn't need to do something. That's extremely active, but reactive at the same time. To me, this is a show that demonstrates that it's possible to have an amazing reactive character, and also the dividing line between reactive and passive characters. Highly recommend the show, for this and that it's an interesting psychology moment.

By comparison, Bella does nothing. She always waits for people to do things for her. She doesn't even react really, and when she does it's always because some else convinced her to in a sense. Sato actually can take his own action, even if it's reactive to others. Going back to the excuse, he devises a plan, and even conquers his main weakness in the show, which is his lack of social skills, in order to carry it out. That took him willing something. Sure, the plan backfires in the long run, but he still took intiative when he had to reacted to something. Bella, on the other hand, doesn't. When she goes insane, it's because a male won't be there.

Okay, also, this is why Bella is unhealthy. Sato, despite all his problems, is still a better role model. Why? Even though he dropped out of college, and lacks most social skills, he still reacts to things. He doesn't just let the world do what it will with him. Now, he has more flaws than most, but one could say that makes him an incredible anti-hero. He is, at least, a better character. On the other hand, Bella just lets whatever happen to her, which is not only extremely unrealistic as a mindset, but also sets a bad precedent. Yes girls, you don't have to do anything, someone else will take care of it for you. It doesn't matter what is going on, according to this book, you can sit just around and do literally nothing because everything will be done for you. If something doesn't go your way, just whine about it. The fact she is meant to be a character that your supposed to use yourself as a replacement further encourages this.

I hope this all helps differentiate between the reactive character, and the passive character.

 

In the absence of specific examples from the books, I guess I'll just have to agree to disagree with you guys...I don't agree with everything about Bella's character, but I don't think she spends all her time sitting around for other people to make decisions for her.

 

I remember Bill Mahar once commented on the tendency of the feminist movement in movies now to be about "kicking ass". In the last five or ten years alot of movies have starred women in roles where they're beating people up, blowing stuff up, etc. The all-women guest panel commented that that's not so much a part of the feminist movement but a part of a male fantasy for some kind of phallic female. A women doesn't have to be shooting a gun to be tough, but alot of men who can't see a woman's perspective are stuck on that.

That movie Suckerpunch, which I havent seen, seems to be an example of it. I think it pretends to be a chick-flick but really, look at the way they're dressed and how they're all dolled up even when they should be dirty and bloody---it sets the womens' movement back a decade.

One of my favorite female charcters is Ripley in the Alien series. She's smart, tough, sassy, brave, morally-upright, etc. There is no pressure on her to "look hot" or help some man. She's the one everyone looks to for support and help and is a true heroine.

In real life there are female role models like Ayn Rand (I don't agree with all of her wacky ideaology, but she was a true scholar and the equal of any man)

Or Hellen Keller, most people remember her teacher, but she herself was a lifelong scholar and prolific writer.

Part of the focus should be on recognizing that women are the equal of men but also on expanding our awareness or sensitivity. I've learned more about women in the last year by working with a (nearly) all-woman staff than in my whole life.


Just look at some of the symptoms that some of the birth control medications cause for women, some of them cause seizures! Imagine if men had that problem, there would be better drugs out there. Women also have the monthly curse, I think if men had them we would be real wusses about it, some men I know complain about really trivial crap.

 

I have noticed that, especially with fantasy/sci-fi, there is a tendency to have a large groups of men and one token female, who is inevitably super hot and all of the men are always really impressed when she does something well. Sometimes there isn't even a woman.

See: The Ocean's Series, LotR (although it could be argued that Tolkien is a product of his environment), Fast and the Furious series, any "quest" fantasy adventure, based in a Dungeons and Dragons-type universe (There are usually about five men, and the woman is inevitably an elf). Even some of my favorite authors do it. Douglas Adams, for instance. I can't remember a single female character, other than the one romantic interest, in his books (although it has been a while).

Even Harry Potter is a little guilty of this. Sure, there's Hermione, who is a wonderful female character, but for the most part, it's a sausage fest. And women are seen as special. Hermione is a bookish, deductive genius. Luna is a total weird-o (I say that with the greatest affection). Mrs. Weasley is the maternal archetype, a supermom of sorts. Ginny rarely even speaks in the books. And those are basically the only female characters that make more than an occasional appearance. There are no "normal" women in HP, whereas Harry, the Weasley boys, and countless others are the very picture of adolescent normalcy.

I love Harry Potter so much, but doesn't that sort of contribute to the woman as 'other' theory? In other words, men are normal, women are weird and only exist to fill some niche?

Idk. I may completely off base. Feel free to argue with me. I would especially love to hear an argument that Harry Potter has a pro-feminist angle.

 

I agree with this.

I find it amazing that so many people struggle with writing strong female characters because for me, it's not that difficult. From my view, I think those that have a difficult time trying to figure out how to characterize their females are those that fall in a trap of over analyzing and then over compensating for conclusion they have previously drawn from other books.

A lot of that has to do with your mindset when you first begin writing. As much as many people like to say that authors shouldn't impose their beliefs into their works, I think there are exceptions to that rule and gender is one of them.


If you believe women are equal to men, then you will want your female characters to be equal to your male characters and it wont be difficult to figure out how to do that.

However, if you already impose this "a character needs to be a certain way" stigma before you sit down to write, you will see that you're over compensating. Say, you're a reader and an author who is very annoyed with how one gender is portrayed in certain books that it makes you want to avoid that in your writings. Now you're thinking about the ways of how you make it so that your characters aren't like THOSE books in which you had a problem with. You further have thoughts of what you THINK your characters should be like and you further pay so much attention to that, that you make sure you emphasis those points which leads either over compensating or turning your character into a message of something like "female empowerment.". And what does this do? It creates a trap and feeds off of the very thing you're trying to avoid and becomes this heavy-hitted book that also pushes things like feminism, sexism, female empowerment etc,. when your first thoughts where to avoid all that and make it realistic. Your character is no longer your character, but becomes an example of all the things you didn't like in all your other books.

The best way I have learned is push away everything from what the other books do. If YOU want to make your female characters a certain way, then make them a certain way without having to explain it or emphasis points that counter a negative trait or without having to make an example out of your character.

Also...

I've noticed that whenever a thread like this comes up... words like "strong,' "patriarchal," "sexism," "feminism" "women having male traits." - come up SO MUCH.

Equality is not synonymous for any of those words or ideas. Equality actually transcends all those words and beliefs. It's only when you you go in thinking one gender needs to be a certain way and another gender needs to be a different way that creates a problem. When characters need to be a certain way for the sole purpose of contrasting them to either other female characters or other male characters, then you have to recognize that your characters are not equal but are fighting to be equal << hence the over compensation or under compensation in different areas .

Equality doesn't mean strong female character. A girl can be equal to a guy but still be weak for various other reason. A lot of people confuse that - they think that just because women and men are "supposed" to be equal, it means that all girls are "supposed" to be strong characters... that's simply not true.

Wanting to make your female strong is part of characterization and to me has nothing to do gender related issues and shouldn't have to be. If you do want it to be a gender issue, then it's it's a different topic of discussion.

So maybe you need ask your self if you are trying to push something like feminism, sexism, female empowerment etc., in your writing. And if you are, there is nothing wrong with it as long as it's got a point in relation to YOUR novel and not an just influenced arbitrarily from something else you are trying to make a point about.

I have written female characters that have had insecurities and have made them weak for various reason - but I've still maintained a power about them that people have said "you know, even thought she has a lot of insecurities, she's actually a very strong character and I respect and like her even more now."

Contrastingly, I've also written female characters that have been strong both mentally and physically - but I don't tie that to gender - why would I? A girl can be strong physically and mentally and this is really where I agree with Johnathan in that we should view women as equal of men. These girls have been strong, witty, confidence, sassy and completely girl and loveable at the same time. Making them strong was done because the character required it. It wasn't don't to prove that girls are just as strong as men or some other idea - gender issue didn't cross.

I've also made my male character soft/strong whatever - I characterize them to what my novel requires while hoping to maintain a realistic authenticity to them that will make them relate-able by whoever reads.

Also, all stereotypes are not bad. Stereotypes whether we want it or not, really do exist in the real world and it would be foolish for author's to ignore that and write a book that breaks all common stereotypes. That's not reality either. It's a balance. There is nothing wrong with stereotypes, only if you cast it in a negative light is it bad. I mean, some would say that it was stereotypical of me to go to college right out of high school instead of taking a year off. Is that bad stereotype? No... but if you think about it, it really was stereotypical for me to do that because it's what most people do and/or are expected to do.

 

Hmm, what about Alien? I wouldn't exactly call Sigourney Weaver hot and non of the other girls were hot either. I found it funny that the women lasted towards the end.

 

Also, for books that do push certain concepts need to be read in their contexts. A book not matter how different it may be from the author - is a product of that author's influence. Sometimes, it's done because of the time period, other times it's done because of cultural and social changes that were happening when the book was being written.

Gender equality is still something many are fighting for today, just as equal rights.

I thought twilight was a bad example. To me it "pushes" a lot of things and it was meant to "push" that you just can't deny that it was written a certain way.

It would be better to discuss books where an it would seem that an author unknowingly created a character to be a certain way without realizing it.

 

So lets see here
A. making a girl tough is wrong
B. making her weak is wrong
A a guy can be tough and its OKay
B can be weak and its ok


Sorry guys I think your trying to hard, you lot say you should make real catheters
Well there are girls who rely on men and their are girls who kick butt
so why is it wrong to use them?
because society is trying to hard to get away form being sexist
Sexism is the belief that one gender is better then the other its not the belief that we are created "equal" in all things
We are not equal as obviously we are not equal in terms of physicals and mental things
We have more muscle then 90% of women can ever get (genetics play a big part in that)
we are faster at the peak, we in short are "better" physically by cold hard facts
however! we would not stand a chance at giving birth we are not built that way, we also are not as emotional (once again 90% of guys cant physical get as emotional as girls as their hormones give them way more emotions)
and they have more also.
the point is we are not "equal" we need to get away form being equal
we need to get to the point where neither one is on top and a man dose not have the finale just becuse he is the man say and we have! with the exceptions with other countrys who still put women below but we cant change that, thats up to them and has no efect on us.
your fighting a war thats been won, most girls that still are "below" feel like the man should be in charge, I've know many girls like and I've known many i feel sorry for the guy who thinks that's the way it should be
The point is you should not be bugged if a female is "under a man" in a book as some girls want to be! I'd go as far as saying its not really a "needs the guy"
but rather "Needs someone" many pepole feel like someone eles should take care pof them

The point is your looking way to much in to it

Twlight made a very good teenage girl form now days
I've seen soooooooo many who wait for their guy to tell them what to do and all that
did society make them like this? maybe a bit but there is also some instinct in there and of course natural personality, Its a fact a lot of girls are atractive to a guy who is "in chrage" its also a fact not all do
So please stop trying to make it where if they rely on a guy its sexisty and if they are tough they are trying to had

 

^I'm going to be honest and say that there were large portions of that where I couldn't understand what you were trying to say. But the parts that I did (I think) understand made me go ""

 

Okay well lets do the shrot thing


Ok pepole are complaning about storng females and also complaning about femals who rely on man

both of them are in the real world
dont we as writers make real pepole?
point is evrey one here is trying to hard

 

Ditto.

 

I think that what he is trying to say is that, ironically, in an effort to impose politically-correct ideals of what a strong or feminist female character has to be like, people lose a degree of reality or authentic character in their work.

For example, a female character that is weak and defers to a male might lead a book to be decried as "sexist," but in reality such females exist and a book depicting one is no more inherently sexist than a book depicting a male character who is weak and defers to a woman (which also exists).

My initial point was that judging whether or not a female character is feminist or strong or what have you using the ideals and values of patriarchy is a load of bollocks to begin with. But if I'm reading Wolfi correctly, then I also agree with him. Literature reflects life, and calling a book sexist or saying it is bad because it has a character of a type that really exists in the world, but just doesn't happen to match up with one's own political or social ideals, is ridiculous.

 

What are you trying to say? The shot thing? Shrug thing? Seriously.. I'm not making fun of you, I just don't understand.

No, we don't make real people, we make characters that we hope real people can relate to.

Maybe. I think they just want to get it right.

 

I don't think trying to identify examples of sexist writing and explaining why you consider it sexist is trying too hard. You may think it isn't an issue because some girls want to be "under a man," but the fact is that in the real world, it is an issue, which is probably why so many people are interested in discussing it. The fact that both strong and weak women exist in the world doesn't mean that trying to identify instances in literature where you feel women are being domineered by men is "trying too hard."

Incidentally, the fact that you seem to think that most women who are "below" men want to be there is, quite frankly, alarming to me.

Edit: Regarding what Steerpike said, I agree with what you said about considering a book sexist when it lines up with things that happen in real life, to a point...I think the thing that really threw me off about the post was what seemed to me to be an attitude that we shouldn't think about or discuss examples of sexism in books because women in real life who are in positions of inferiority want to be there. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what he meant...but if not, that seriously freaks me out. And, to be honest, kind of pisses me off.

 

I agree that such things should be identified and discussed in literature. One function of literature is to provide an avenue for doing so. But I think at some point it just becomes cliche or too easy to see a certain characterization and throw out the "sexist" label. Perfect example being Twilight, where I do not find the portrayal of Bella to be sexist at all (and an interesting aside being the issue of ascribing sexism to a female author writing a female character). I mentioned the reasons for my view earlier in this thread or in another one, but in essence the word is just thrown out there by people who like to be cool by disliking anything popular, as well as by amateur writers whose lips are puckering at the sour grapes they find themselves snacking on...

 

And on this, I am with you 100%.

 

Thats 100% what I'm saying

If your talking to me then let me make clear
while in other countrys it may be so
here (USA and many other places) they are equal if they choice to stay with a man like that then it is their choice

I belive i put it i said that most of the world
some country still have it but we are not complaning aboiut that
we are comnplaining any time a girl dreesed uo and kiucks butt
or when she relys on a guy
or when she basicly dose any thing what so ever
its goten to the point that to stay away form seixim its just better not to have femeals in the story (whihc in of it self could be called that)

 

.......I should probably just remove myself from this conversation before I get an infraction.

 

Why would you? unless you insult someone

Do you deny that a women has a choice to stay with a "sexist" man?
Do you deny we have laws againt women not being equal to men?

It's their choice and if its their choice then whats the problem?

we cant force them not to do it

 

I don't think any woman would make the conscious decision to be below a man. I'm not sure what you mean, wolfi, and I don't want to jump to conclusions. Could you give examples, perhaps?

 

Why is sexist in "quotations"?

Though we all know that women choose to stay with an oppressive man, it is usually under difficult circumstances. For example, they may have children together or the woman is forced to stay with him. There is also the hurdles such as social expectations, culture, and environment. In the end, it is hardly a choice because staying with this man, they believe, is their only option.

What do these laws have to do with the subject of the discussion? Women don't choose for these laws to go through. Most politicians in North America are middle-aged men. They choose for such laws to go through.

I love how, for you, choice=happiness, when this is hardly the case. It's really a matter of the classic avoidance-avoidance conflict, where one is forced to choose between two undesirable options. In certain cases, women must choose to either live with their oppressive partner or suffer being a single mom/becoming stigmatized/feeling unwanted/etc. In the end, this is the problem and that's why people are making a big deal out of it. Certain women are being forced into staying with the sexist man in the first place, anyway.

So rethink what you just said there.

 

You could read more into books with just female characters >.>...........Just Sayin'

Hehe....Well honestly it's very common in SciFi/Fantasy. A lot of Male Authors tend not to be able to identify with female characters well and they develop a 'fantasy' female so-to-say as they lack the ability to do much else. Sorry if this sounds insulting, but I truely feel this is the case.

I wouldn't fault Harry Potter, there are multiple female role-models in it. Ginny is a love-interest, but even so, she is far from the stereo-type, Hermoine is a Genius, etc.etc. The men in charge(aside from Dumbledorf) were really stupid half the time. I loved most of the female characters though, they felt real.

::::::::::

Back To OP PoV -

This is correct, but at the same time incorrect. The fact of the matter is, nothing separates Men and Women, having the same traits that make a Man strong does not mean you take a one-sided look into females.

I am a bit too tired to use references, but there are plenty of books in which a female has a very feminine role, yet is viewed as being strong. Yet, at the same time there are books where the female character is adventurous, curious, a leader...etc.etc. and then it is said that she is basically your typical Male Lead.

Well...Guess what, that's kinda the point...

Sorry, but what should she do? Start PMSing to prove she's female? I mean...it's not about Gender, it's about the Characters.

As I said at the start though, people have trouble identifying with a role unfamiliar to them. I doubt many men could write a book in which the man had the traditional 'feminine' role.

That said, in our time, woman still aren't playing the 'Dominant' Role in most situations, a book where one does lean on a man is not something I would think is 'sexist'.

Anywho I'm just a lowly MtFTG so what is that I know? I'll read books like 'Annie On My Mind' to get my fem fix on. Just Sayin....

 

I'm mostly with you so far.

Okay now I'm off. First of all, I'm for the women, I swear I am. You'll never find a person more for a womans rights than I am. You really won't. Here's the problem. The above two statements I've bolded? One does NOT equal the other. There is not and never will be an imaginary line connecting those dots. Not liking your choices does not eliminate the choices you have and women will NEVER be seen as truly equal as long as we continue to blame men for forcing us to do things (if there's a gun, rope, handcuffs involved, sure... if the problem is that I just don't want to be alone or I don't want to raise my kids by myself, start over, put on my damned big girl panties and deal with it, that's a whole other thing entirely). So, no, I don't agree. I'm sorry. I don't agree with him either, though.