Gender, power, feminism, patriarchy...

You know what I mean, and you know that's not what I said. Please don't try to further derail this thread by turning it into an argument.

 

I think that not responding to Mr. Jammer's incendiary comments is the best route. Once he makes a valid, coherent, and non-argumentative statement, I'll be happy to include him in the discussion.

Also, I think the Bechdel test is excellent. But one also needs to consider whether men are being stereotyped in a book. As I mentioned earlier, men in fantasy novels are usually really tough, self-sufficient, I-strike-before-I-think types. That isn't fair, either. Of course, such men exists irl, but they aren't the only type of men that exist.

I guess my main problem, especially with fantasy literature, is the use of cliches.

 

Yeah, I think with some fantasy there's a tendency to rely heavily on common human types so that the author is more free to focus on world building or creating other races, so in the end you can have these really imaginative, original settings that are let down by not paying attention to the subtleties of characterisation.

 

That's certainly one way to look at it. But it's also a reflection of a certain level of acceptance that women can display traits we usually regard as masculine. I also think there is a logical trap here - if the female heroes display all masculine traits, we conclude that society only values masculine traits in its heroes, but if female heroes don't display those traits it's because society won't accept masculine traits in females? That's heads-I-win, tails-you-lose thinking, and not very constructive.

I haven't done a survey, but I think that you can find women characters these days in various media who run the gamut from thoughtful and reserved to dripping-with-testosterone. And that's as it should be, IMHO.

 

Condensing comment. Nothing more than that.

Happy = lie

 

I think the main idea, and certainly the idea that a lot of Feminist theorists have made over the past few decades, is that even though we can see 'successful' women in media, it's generally through their success in a male-dominated system, and it's success achieved through the appropriation of male traits. There are some areas (generally in media created for women, by women) where this isn't true, and a feminised system of values or model of success is the basis for action and representation, but there are still remarkably few examples of mainstream media where women are dominant characters outside traditionally patriarchal structures. There are a few quite successful female detective/crime novels and shows around at the moment, for instance, but of those I've read (by Patricia Cornwall and Kathy Reichs, and so on) the author is often quite deliberate in pointing out that the female character rose to dominance through either being 'masculated' or emasculating others.

 

You and everyone have said that women can do anything that men can do. Therefore separating masculine and feminine as if there is differences is a waste of time...unless you and everyone else is wrong....which is highly impossible. Since you're more interested in being praised as right than anything else.

People take animals as an example of why humans are born gay....cause in the animal kingdom there are gay penguins.

But then in the animal kingdom there is a DISTINCT difference between male and female. They each have their roles. But that can't be so in humanity...oh no...cause humans are full of PC crud that they can't possibly have different roles for male and female.

Because females and males are different, but they can do everything the other can do.

DNA is different in male and females and not only that...their brain makeup are different as well. They are not the same. Therefore differences exist...making more construction workers male and more nurses female. That. Will. Never. Change. There will never be a time when there are more female construction workers and more male nurses.

I hope this makes you uncomfortable, because that proves another valid point.

 

Literature has come a long way, in some respects. The more I think about it, the more wonderful women character I come up with from the past.

Scarlett O'Hara is great. Flawed, multi-faceted, feckless. Margaret Mitchell made an excellent female character study with Scarlett, and Vivien Leigh immortalized her. She was not one for fainting or whining, but she played men like so many pianos.

Then there are Austen's main characters, who are all different, but all strong and independent women.

Still, both of those are examples of female authors writing novels. Oscar Wilde's Dorian Gray for instance, is centered around men. The three primary characters are men, and the three women are secondary and don't pass the Bechdel test.

I suppose that it all depends on the individual author. I just thought out that it would be interesting to point out that similar patterns showed up in the past, but that the "feminist vocabulary" didn't exist yet with which to analyze it.

Perhaps there are other examples I haven't thought of? Classic lit. that takes an interesting view of women, or presents an interesting female character?

 

Feminist make the worst women.

Austin's characters fawn over men. Defeats the purpose.

Stronger women are found in X-Men than in any of Austin's writing.

 

*Austen

Elizabeth Bennet did not fawn. Emma fawned over one man, but only because her expectations exceeded the reality, which was proven when she actually met him and her mental ideal was shattered. Fanny Brice never fawned. In fact, she was so far from fawning that the one man she admired didn't even notice until it was almost too late. Austen's characters are well developed. There are some characters that fawn, but usually she centers on the ones that don't. Romance is a key feature in her books, but they are romantic comedies/dramas, and never claim to be anything else.

As for X-Men, there are strong women there, but they have the tendency (like many, though not all comic books) to have very, very large breasts, impressive, breath-stopping beauty, and some rather unfortunate uniforms. Admittedly, men also are held to a rather high standard of physical "fitness" in comics. It is also interesting to note that the women in X-Men are considered dangerous. One sucks powers out of those she touches, one can cause weather to change at her whim, and one has enough psychic power to destroy the world. Likewise, the men have very physical, violent abilities (shooting laser beams from eyes, claws from hands, turning into metal man) There are exceptions, obviously, but I am no X-Men aficionado.

Comic books actually make for a very interesting study in gender, though, Mr. Jammer. Interesting that you should bring it up.

 

I like Austin better. Keeping it weird is a great theme.

Austen is just spelled wrong. What kind of writer was she?

So she was a woman that didn't pay attention to reality and lived in a fantasy created by her own idea of what men should be? Interesting.

Her women are too into making others do for them than them ever to go out of their way for anyone else. It's like a ring of selfishness that's okay because they're women.

OhNO...great women can't have big boobs. And let's just say that you don't read X-Men and (as you claim me to do) over generalize...poorly, at that.

It's not about the talent a woman has, it's their personality and not a single X-Woman is weak. Nor do they need a man to protect them and nor do they mask their idea of what they want over any man. They're well aware of what is out there and don't need to create a reality and then pity themselves when their idea of what should be doesn't come into existence.

You have no idea what X-Men is about and your idea of it is poor.

X-Men doesn't toy with the idea that men and women are the same, like people here claim is possible.

PC has no home in their realm. PC thinking sucks anyway.

 

True, unfortunately. I've been into super heroes since I was a kid and it's only recently that I realised that comics, if anything, are too much like fantasy novels and modern TV/movies. There will be the perfect female for the average, troubled hero and, at best, she will end up in his shadow as he ascends to greatness and, at worst, she will end up being stuffed in a fridge for the sake of further creating tension in the hero's life.

Actually, this formula has been around quite some time now. I think even female authors fall into this trap, by no ill will of their own. It only happens often because this kind of thing has been around for so long. I sometimes find myself doing the same thing on occasion, where a character, usually female, is meant to die for the sake of thickening or creating tension. I'm guessing that I'm so used to the idea of women being bait that I, too, end up writing something similar.

As for the unrealistic beauty standards perpetuated by comic books in general, I can't help but agree with you. It's mainly a way to sell the product because, obviously, sex sells, even the cartoon kind. Unfortunately, this is counterproductive towards women's rights, seeing as it makes women look shallow and two-dimensional.

 

Please. Women and their romance novels. Shirtless covers sell.

Anyone complaining about women in comics have never read a single X-Men comic. A team of women could be created from those characters and be just as, if not stronger, than any male team.

I hate the idea that in order to be "real" it has to be dark, fat and slobby.

 

I don't read many comic books. I watch the movies, but I know that just makes most people roll their eyes. lol. But I have picked them up on occasion, when I'm in the library or a bookstore with a comics section.

Honestly, the art is amazing, but no one looks real. They're all lean muscle and unreal proportions. As you say, they seem to enjoy the "damsel in distress" scenarios.

As a rule, I think that the "damsel in distress" scenario should die. They poked fun at it in the movie Your Highness (which I watched with unfettered glee as they made fun of pretty much every fantasy cliche ever), which I hope is a sign that it's on its way out. Sure, a woman may get herself into a sticky situation, but is it necessary for her to be saved by a prince (who was inevitably orphaned at birth and imbued with a power he only discovers as he quests)? Why can't she save herself? If she can't save herself, maybe her sister could help her. There is a lot of unexplored story here that a fantasy writer could exploit. In fact, I just might.

 

I can't recall a recent comic book I've read that has "damsel in distress" like story. Marvel doesn't play that kind of card.

I don't think such stories should go away. Not when women use that to their advantage. Many women love the door opening for them, the paying for dates, the help in heavy lifting and so on and so on...

When women actually start pulling their weight in everyday things other than spout out how they wish to be treated the same...

But can you do it without making fun of the idea that princes usually save the princess? The moment someone can actually write a story that doesn't mock another method will be a strong story. The mocking ruins the idea.

 

At this point, that's all I do too; I just watch the movies nowadays. I used to go out of my way to get my hands on Batman and Spiderman comic books, but now I'm too lazy to bother. Even then, I have no intention of watching certain comic book movies becuase they seem so, well, rehashed. Man gets super powers, normal/super perfect woman falls in love with him, evil villain threatens woman's life, man realises true potential upon successfully saving his love interest and beating the Big Bad in an epic final battle... in a nutshell.

Unfortunately, though there are many movies that can make fun of a certain stubborn formula/stereotype/whatever, I've noticed that it will take more than one movie to make something so common reveal it as ridiculous.

The "damsel in distress" scenario is burdensome. It's usually executed in a cheap way for the hero to show off his potential both to his love interest and the audience. It could be executed tastefully, mind you; as you said, her sister (or brother) could end up saving her, thus proving the bonds of siblings. Even better, she could end up saving herself for once and maybe have a chance at being something other than a wallflower that only pops up when more tension is needed. It'd be nice to see a balance in popularity, although, generally, you will find that the wives of great men end up fading into the background. Then again, so do the husbands of great women. Rarely is a couple looked upon by the world in equal light (J.F.K and his wife and Barack and Michelle Obama are examples of this, I believe).

In fiction, however, you usually get the former. At least in the mainstream stuff.

Am I still making sense to you? If not, sorry. I'm really tired ;_;

 

I think I get what you're saying. It's hard to find and "equal" relationship anywhere, even in reality.

I personally think that taking a look at stereotypes and cliches, and finding a new way to see them, makes for a really strong idea. It isn't a mockery or parody. It's a revamping.

Neil Gaiman (I swear I can't make a post without mentioning him. I may be obsessed. Maybe.) has made a career doing this. He's revamped everything from Sherlock Holmes to mythic gods to fables to fairy tales, and I can't put his books down.

Say you make a story about a woman who gets kidnapped or locked in a tower or something. That's familiar to the reader. The reader likes things that are familiar. Then you have a hero, on his way to save the fair maiden. This, too, is familiar. When he rescues her, the reader discovers that this hero is the maiden's brother. This is shocking. They like to be shocked. It may seem contradictory, but it's true. This is why a lot of movies start out with a normal day, rushing around, doing normal stuff, and then, BAM, something strange happens. Aliens land, love strikes, someone is kidnapped, someone finds his/herself in a terrifying situation, fighting beside a James Bond-like person.

What on earth am I talking about?

I may be rambling a bit, myself, due to sleep deprivation. But I've just reached a good stride in my novel and I can't bear to break that. And forum lurking provides a nice break.

 

If you fix cliches that you dislike, you just make new ones. It's the way it is.

Also if she's "strong enough" to save her self, then how did she get herself into that situation in the first place? Why not say it's the Princess saving Mario?

 

I don't want to get too sucked into this black hole of endless debate, but one thing I keep see coming up is "There are successful females, but often they are only considered successful by showing masculine traits." The problem here is that sometimes these are less "masculine traits" and just "traits that can make you successful". Assertiveness, stoicism - you could call these masculine traits, but how can someone really be successful in the same way through passiveness and being overly emotional, which are being labelled as the "feminine" traits.

This applies especially in the discussion about "heroes" in literature. How could a female really be seen as the hero by sticking only to "feminine" qualities, when people are automatically calling traits that make them heroic "masculine" traits (at least in certain types of stories where those traits are required)? You can't win if you have a woman fill that role because then you're just saying that woman need to be masculine, but if you don't have a woman fill that role than you can't win because you're saying only a man can.

 

I think of one of my favorite strong female leads Kathryn Janeway. Took a while for Star Trek (the handlers) to allow a series to be helm by a female. She was strong in every way necessary that was womanlike.

Crying isn't weak. Emotion isn't weak either. These ideas of what makes what what are not perpetuated by society as much as the are perpetuated by people claiming to want to stop it.

 

Well here is a thing, unless its brute strength then its realistically possable to have a female do it, a sword is not that hevey for a full grown women how has practiced (add to the fact she is a princess and they usealy have fencing or something to help)

But here comes my point I think lots of pepole have a deferent interpretation of a males trait, for example some pepole think swords are for men and if you give a women it your giving her muscular traits, how ever swords do not require so great strength that most women cant use them

So the question then becomes is there really masulaur traits that socity made? being used for the female? or is it your ophions of what socity cause manle traits make it so?

 

Guess it also depends on what you mean by "successful." Seems like the above presupposes that the results of these traditionally-defined masculine traits are the proper measuring sticks of the success.

 

I've apparently had the guy on "ignore" since shortly after coming to this site quite some time ago. This thread validates that decision, though I can't remember the initial reason for putting him there. No one else is on my ignore list, and I argue with plenty of people

If you guys would quite quoting him I wouldn't have to see any of his text!