It would seem that you don't understand what this thread is about. I said it upstream but if that wasn't enough try Jannert's post: I've oft heard you cannot legislate social change and I agree with that mostly. You can pass a civil rights law or a right to gay marriage law but those would not have come about had the social change not started first. I'm not trying to suggest the analogy of laws and major social change are on the same level as the absence of whole females from literature and movies, the scale is more like a mouse and an elephant. But qualitatively the issue is similar. That someone even developed the test shows a growing awareness. Talking about it spreads that awareness. I've not read a single post in this thread is asking anyone to change what they write, especially with some kind of meaningless insertion of token characters or dialogue. I'm always amused that people feel preached to when nothing more happened than opening a window letting a little air in. I would ask if you find my point of view threatening but that's just seems a bit too cliché. If little girls had better role models than Disney Princesses whose worth is defined by the handsome prince, if women in movies little girls grew up watching weren't given titles like scientist and doctor only to go on to accomplish nothing in the film except take their glasses off and become beautiful, if the history they learned in grade school included women who did more than sew flags, there might just be a few less women who fantasize about being dominated by a man. I said it was sad, I didn't say women with such fantasies had less worth than other women. Fortunately there has been a lot of progress. I saw an author on BookTV last weekend show portrait paintings of men and women from the 1800s and earlier. Men were often painted with their glasses on, a symbol of being learned. Women of that day were never painted with glasses on but a few began to be painted holding their glasses. I found that fascinating. I hadn't noticed until the author pointed it out. Something that was otherwise hidden in plain sight becomes visible. That's all I'm doing with this thread, moving the ball forward a few centimeters.
My argument was "People are not defined by their gender/race/religion" (well, strictly speaking it was someone else's argument and I merely agreed). Now please tell me which part of that statement implies any of this:
The way I read that, and ChickenFreak can correct me if I'm wrong, is she's distilled what you've said into it's natural consequence. If as you say, "People are not defined by their gender/race/religion", what are their conflicts about? Who are they and what are they about if you take such core essence away?
Oh, now it's "you don't understand" - I do understand. There's a test and it's pass/fail. If your work (movie, book, whatever) doesn't pass, you need to become more "aware" and strive to pass in the future. I'm always amused when people refer to their preaching as something more "refreshing". Threatening? Not exactly the adjective I would use. I grew up with all of the above, and I certainly didn't turn into some starry-eyed woman-child looking to be dominated. Quite the contrary. And a whole bunch of women I know didn't either. There are a lot of things I may fantasize about, but wanting them in reality is a whole 'nother thing. But you know - that's why people read fiction. Which is definitely not the same thing, right?
People are not defined by gender unless you're going to stereotype them. What defines people is their whole - gender PLUS race PLUS religion PLUS society PLUS personal experiences etc etc. I am not defined by my gender. I am defined by my life - and it is ever changing.
The way I understood it, the purpose of the test isn't to place any inherent value on works with prominent female characters or decrease the value of works without them, but, rather, to find out how many works pass the test in order to observe the position of females in fiction in relation to that of males in order to see how equal or unequal the situation is numerically speaking, how the number of prominent female characters compares to male characters without directly attributing negative connotations to works that lack notable female characters, just that they are more abundant. Then, when we have some numbers derived from the test, we can more objectively decide whether the situation is good, bad, or perfectly adequate, and if it needs correcting in one way or another. So far it appears, to me anyway, that females are still under-represented when it comes to strong, prominent roles in fiction, but that doesn't mean that, e.g. Catch-22, Catcher in the Rye, The Old Man and the Sea, The Lord of the Rings, or American Psycho are bad novels, just that it would be kinda nice if we had more books like them but with the genders reversed, i.e. with strong female characters as MCs. That is, if we want to see more prominent female characters in the future. If we don't, we don't need to do anything or we can keep churning out greater numbers of male-led fiction to further tip the scales in favor of men (whether that is our goal or not, as it probably usually isn't). People don't need to feel guilty every time they write a male MC, but they should be aware of the fact that by doing so (without including a prominent female MC in the story as well), they are increasing the number of male-led fiction, whether they want it or not. Even though I wish more women would play the guitar (in relation to the number of male guitarists), I won't stop playing the guitar just because by doing so, I'm further increasing the number of male guitarists in comparison to female guitarists. I don't feel guilty because of that either, but I do acknowledge that I add another number in the total of male guitarists. Not that it affects things much on a grander scale, but the test just increases the awareness of the situation for better or worse. But this is just my interpretation. Anyone, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
And I still don't know what you mean by that. Certainly, they're not *exclusively* defined by those things. It's not a matter of, "She's a woman. That's all you need to know." But as far as I know, no one said that. But I would say that generally, a man would see being a man as a more important defining characteristic than, say, having curly hair. And probably a less important defining characteristic than being a moral person or a brave person. On the other hand, he might tangle them, and "being a brave MAN" may be very important to him. Going back to Horatio Hornblower, being a brave duty-bound Englishman was, absolutely, a very important part of his identity. Now, you may be saying that *you* don't care if Hornblower was English or French or no nationality at all. But Hornblower cares, enormously. Can you delve into a character if the things that are most important to them are not important to you? You're probably going to say that that's not what you meant either. But until you explain what you meant, there's not much that I can do about that, so I'm just going to follow my thoughts where they interest me. And that interests me, so I'm going to address the question to folks in general. How do you do justice to a character whose priorities are utterly different from yours? If I'm writing about, let's say, a woman who derives a great deal of her identity from being a good old-fashioned housekeeper and ensuring that her husband never has a moment of inconvenience or frustration at home, while accepting all of that inconvenience and frustration on herelf, how do I do that character justice? I may see her as a victim of societal expectations, but she doesn't. If I want to present her as a character and not a cartoon, I have to truly understand her and get my mind around a mindset where someone could be happy in that situation. Again, not interested in telling you what your argument is. When I say, "I'm hearing you say..." I'm not doing so to tell someone what they think. I'm doing so to tell them what they're communicating to me. Ideally, the result is that they say, "No, no, I meant blah," while offering an explanation that clarifies the area of confusion. You don't seem interested in doing that. That's fine, but I'm not going to argue my interpretation of what you're saying.
There, ftfy. No, it's not, though what you appear to believe is a different version of what I've written. Do you find it sad at all that women in Saudi Arabia are not permitted driver's licenses? Does the fact all of them are not marching in the streets demanding their rights mean they have less value as people.
No one has said anything different than that. I'm really missing what your hostility is about. I think you are misunderstanding some of the posts in the thread. You don't think you are. Sounds like an impasse.
I'm okay with Disney Princess's ( you can't dismiss everything girly ) I think it totally depends on how a child is taught to filter things - what their background is. I was raised with a mother and father and didn't think getting married, finding a man was the end all to creating myself as a person. It was something to be done when I fell in love and met the right person. Now, take the stats on single moms in American a lot of which probably buy Disney Princess stuff. I know a few single moms so I'm not slandering the whole lot but a percentage of those single moms have made finding a new man their sole object, that's all they talk about - the Disney ideal then becomes reinforced by reality. Even married couples could create this fantasy though. A father who drinks or is abusive - what child wouldn't want a handsome prince ( the perfect father figure ) to carry her off to a dream castle. Especially when the mother is probably wishing the same thing.
that might require a lot of day dreaming and talking to housewives who take their lives seriously. Most of my characters have different priorities but their level of passion for that priority tends to stay the same. So I just sit and think about what it would be like to care that much, obsess even. Usually though, talking to people who actually live the life I'm writing about keeps me from making my writing sound like I'm clearly a mocking outsider with no clue about what it's like. Still, people take things however they want to. I wrote a story about a transgender man losing his mind and cutting off male penises and keeping them in artisian jars in his closet because he couldn't take the fact he couldn't get the social recognition he desired as a man. My readers didn't know I was transgender and told me that my story was damaging to transgender people and offensive and that I didn't understand what it was like. I think that's the funniest shit I've ever experienced. Even though I have some insight into my character, people who did not live that life thought it was offensive. So I guess it doesn't matter really, you do the character justice if you stay true to the passion of what you want to convey, or whatever...
There's nothing wrong with Disney princesses, in and of themselves. There's nothing wrong with being a stay at home mom, or enjoying and/or fantasizing about romance novels. The key is individual choice and agency - that women are making decisions based on their own free and independent ability to do so, and that society isn't flooding them with media that detracts from that. You'll see a certain amount of snobbery or disdain within circles of progressive women for women who choose more traditional roles, and that's just as misguided as forcing women into traditional roles.
Well, most Disney princes don't even have a personality. They're just dashing and fine ass who randomly tells you he loves you and you get married, happliy ever after.... That's the stupid message people send to their children. I don't like Disnesy but I can't help that I'm utterly brainwashed by the music and still sing Under the Sea and other shit. Sadly, though I think it enforces that you don't need to get to know someone in order to marry them. But still women are taught to be perfect and to wait for that perfect prince to come. I grew up without a father so I was constantly wishing for this missing figure. I'm a transgender, or FTM or 'born female but will die a guy', whatever but still I grew up trying to be this perfect ideal of a woman and I never felt good enough. I tried my damnedest to be appealing to what men wanted. I actually liked men too so I was at a loss. Even now my mother tells me to find myself a good christian black basketball player . She obsesses over this ideal man that isn't real. Disnesy just enforces this image that 'straight people' can only be happy too. Not everyone is included so...
Hornblower caring about his Englishness is a matter of his convictions, not of his ethnicity. I tried to explain something along these lines here: So Hornblower would first of all be defined as a patriot, not as some random Englishman. Thankfully, someone else has already answered my question in a nice, straightforward manner without any arrogant drivel. Rejoice, a response on your part is not required anymore
Definitely not trying to dismiss everything girly. And Disney is coming around slowly, as you can see from one of the latest princesses, whatshername from Brave. But the marketers balked and made the costume more princessey and less Bravey. If we buy it, they will sell it. Those kinds of changes take forever. One of my friends had her daughter about the same time my son was born. She would have never been one to buy her daughter Barbie, but by 3 or 4, it's out of your hands mostly. You can put your foot down with things like no toy guns, but you can't force your kids to be what they aren't. Her daughter got the Barbies and if I'd had a daughter, mine would have too. I live in the real world. You guide your kids you don't control them. I'm not trying to wipe out the rescue trope either. The story I'm writing has two fantasy 'guy saves girl rescues', one that's really sex charged, one 'girl saves the guys' and one 'guy saves guy'. People automatically try to put others into pigeon holes, and in this thread there are several pigeon holes I don't belong in at all. Just because I notice sexism doesn't make me a militant feminist in every way.
More square pegs in round pigeonholes. There are plenty of 'liberated' women that don't for a minute look down on stay at home moms. There is something wrong with the first batch of Disney Princess movies and it's not about stay at home moms. Snow White, Cinderella, and Sleeping Beauty are blank slates that never get filled in with anything, no homemaker skills, no child rearing skills, nothing. The entire message is, be pretty and wait for the guy to make you a princess. The Princes don't fare a whole lot better except they have power and wealth. There's quite the debate over Beauty and the Beast because some see it as giving the message a woman in an abusive relationship should believe she can change her man. Since abused women often go back again and again and the men rarely change, it's a dangerous message. I'm not so sure, seems a bit of a stretch to me but I definitely can see their point. The influence or lack there of can result in tedious debates about all these things. It's not a debate worth having. It's the influence of the whole, not the influence of a single fairy tale or Disney Princess costume.
