Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Also, I know for a fact that Anita thinks that women doing anything "masculine" is sexist. Seriously, read it, it sounds more like she just wants to complain about stuff than she does actually want to change anything.

To me it is more that trying to find the idea of what is "a strong female character" and "A male character who is female".

Someone once said that Mulan, in this thread, was sexist but I honestly think the opposite (especially for the original). That it was an exploration of the sort of expectations we put on both genders. Mulan saves the day not by becoming a man and thus throwing away her womanhood but rather by being true to herself and being strong.

Yet someone can also easily see it as sexist by the very same merit I've given. That she had to become more feminine in order to succeed and that she was essentially doing this all for her father. (It is why I prefer the non-Disney version. Where she goes to war because "She could honestly help China", was a spear master from the start, and it never devalues male or female roles...)

I've seen strong compelling arguments made as to whether or not Sailormoon (at least first season) was positive or negative in terms of female roles. So whether or not something will be seen as sexist or not often really is in the eye of the beholder.

The best way I can put it Redzephyr is the reason the "Woman doing something masculine is sexist" aspect exists because in the past when a woman started to exceed it something normally for men. They would say she "gone past her womanliness".

Anita didn't outright say it was sexist for a woman to have masculine traits, but that a woman who exhibits typical male traits isn't necessarily a progressive character, they are simply reinforcing that these male traits are good and that women traits are bad. That a woman needs to become more like a man. Which isn't to say it is automatically bad.

It is a hard thing to do and needs to be done on a case by case basis AND needs to be constantly re-evaluated. Many "Masculine" traits I feel aren't masculine at all and many "Feminine" traits I don't feel are feminine, yet that is why we have these conversations.

It is what I disagreed with the most with her Damsel game example. I mostly disagreed with her and the idea that a Princess MUST shed her qualities and become the archtypical hero in order to be a good character. Mostly because I was against the idea of the princess qualities seen in Princess Peach and Zelda, who were used as the prime example, as being character flaws. It is also why the "Zelda game where Zelda is the main character" seemed somewhat weak because it was just Link except Link is being played by Zelda (sort of....).

[Mindmaker]

And you do, Mindmaker? You know about the lived realities of women outside your area? My apologies, then, good sir, I had no idea.

I'm not arguing for my knowledge, but for the lack of others, when they start using blanket statements.

My point is, you can't dismiss it out of hand because you don't notice it. The fact that you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. It just means you need to look harder. Like the moon during the day.

I didn't dismiss the anecdotal evidence itself, just the claim on representativity.

[Rolepgeek]

Alright, let me ask you this, then, Mindmaker. Are you arguing for the sake of arguing, or because you honestly believe we're wrong, and that this sexism doesn't exist on a large scale, to hundreds of thousands of women around the world?

[EnigmaticHat]

And you do, Mindmaker? You know about the lived realities of women outside your area? My apologies, then, good sir, I had no idea.

I'm not arguing for my knowledge, but for the lack of others, when they start using blanket statements.

My point is, you can't dismiss it out of hand because you don't notice it. The fact that you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. It just means you need to look harder. Like the moon during the day.

I didn't dismiss the anecdotal evidence itself, just the claim on representativity.

I think his point was, unless I misuderstood, that "Your bubble isn't any more true than my bubble and neither represents the world".
Which is something I agree with.

See, Neonivek, Mindmaker, do you know why I find it hard to believe you when you say this? Several reasons. First off, you aren't women.

Gee, I wasn't aware that being a woman made you an expert on everything, everywhere as long as it is tangentially related to women, even if it's thousands of kilometres away.
The locals? Well those don't actually know shit, after all they are the wrong gender.

Most post got eaten by the forums (seriously, just gone) so I'll make the point that I made before: women ARE, in this case, the locals, and you are the outsider.

This isn't to say that what you're talking about isn't a problem in general, but in this specific case you're the guilty one.  You're trying to tell someone who has experience how their life works, when you do not have the same experience.  Don't get me wrong I'm not telling you to stop talking, I'm saying you brought up an argument that applies more to yourself than your opponent.

Also, for the love of all that is good in the universe, you and Ultravalican need to stop clipping tiny pieces of other people's posts off and then not linking back to the previous post or explaining who you're talking to.  Both of you have done this at least once recently.

[Ogdibus]

You cannot seriously be arguing this point.  What she is saying is a thing that is widely accepted by feminism and media criticism, its so basic that its barely even worth discussing.  Acting like its some sort of extremist argument is ludicrous.

The fact that more than half of the participants in these conversations disagree with each other on the validity of feminism as a movement means that we are stuck arguing about just that.

[TamerVirus]

What I'm thinking is that we need to define what "a strong female character" actually embodies

[Mindmaker]

Alright, let me ask you this, then, Mindmaker. Are you arguing for the sake of arguing, or because you honestly believe we're wrong, and that this sexism doesn't exist on a large scale, to hundreds of thousands of women around the world?

Could we stop constantly shifting goalposts? It makes this whole discussion very tiresome if I have to repeat and reword everything I say half a dozen times.

Yes, sexism happens everywhere.
But this specific brand of sexism? With the same commonness? Or even the same impact and meaning? No.
WHICH IS ALL I EVER ARGUED ABOUT

women ARE, in this case, the locals, and you are the outsider.

She's not an Austrian woman, so no.
Europe and the US are not as common as you think they are.

You're trying to tell someone who has experience how their life works, when you do not have the same experience.

I'm not.

I'm saying you brought up an argument that applies more to yourself than your opponent.

Well no shit. Each of us talked about their local experience.

Also, for the love of all that is good in the universe, you and Ultravalican need to stop clipping tiny pieces of other people's posts off and then not linking back to the previous post or explaining who you're talking to.  Both of you have done this at least once recently.

True, the quoting system is a bit cumbersome.
I'll keep this in mind.

[Graknorke]

That is to say, 'strong' female characters on TV are seen as strong because they display masculine traits. Masculine traits are seen as inherently positive while feminist traits are seen as inherently negative, at least as far as TV goes (she even has charts on page 46/7). This means that strong female characters can only rarely display feminine traits while still being viewed as strong or positive characters. And that's what she is criticising as sexist. Those views.

But surely in a society where feminine traits are seen as negative it is impossible to have a character that both embodies female traits and is strong. By the inherent fact that you are giving them negative traits, you are creating a character that perpetuates negative stereotypes.

[Bauglir]

"The warrior woman character is touted as empowering, but what it actually represents is taking a male character and giving them breasts and long hair."

To make it clearer why this isn't a crazy argument:

Society has labeled a variety of traits as "masculine". These traits are also typically the ones associated with positive role models. Assigning these traits to women is, in the abstract, a Good Thing, because it weakens the strength of the impression that those traits really are masculine. The problem with the usual implementation of the Warrior Woman character* is twofold.

The first problem is that it relies upon the "masculine" label in order to function - if your warrior character is interesting because she's a woman as well, that implicitly reinforces the original label, which interestingly applies no matter how many examples there actually are in media. It's kind of like how Drow society is Lawful Evil despite most recorded examples of Drow heroes being Chaotic Good rebels. Basically you're still subtly saying that these ideals are masculine, just that people with women's bodies can attain them by abandoning a feminine identity, which is only good by comparison to "You can't ever be this awesome at all." It's a commendable step forward, for sure, but it's not enough to call the work complete.

The second problem is that the usual execution brings in the standard objectification tropes (EDIT: In my experience). It's a slightly different issue when you've got a female hero, of course, because as the hero they're still displaying some kind of agency in most cases, which is definitely a Good Thing. And I actually don't want to get in the way of anybody's cheesecake that much, because sexy things are generally great. It's more that when you have sexiness automatically attached to a heroine, but not necessarily a hero, it implies that those things are an automatic part of womanhood, instead of the optional traits they ought to be.

Mind you, I've only done the barest skimming of Sarkeesian's work, and am hilariously unqualified to discuss her arguments specifically. It's entirely possible that she is engaging in maddening doublespeak, and in this case all I can do is attempt to avoid guilt by association.

*Or similar "slap traditionally male archetype onto female character" roles.

>6 New Replies goddammit you guys

[EnigmaticHat]

What I'm thinking is that we need to define what "a strong female character" actually embodies

Capacity for violence, strength of will, independence or a position of authority.  2/3 makes a strong female character.
And yes its a very informal definition, but its the one I could think of before you post gets swallowed, and it applies to the strong female characters I could think of off the top of my head.

[Mephansteras]

Hmm. So what is the difference between a Female character showing strong 'masculine' traits and one showing strong 'feminine' traits?

For example, would this argument be saying that Ripley in Aliens is something other than simply a strong Female character? Is she just a Male character being played by a woman? Personally, I wouldn't think so. I've always seen her as a great example of strong female character. But, then, what makes that distinction?

[Ogdibus]

That's a special case because at first, the character was written as a man.


Edit:  misspelled "at" x3

[Graknorke]

Capacity for violence, strength of will, independence or a position of authority.  2/3 makes a strong female character.

But those are all things mostly associated with masculinity, apart from maybe the second.

[Mephansteras]

That's a special case because a first, the character was written as a man.

Well, all of the characters in Alien were written without a gender (but maybe assumed male?). But by Aliens Ripley was undoubtedly a female character.

[Ogdibus]

For the first movie, I mean.

Edit: oops, you just said that.  According the documentary about the making of the movies, Ripely was written as a man.