Print

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

[Mephansteras]

For the first movie, I mean.

Which is why I was specifically using her character in Aliens as my example. She shows a lot more specifically feminine traits in that movie, especially her maternal actions towards Newt.

[Neonivek]

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?

It REALLY depends on your point of view.

But honestly... I just don't really see the idea of a "man being played by a woman". Mostly because most of these masculine traits are either imagined or only "typical".

MAYBE in the 50s I might accept this... But a woman who is sexually active, forceful, and lets her fists do the talking to me is still a female character. She isn't a masculine character to me.

Likewise I don't see a soft spoken, poetry reading, sensitive diplomatic guy as anything but a guy. He isn't effeminate to me. (Dear goodness leave Alexander alone!)

I don't see these traits usually associated with masculine or feminine as being either of those. Heck I don't even like to use the word "Tomboy" and find it completely outdated.

But hey that is just my view on it.

[Bauglir]

Having never actually seen the movies, I guess there are two to three questions I'd have to ask. "Would the role have been any different if she were played by a man?" and "If not, was she chosen to be a woman to satisfy demographics?" or "If so, did her flaws as a person come from being a woman (for example, motherhood metaphors or something)?"

If your answer to the second question, whichever you wind up with, is "No", then she's probably a good example of a strong female character. If she's a woman for demographics reasons, she's probably a male character played by a woman. If she's a strong female character whose flaws come from being a female character, she's a bad example of a strong female character. I'm assuming here that her strengths are from the traditionally-masculine-traits-that-we're-trying-to-spread-around.

[palsch]

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

I think it's an interesting case as well, because of the nature of film.

The original script was written as male/unisex ('strong' character, traits trending male), but in film the script doesn't define the character. The actor(s) and director(s) have substantial input as well.

Further the sequels which define a lot of her character (notably nearly all the feminine traits that get noted in feminist discussions) were written with her being female in mind.


I'd say another interesting example is Sarah Connor. She isn't a particularly strong character in the first film, but the second makes her considerably stronger and a mother. She gets the usual 'strong woman' masculine traits but retains/gains a lot of traditionally feminine traits as well. Scalzi had a column where he discussed Ripley as the best female SF film character and discounted Connor due to the first film, but I think the study of a strengthened weak female character might be valuable in itself.


5 responses... serves me right for finding sources and checking details.

[Neonivek]

Well the thing is Bauglir, while the answer is that likely no Ridley would likely be played differently if she was played by a man. (After all Ridley's portrayal was very much influenced by her actress)

The other answer is that I feel like Ridley could have been played by a man and lose nothing.

One reason why some people were offended with the Silent Hill movie, for example, is because they replaced the male lead of the first Silent Hill (a man single handedly dedicated in finding his daughter) into a woman. Which many saw as the creator saying that men couldn't care about as much about his daughter as a woman would. (In my opinion I think it was typical "Women make better horror protagonists" thinking on behalf of the creator.)

[Bauglir]

Okay, so to take both possible options since you've answered question one both ways -

If she played differently as a man, would her character flaws be rooted in traditional expectations of femininity? Like, would she have maternal characteristics that make her too trusting of a childlike villain, or whatever.

If she played identically as a man, do you think she was made a woman because the creators were going down a checklist of ways to get more people interested, or for some other reason? It sounds to me like they picked her because she was awesome at the role, and that's it. And that's just fine - not every role starring a woman needs to be a feminist manifesto. Nor should it be. Nor is anyone (sensible) arguing that it should be. Trying to force that to happen is actually exactly wrong (see "The First Problem").

I'm not going to comment on Silent Hill because there are so many reasons to dislike that steaming pile that I don't think feminism is actually a valid criticism. The damn thing's got so much crappy background noise that any possible analysis says more about what the analyzer expects than the film's actual merits.

[Neonivek]

Silent Hill's issue isn't routed in feminism anyhow.

As for what made Ridley a strong female character... It is because she was a strong character and the movie just treated her as another character.

You could completely remove Ridley's gender and she would still be a strong, inspiring, and interesting character. That is why people like to use her as an example of how "strong female characters" should be made.

[Bauglir]

Then, yeah.

do you think she was made a woman because the creators were going down a checklist of ways to get more people interested, or for some other reason? It sounds to me like they picked her because she was awesome at the role, and that's it. And that's just fine - not every role starring a woman needs to be a feminist manifesto. Nor should it be. Nor is anyone (sensible) arguing that it should be. Trying to force that to happen is actually exactly wrong (see "The First Problem").

[Vattic]

I dislike the gender assumptions she is making in the essay. On p46/7 she argues in favour of a more feminist trait/value system. I'd argue that traits being gender associated is itself the problem and not having female characters with typically masculine associated traits. Earlier in the essay she talks about transcending masculine archetypes and re-identifying feminine heroic archetypes. The problem is that the traits valuable in specific situations are going to typically seen as masculine/feminine. A female soldier is going to need masculine traits to perform for example or be seen as worthless.

[palsch]

Feature on the casting of Alien.

Some quick notes. "We wrote everybody as men." Elsewhere this is described as unisex, but it's explicitly stated that the default was male. They noted that crew members could be made female to broaden the appeal of the film when they submitted the script. The decision to make Ripley female was more deliberately differentiating the film from other SF, along with the whole gritty/dirty aesthetic. A lot of it was to make it appealing to the studio which was rather invested in promoting female characters at the time.

[Ogdibus]

I know it's implicit, but I still think that we should clarify that when we say "traits", we really mean ideal traits, rather than intrinsic traits.  With that taken into consideration, feminist trait/value systems already agree with the argument that traits being gender associated is itself the problem.

[EnigmaticHat]

The strong female character discussion gets complicated, mainly because modern feminism is moving away from any solid definition of what it means to be female.  I think now the true feminist answer is that women can be whatever they want.

I keep writing arguments and then erasing them because I don't exactly agree with them.  I guess all that I really solidly believe on this point is that I adore Firefly for this, because of Kaylee and Simon.  Kaylee for having a useful role on the team not rooted in violence, and for being a bundle of traditionally feminine traits none of which are played off as bad.  Simon because he's not a terribly masculine dude (by the high standards of fiction) but is still a hero.  Not that Firely is perfect in terms of feminism but I personally love it.

I dislike the gender assumptions she is making in the essay. On p46/7 she argues in favour of a more feminist trait/value system. I'd argue that traits being gender associated is itself the problem and not having female characters with typically masculine associated traits. Earlier in the essay she talks about transcending masculine archetypes and re-identifying feminine heroic archetypes. The problem is that the traits valuable in specific situations are going to typically seen as masculine/feminine. A female soldier is going to need masculine traits to perform for example or be seen as worthless.

I think that chart is a great explanation of the difficulty of writing good female characters, HOWEVER I also think that moving towards a feminine hero archetype is a poor answer.  Pidgeonholing women into a role, even one that casts them in a positive light, is a bad idea.

Hell, I think that the prevalence of the traditionally masculine hero is harmful to men.  "Boys don't cry" indeed.  It holds both genders back because they're expected to be this one thing.

[penguinofhonor]

Divorcing all traits from gender in fiction probably won't work fully until personality traits are also divorced from gender in real life. Real people have experiences that are tied to their gender that cause them to have traits related to/because of their gender. Relatable characters can have these too.

The problem with the "man with boobs" hero is that it's a female character stripped of having many traits based on her gender that women can relate to based on their gender. That negates a lot of the point of representation.

[Ogdibus]

The ideal situation is that the characters are diverse across the medium, and people of any gender can identify with them.

[Vattic]

I keep writing arguments and then erasing them because I don't exactly agree with them.

Not sure if I'm glad not to be the only one (all that wasted time).

Hell, I think that the prevalence of the traditionally masculine hero is harmful to men.  "Boys don't cry" indeed.  It holds both genders back because they're expected to be this one thing.

I agree, but if you have a heroic character they have to end up with traditionally masculine traits being heroic is pretty much a masculine trait in it's own right.

I know it's implicit, but I still think that we should clarify that when we say "traits", we really mean ideal traits, rather than intrinsic traits.  With that taken into consideration, feminist trait/value systems already agree with the argument that traits being gender associated is itself the problem.

It wasn't the impression I got reading the essay, but I don't entirely comprehend what you are saying. Ideal traits in a situation shouldn't be gendered.

Divorcing all traits from gender in fiction probably won't work fully until personality traits are also divorced from gender in real life. Real people have experiences that are tied to their gender that cause them to have traits related to/because of their gender. Relatable characters can have these too.

The problem with the "man with boobs" hero is that it's a female character stripped of having many traits based on her gender that women can relate to based on their gender. That negates a lot of the point of representation.

So many vicious cycles.