The problem is that our current societal conception of femininity is deeply steeped into patriarchy and does include a hefty amount of weakness (in order to keep women down). Parts of our conception of femininity are perfectly fine (for example, those that have to do with biological processes unique to women, such as menstruation, pregnancy and motherhood, are entirely neutral), but parts of it are actually detrimental to women as a whole and exist only to perpetuate the patriarchy's sexism (such as the idea that women are frail, dainty, emotional, naturally gravitate towards positions of service and submission instead of leadership, lack agency, aggressiveness or physical power, must orbit their lives around a male (or romantic love), must surrender their bodies to the continuation of the species and their lives to the ideal of family, must subject their sexuality to society's approval, are somehow incomplete or less feminine if they choose to be career women, and so on). Perpetuating those conceptions of femininity IS sexist, as it continues to perpetuate the patriarchy's hold on womanhood. Women have to redefine femininity on their own terms, sending a message to society that if a woman is a dress-wearing housewife, it's because that's what that woman in particular wants to be, and not because that's what she feels she must be in order to feel feminine or get society's approval.anamizuki said:
The problem with what you're suggesting is that you assume that art (or entertainment) exists on a vacuum and artists (or entertainers/creators) are utterly disconnected from their societal contexts. Barring certain exceptions, a creator is a product of its society, and if you don't criticise art/entertainment, you are perpetuating the status quo (because the entertainment is going to reflect the entertainer's background and baggage, and then reinforce what already exists), and therefore nothing ever changes. While I support the idea that art and entertainment should be allowed to exist regardless of what they are (that is, I am against censorship), I am pro-criticism. I think that's the best way to balance the effect art and entertainment have on society. By constantly analysing and criticising what we're exposed to, we can encourage creators to step out of their comfort zone, to shake off their societal conditioning and to send something back to society that is different than what society has poured into them from birth. That's the best way to change society for the better.
I completely agree that female characters get scrutinised more than male ones, but the way to redress the balance isn't by scrutinising less, it's by scrutinising male characters more. We should be more critical of the way males are depicted in the media and stop accepting male as the default for human. We should be more critical of the media we consume and just overall analyse our surroundings more. Taking media as a drug that we take in a thoughtless haze is very harmful for our culture.
I don't disagree, intellectually, with your ultimate intentions. I do wish we could get to a point where artists and entertainers could portray female characters without thinking about sexism at all. That would be absolutely wonderful. But if you tell an artist who was raised in a sexist society that, he's going to make sexist portrayals because that's what society has been pouring into his brain all his life. If you want to tell a creator to just write instinctively and you expect a non-sexist result, then he must have been raised in a non-sexist society (or undergone severe social deprogramming).
