Feminism in Storytelling

[Riven Armor]

While watching Serenity today, I arrived at the impression that River Tam wasn't a terribly well-written character. Googling to see if anyone shared my opinion (doubtful, yeah) I came across a Cracked article on Hollywood's stabs at feminism [http://www.cracked.com/article_16587_hollywoods-5-saddest-attempts-at-feminism.html], and, per a link from there, a deeply disturbing feminist rant on Firefly. [http://users.livejournal.com/_allecto_/34718.html] There are certainly a number of interesting, although not automatically correct, points in both articles - moreso in the first as the second is by one of those fabled militant feminists that occasionally emerge from the bowels of academia to scream about "rape" (any consensual sex).

From there I found this critique [http://stuffgeekslove.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/strong-female-characters-who-actually-arent/] of feminism in sci-fi/fantasy. It was here that I realized that none of these articles voiced an opinion on a critical question: what constitutes a feminism-compatible, well-written character? Of particular interest is this quote from the third article:

The wo-man is a male character who happens to also have breasts. She is written exactly as the male characters are, shares all the same interests of the male characters, and has all the same problems of the male characters. Other than the breasts, her only other signifier of being female is that she will be in a relationship with one of the male characters. In addition to Zoe, the Firefly character mentioned above, other notable wo-men characters are Dana Scully from The X-Files and Starbuck from Battlestar Galactica.

Several posters didn't agree with the disapproving tone of that passage, and neither do I. As a guy who does creative writing, I want to know how to write female characters that aren't under some kind of institutional/societal domination, but the implication from the material written on the subject so far has avoided defining what this elusive ideal female character would be. Does such a thing exist?

Personally, I don't believe in the critique of the wo-men trope. For starters, feminists often target the misconception that women are inherently mysterious, but in the criticism of "wo-men" they seem to be suggesting that such characters are lacking an intangible attribute without which they are just men with racks. Where do you fall? And are there any feminists out there that could give their opinion?

 

[Hollock]

you just gotta write people like people, you limit yourself when trying to make your character conform to a stereotype.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Way to go feminism. Fight for equality, than damn anything that doesn't conform to the stereotype you've been fighting for decades.

Woot.

 

[Scout Kubin]

Aye...feminism in art is a tricky thing. The long and short of it is...women are HUMANS. They have good traits and bad, they make good decisions and bad, some hurt people and some help people.
Culture puts women in a different role, so their experiences give them different filters. Men don't usually have to worry about paternity leave followed by pumping breast milk at the workplace. Men aren't judged if they have lots of sex with strangers. Men aren't considered wierd if they're not married by age 30. These things do weigh on a woman's mind, and affect her judgement calls on them. Unless there's a zombie apocolypse. Then everyone just runs screaming.
The best way to write a good female character is to write a good character. Write a human character. What do they do, and why? Do they self-analyze? Do they change; if so do they mean/want to?
So in summation, I heartily agree: the whole "wo-man" argument is bull. Fucking. Shit.

--P.S. If anyone reads this and suddenly gains insight into women in their lives...you are sad

 

[Riven Armor]

Aye...feminism in art is a tricky thing. The long and short of it is...women are HUMANS. They have good traits and bad, they make good decisions and bad, some hurt people and some help people.
Culture puts women in a different role, so their experiences give them different filters. Men don't usually have to worry about paternity leave followed by pumping breast milk at the workplace. Men aren't judged if they have lots of sex with strangers. Men aren't considered wierd if they're not married by age 30. These things do weigh on a woman's mind, and affect her judgement calls on them. Unless there's a zombie apocolypse. Then everyone just runs screaming.
The best way to write a good female character is to write a good character. Write a human character. What do they do, and why? Do they self-analyze? Do they change; if so do they mean/want to?
So in summation, I heartily agree: the whole "wo-man" argument is bull. Fucking. Shit.

--P.S. If anyone reads this and suddenly gains insight into women in their lives...you are sad

Good on you for raising female struggles. I'd forgotten about them. Certainly, those are unique to women and could be used to define them as a character. Of course, one needn't be too accepting of such plot devices, else you define the female character too sharply with them and are therefore liable to be hit with such criticism as:

In the comic book world, if there?s an alleged strong female character, you can count on one thing: she was raped. Rape seems to be the hands-down favorite motivator for turning an ordinary schlubette into an empowerment role-model.

you just gotta write people like people, you limit yourself when trying to make your character conform to a stereotype.

Yes, good advice. But sometimes one's life experiences reinforce stereotypes :/

Way to go feminism. Fight for equality, than damn anything that doesn't conform to the stereotype you've been fighting for decades.

Yeah...tragic.

 

[Fidelias]

If I were you I'd base the character off of a woman I knew in real life. Or just ask a woman. I don't know it's tricky. I don't know why I posted this.

 

[LornMind]

I like how Valve writes many of it's female characters. Like Zoey, Chell and Alyx. Alyx being my personal favorite. I wonder what criticisms were leveled on them?

 

[Scout Kubin]

You simply can not write a female character without offending some feminist critic. They always seem to be more than eager to staple an individual that you've been refining for months or even years with some silly label.
The best you can do is ignore them and do your best at creating realistic characters.

Pretty much, and the same goes for any character. I think the best thing my friend after told me was that we all conform to our respective groups' stereotypes in some way, for one reason or another. If people do it, it stands to reason that fictional characters will.

 

[Riven Armor]

If I were you I'd base the character off of a woman I knew in real life. Or just ask a woman. I don't know it's tricky. I don't know why I posted this.

Glad you mentioned that. Some writers don't hesitate to transplant men they know into their creations, yet consider doing the same with women to be a mortal sin. (I'm looking at you, Piro.) Why would one be disrespectful and the other peachy?

RedMenace, I'm coming to that conclusion myself...the only thing that keeps me from plunging full steam ahead is that some of the points reactionaries make actually hit home with me. For example, the tendency of Joss Whedon to create characters that, while physically and mentally strong, go through complete breakdowns until a man happens along and changes something. Not that he doesn't write good female characters; just something I noticed.

 

[Sylocat]

Ah yes, that lovely feminist rant on Firefly.

Yeah, every time a female character shows any human emotion or weakness, it's an attack on feminism. Never mind that the male characters are every bit as flawed, many of them more so, and it shows to an incredible extent.

As a guy who does creative writing, I want to know how to write female characters that aren't under some kind of institutional/societal domination, but the implication from the material written on the subject so far has avoided defining what this elusive ideal female character would be. Does such a thing exist?

Not to the satisfaction of the sort of people who wrote that article you quoted from, it doesn't. You cannot write a female character empowered enough for those people without making her ridiculously overpowered and infallible by the standards of any other character in fiction. Write a woman empowered enough for that crowd, and everyone else will call her a Mary-Sue, just as they'd call any comparable male character a Marty Stu (or a Macho Sue [http://www.kitwhitfield.com/2008/03/macho-sue.html]).

Personally, I don't believe in the critique of the wo-men trope. For starters, feminists often target the misconception that women are inherently mysterious, but in the criticism of "wo-men" they seem to be suggesting that such characters are lacking an intangible attribute without which they are just men with racks.

What else is new? These people don't know what they want.

Where do you fall? And are there any feminists out there that could give their opinion?

What is the implication here, that there are no male feminists? That only women can have the opinion that women are human beings who should be trusted to make their own decisions as well as men should? That's what feminism is. And implying that there are no male feminists is basically falling into the trap you mentioned above, about claiming that "women are inherently mysterious."

 

[NeutralDrow]

I dunno. The example I keep thinking of is of David and Leigh Eddings, who co-wrote the Belgariad/Malloreon books (and the Elenium/Tamuli, only some of which I've read). Their attention to characterization is stunning, and I remember them bringing up (I think in The Rivan Codex) that Leigh started taking a larger hand in the writing after critiquing some of David's writing for the female characters (noting that they sounded and acted unrealistically like men).

Whatever they did, they did it right. Polgara is a fucking awesome character.

 

[hittite]

I don't claim to be any sort of expert on the subject, but the example that comes to my mind is the Wheel of Time books. The really interesting thing is that the society in the stories (for some pretty obvious reasons if you've ever read them) is much more matriarchal than real life. with several women as ruling queens, property owners, the only sanctioned magic users, and, rarely, military commanders. To bring up one of the more extreme examples: there's a city that's basically a feminazi's utopia, with men as de-facto second class citizens.

 

[Riven Armor]

[snip]

Where do you fall? And are there any feminists out there that could give their opinion?

What is the implication here, that there are no male feminists? That only women can have the opinion that women are human beings who should be trusted to make their own decisions as well as men should? That's what feminism is. And implying that there are no male feminists is basically falling into the trap you mentioned above, about claiming that "women are inherently mysterious."

I liked what you said about Mary Sues, though feminists would probably have a cow over some of the more egregious examples in fanfiction (which plays into your idea that feminists don't really have an idea of an ideal female character). I want to address your last paragraph, though.

First, I don't believe I gendered the word "feminist" to my knowledge. If you think I did, then please point it out. Second, modern feminism is most definitely NOT the basic definition you posted. Rather, much feminist literature today is politically-tinged film theory, and even some of the "right-to-work" advocates attempted (and still do, most likely) to drive the cause into the ditch by insisting women had an obligation to get a job outside the home.

 

[Riven Armor]

I don't claim to be any sort of expert on the subject, but the example that comes to my mind is the Wheel of Time books. The really interesting thing is that the society in the stories (for some pretty obvious reasons if you've ever read them) is much more matriarchal than real life. with several women as ruling queens, property owners, the only sanctioned magic users, and, rarely, military commanders. To bring up one of the more extreme examples: there's a city that's basically a feminazi's utopia, with men as de-facto second class citizens.

That's one way to deflect most surface criticism. But as you imply it escapes the ideal of equality from the men's side. Some version of that would be good for a deeply sci-fi/fantasy universe if I ever get around to it.

Side note: one interesting thing that one academic pointed out a while ago was the tendency of quite a few female warriors in fiction to die in incredibly sadistic, gory ways. Probably the oldest example is the story of the original Amazons, one of which was impaled through the torso and then subjected to necrophilia, IIRC. Brrrrrrrr

Whatever they did, they did it right. Polgara is a fucking awesome character.

Darn, wish I knew who she was. Something to put on the reading queue. Anything you can recall about her that particularly stands out?

 

[high_castle]

There's a difference between feminism and feminist-extremism. I'm a feminist in that I support equal rights for both genders. I don't ascribe to any theories that my gender is better than men. I believe in equality. As such, I think female characters should be treated the same as male characters in that both should have distinct personalities, flaws, motivations, etc.

On the Firefly note, I have no issues with River. It's implied that her treatment at the hands of Blue Sun--not her gender--is the reason behind her mental state. And the show and its creator have both been long-standing providers of nuanced female portrayals. My only real issue with gender in SF/F comes when all female characters are consistently shown to be less capable than or in need of rescuing by their male counterparts. Women don't have to be the best, and an individual can certainly be prone to finding herself in distress. But when an entire gender and not an individual's colored this way...that's when you hit unfortunate implications.

 

[Sylocat]

[snip]

Where do you fall? And are there any feminists out there that could give their opinion?

What is the implication here, that there are no male feminists? That only women can have the opinion that women are human beings who should be trusted to make their own decisions as well as men should? That's what feminism is. And implying that there are no male feminists is basically falling into the trap you mentioned above, about claiming that "women are inherently mysterious."

I liked what you said about Mary Sues, though feminists would probably have a cow over some of the more egregious examples in fanfiction (which plays into your idea that feminists don't really have an idea of an ideal female character). I want to address your last paragraph, though.

First, I don't believe I gendered the word "feminist" to my knowledge. If you think I did, then please point it out.

I apologize, it's just that the way you phrased "Where do you fall? And are there any feminists here..." struck me as you separating "us" from "feminists," and I assumed you were taking the standard definition. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

Second, modern feminism is most definitely NOT the basic definition you posted. Rather, much feminist literature today is politically-tinged film theory, and even some of the "right-to-work" advocates attempted (and still do, most likely) to drive the cause into the ditch by insisting women had an obligation to get a job outside the home.

You seem like someone who genuinely respects women, so you should know that "but that's not what TODAY'S feminism means!" is one of the most common and irritating strawman arguments used by closeted misogynists to attack feminism in any form whenever they encounter it, and it does not hold water. All feminists cannot be lumped together into one group, any more than all civil rights advocates can be lumped together with the race-baiting of Al Sharpton and Reginald Hudlin.

 

[Riven Armor]

I liked what you said about Mary Sues, though feminists would probably have a cow over some of the more egregious examples in fanfiction (which plays into your idea that feminists don't really have an idea of an ideal female character). I want to address your last paragraph, though.

First, I don't believe I gendered the word "feminist" to my knowledge. If you think I did, then please point it out.

I apologize, it's just that the way you phrased "Where do you fall? And are there any feminists here..." struck me as you separating "us" from "feminists," and I assumed you were taking the standard definition. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

No problem.

Second, modern feminism is most definitely NOT the basic definition you posted. Rather, much feminist literature today is politically-tinged film theory, and even some of the "right-to-work" advocates attempted (and still do, most likely) to drive the cause into the ditch by insisting women had an obligation to get a job outside the home.

You seem like someone who genuinely respects women, so you should know that "but that's not what TODAY'S feminism means!" is one of the most common and irritating strawman arguments used by closeted misogynists to attack feminism in any form whenever they encounter it, and it does not hold water. All feminists cannot be lumped together into one group, any more than all civil rights advocates can be lumped together with the race-baiting of Al Sharpton and Reginald Hudlin.

Yes, that's my general opinion and it's definitely an example of a blanket association fallacy. I formed it after taking a feminist course on "The Woman Warrior," which provided me with an overview of First to Third Wave feminism and more analogies to the vagina dentata than I cared to know. (It did not provide me with a clear picture of the ideal feminist warrior of course, else I would not have posted this topic.) However, it is still a fallacious statement.

Having said that, when you posit that the true feminist movement is defined simply as the right to the full scope of human rights or thereabouts, it seems to me you are in danger of committing the No True Scotsman [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman] fallacy, especially since the rhetoric of several prominent feminists has often pulled away from Betty Friedman faster than a cheetah on meth.

 

[Sylocat]

"No True Scotsman" cuts both ways, and it can be erroneously implied as well. "No True Scotsman" usually refers to people who do horrible things that have nothing to do with the group they are associated with. In other words, if a feminist commits murder for some reason completely unrelated to feminism, it's a fallacy to say that "No True Feminist" would do such a thing. However, referring to the "feminists" who behave as you say, it's not a fallacy to say that what they are doing is not feminism, because that's not what feminism is, plain and simple (this is the same reason that it is NOT a No True Scotsman to say "Glenn Beck is NOT a Libertarian," but that's another thread entirely ^_^.

And yes, I realize there are differing definitions, but I'm going by the dictionary definition, the definition employed by the people who have actually aided and helped organize the movement, et cetera.

 

[Riven Armor]

Yes, I think your definition is correct with respect to the founders of the movement, but do they always take precedence over those that are organizing the movement today? Academics do actually do some work from time to time, and you won't find anyone more radical.

I guess the dictionary definition deflects No True Scotsman, but per etymology we may see a change in the future...

There's a difference between feminism and feminist-extremism. I'm a feminist in that I support equal rights for both genders. I don't ascribe to any theories that my gender is better than men. I believe in equality. As such, I think female characters should be treated the same as male characters in that both should have distinct personalities, flaws, motivations, etc.

On the Firefly note, I have no issues with River. It's implied that her treatment at the hands of Blue Sun--not her gender--is the reason behind her mental state. And the show and its creator have both been long-standing providers of nuanced female portrayals. My only real issue with gender in SF/F comes when all female characters are consistently shown to be less capable than or in need of rescuing by their male counterparts. Women don't have to be the best, and an individual can certainly be prone to finding herself in distress. But when an entire gender and not an individual's colored this way...that's when you hit unfortunate implications.

Do you feel that the damsel in distress trope applies emotionally as well as physically sometimes?