Feminism in Storytelling

[PixieFace]

Thank you for making this this thread.

I am a woman and, for the most part, I. Cannot. Stand. Feminism.

Don't get me wrong, I love being a girl. I absolutely love it. I love being feminine, I love nail polish, dresses, summer days, baking, ballet, all that bullshit. Should I feel bad about liking girly sorts of things? Hell no. Likewise, guys should absolutely NEVER be made to feel guilty about being guys. So often do I find in feminism that men are ostracized for simply having a penis and women, like me, who indulge in girly fancies rather than (ironically) masculine pow-wows are shunned. What the fuck.

It's about respect and equality - you know, having human decency. That article, which should have been about this, was anything but. Shame on the author.

The reason why I didn't like River wasn't because she was an example of chauvinistic writing in Hollywood. I hated her because she was a straight up Mary Sue. As much as I like Joss Whedon, he is a bit notorious for having all-powerful female characters in his works. I can't relate to someone who can kill everything without breaking a sweat. I can't relate to someone who whines all the time and gets loving attention for it, either. She had her moments, but most of the time I just wanted to smack her.

But then you have an incredible female character like Zoe on the show. I absolutely loved her! She was strong, but wasn't a ***** or otherwise a problem to the crew. She was smart, but not infallible. She was resilient, but she wasn't all-powerful. She was a normal human being. That's everything.

Maybe the problem is that many writers go into stories thinking... Okay. I need to have a female character here. How can I make her awesome? No. That's how you write a two-dimensional comic book superhero, not a real person you can empathize with.

The way you write a likable character is to start at their source. What was their childhood like? How did that effect their personality growing up? What are their flaws because of this? Conversely, how did it make them strong? What do they fear? You don't even have to mention their background in the story, but as a writer considering these things is vital to making a character feel real.

So, in summary, I feel that the person who wrote that article needs to get a goddamned grip, I LOVE Firefly (Oh, Nathan Fillion... swoon) but it had its issues, and write a female character like you would any other well-rounded character. The end.

Edit- And what's all this hogwash about "wo-man"? This is the most ridiculously thing I've ever heard. -_-

 

[Pontus Hashis]

I just think of Ripley in alien . Or is she a "wo-man"?

 

[Sylocat]

I'm curious, how do you feel about Objects in Space? Do you think there's a case to be made for the episode promoting a dangerous idea of black masculinity in comparison to white female frailty wrt Kailee and Jubal Early?

I thought it was supposed to be a parody of that stereotype, rather than an actual example.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

I just think of Ripley in alien . Or is she a "wo-man"?

The only tried and true character that can easily escape the "Wo-Man" trap is the "Battle Mother" which is the category Ripley falls under. Her strength comes from her Maternal Instinct to protect, something inherently feminine, rather than a desire to conquer or master.

But the grand power of Philosophy and Psychology is that you can reverse and twist any character or theory to suit the message you want. So Ripley can either be a brilliant, feminist character who isn't a Man-Hating Bull Dyke or a Man with Tits or a perfect example of how in fiction all women are considered to be Whores or Mothers.

 

[Sylocat]

Whedon's tried to clear this up in interviews about the comics several times, Kaylee was originally supposed to be Asian but Jewel Staite got the character instead (and all I can say is THANK YOU SO MUCH Joss). Apparently since the Alliance formed after the people left Earth, the Americans and the Chinese weren't completely merged together and still somewhat stuck to their own planets. Throughout most of the series, according to Whedon, we don't see a large percentage of Asians mostly because they don't really go into the Chinese sector, hence why most of the names are stuff like Haven, Whitefall, Greek mythological names, etc. The only time they're ever at a planet with a Chinese name is that time they drop off cattle at Jiangyin, and even then that's a border world. We only really get to see former American core planets, and Londonium and Sihnon, the capitals for the West and the Chinese respectively are only really just mentioned. Although I did notice in Serenity that Beaumonde had a pretty futuristic Hong Kong feel to it, but I'm guessing that's just another cash-in to Blade Runner.

I actually like what they did with some of the other planets, because you could easily pick out the nationalities quickly, like how Dyton, Badger's home planet is obviously British and Shadow, Mal's home planet is mostly of Canadian origin. Of course the Alliance bombed it all to hell. Bastards.

Interesting, I didn't know that. And it does make quite a bit of sense, although I can see how it could be misinterpreted.

In fact, if there is still bad blood, it can actually help justify why only the swear words are Chinese...

 

[Sylocat]

I just think of Ripley in alien . Or is she a "wo-man"?

The only tried and true character that can easily escape the "Wo-Man" trap is the "Battle Mother" which is the category Ripley falls under. Her strength comes from her Maternal Instinct to protect, something inherently feminine, rather than a desire to conquer or master.

But the grand power of Philosophy and Psychology is that you can reverse and twist any character or theory to suit the message you want. So Ripley can either be a brilliant, feminist character who isn't a Man-Hating Bull Dyke or a Man with Tits or a perfect example of how in fiction all women are considered to be Whores or Mothers.

Ironically, Ripley was a man in the first version of the Alien script.

 

[Falseprophet]

Ai yi yi.

Alright, to start things off: there's no One True Definition of feminism. I'm a feminist; some of my fellow feminists think I've bought into the patriarchy because I think transwomen are women too, while others think I'm a fun-destroying man-hating hag because I think poledancing is wildly problematic. Also, feminists get to disagree with each other (and frequently do, at great and angry length)! Bearing that in mind --

First, what atalanta said.

Secondly, most good writers have a close circle of people they show their early work to or bounce ideas off of. Find a female friend or relative, or preferably more than one, and have them read your work and see if they find any glaring misogynistic passages. Have them explain why they find them objectionable. It will become easier to see things from the other sex's point of view over time.

Thirdly, there are a few guidelines. One is the Bechdel Test [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dykes_to_Watch_Out_For#The_Bechdel_test], from a comic strip where a female character refused to watch any movie unless:

1. It had at least two women in it,
2. Who talk to each other,
3. About something besides a man.

See how hard it is to find ten movies that pass the test and you'll see why the test came to be in the first place. (I'll give you one: Death Proof.)

Another guideline: avoid using rape or attempted rape as part of a female character's background. It's just overused, insensitive, and usually used poorly anyway. It's generally a cop-out by male writers who can only motivate an action-oriented female character through stereotypically female roles: generally either mama bear or vengeful victim. Would you motivate a male character by making him a rape victim? Why can't a woman be motivated by patriotism, justice, or wanting to do a good job? You can

That's the main thing: make all your important characters, regardless of sex, race or creed, people. I went to a Q & A with J. Michael Straczynski (Babylon 5, Jeremiah and some comics) who said you should know your characters like they're your best friends. Such that, if they stub their toe on a coffee table, you know exactly how they'll react.

Good luck.

 

[Riven Armor]

Thanks to all who answered. Lots of complex stuff out there.

[snip]
I tried to find Piro's comment but couldn't in this thread, unless I'm just not looking hard enough

I suppose it's a valid point though, if there is the possibility that they may recognise themselves being portrayed by a character and feel you may think low of them? Or have unrealistic perceptions of them? I'm not sure.

One of my friends is a writer and she told me she bases a couple of characters off my quirks etc. It doesn't mean that when I read those characters I immediately think she envisions me behaving in such a way. It's flattering and it's a solid starting point for her, like it could be for a lot of writers.

But I can see that if a non-writer was reading those passages (or someone who doesn't fully comprehend how inspirations can work?) that they might take it the wrong way, and in that way it could be perceived as being disrespectful to them.

[snip]

We see that River's final battle is not against the black man, symbolic in his domineering masculinity. It is in fact Captain Mal, symbolic of white masculinity, and of course we know that white versus black has been reinforced into our collective subconscious for eons. In the end white triumphs over black and the little white girl is free.

------

Ah, that was kind of refreshing - I've not done this sort of study on narratives for a while So thanks for the great thought-provoking post there.

Lol, don't worry, there's a reason you couldn't find Piro's post. He's the scriptwriter/artist for Megatokyo [www.megatokyo.com] (don't like it that much, but I digress). And yeah, that's about the only reason I could come up with too, although it be hard IMO to carbon copy one of your friends to the point where her character would be an obvious translation into your writing.

About Firefly, how do you see River's final struggle as against Mal? I read it as man vs. self. But yeah, in the end, white does triumph over black. I'm pretty sure you and I don't read too much into that besides Joss's probable fascination with black villains

[snip]
I dunno, maybe it was easier to write a character 'limited' the way Jair was. Still seems like lazy writing.

Firefly on the other hand (which I'm in the middle of watching) seems to cover a range of female types - there isn't JUST the wo-man, there's the sensual wise and beautiful 'companion', the innocent, bubbly and lovable mechanic and the conflicted, super-talented slightly dreamy Mary Sue.

I honestly don't think there's much wrong with these stereotypes - they're obviously popular and maybe they reflect trends in real life. They reflect how we perceive women, and they're certainly two dimensional, but if Firefly spent the whole time pointing out hidden depths, nothing would ever happen.

Besides, it's not like males aren't stereotyped as well. The strong silent one, the witty fun one, the skinny goofy one, the aggro one, the big muscles/heart of gold one....

Yeah, you're right; as others have said, a lot of real people have stereotypical elements in them. I think it begins right to question the author's treatment when those aspects begin to be magnified to an odious level.

[snip]
Whedon's tried to clear this up in interviews about the comics several times, Kaylee was originally supposed to be Asian but Jewel Staite got the character instead (and all I can say is THANK YOU SO MUCH Joss). Apparently since the Alliance formed after the people left Earth, the Americans and the Chinese weren't completely merged together and still somewhat stuck to their own planets. Throughout most of the series, according to Whedon, we don't see a large percentage of Asians mostly because they don't really go into the Chinese sector, hence why most of the names are stuff like Haven, Whitefall, Greek mythological names, etc. The only time they're ever at a planet with a Chinese name is that time they drop off cattle at Jiangyin, and even then that's a border world. We only really get to see former American core planets, and Londonium and Sihnon, the capitals for the West and the Chinese respectively are only really just mentioned. Although I did notice in Serenity that Beaumonde had a pretty futuristic Hong Kong feel to it, but I'm guessing that's just another cash-in to Blade Runner.

I actually like what they did with some of the other planets, because you could easily pick out the nationalities quickly, like how Dyton, Badger's home planet is obviously British and Shadow, Mal's home planet is mostly of Canadian origin. Of course the Alliance bombed it all to hell. Bastards.

Yeah, I've heard that Kailee was supposed to be Asian but Whedon fell in love with Staite. That's great, but in all honesty that doesn't make me feel any better about it. Also, I'd buy Whedon's argument more if the crew met Chinese/Asian adventurers like them at some point through the series, since, well, the whole point of the Browncoats was unifying freedom and movements like that tend to facilitate racial mixture/better race relations. It seems kind of odd for self-proclaimed individualists like the Browncoats to be so racially segregated that in the course of their travels they manage to interact solely with non-Chinese people. So, in conclusion, I don't buy Whedon's retcon, especially since he found the time to insert Asian extras into the sets (Good Dogs? Asian ballgoers? etc). The Chinese swearing was also just about the corniest aspect of the show.

 

[Riven Armor]

I'm curious, how do you feel about Objects in Space? Do you think there's a case to be made for the episode promoting a dangerous idea of black masculinity in comparison to white female frailty wrt Kailee and Jubal Early?

I thought it was supposed to be a parody of that stereotype, rather than an actual example.

Perhaps. Early can get very uncomfortable to watch when preaching to Kailee about rape, but it's not like the series is lacking in more upstanding black people.

Thank you for making this this thread.

I am a woman and, for the most part, I. Cannot. Stand. Feminism.

Don't get me wrong, I love being a girl. I absolutely love it. I love being feminine, I love nail polish, dresses, summer days, baking, ballet, all that bullshit. Should I feel bad about liking girly sorts of things? Hell no. Likewise, guys should absolutely NEVER be made to feel guilty about being guys. So often do I find in feminism that men are ostracized for simply having a penis and women, like me, who indulge in girly fancies rather than (ironically) masculine pow-wows are shunned. What the fuck.

It's about respect and equality - you know, having human decency. That article, which should have been about this, was anything but. Shame on the author.

The reason why I didn't like River wasn't because she was an example of chauvinistic writing in Hollywood. I hated her because she was a straight up Mary Sue. As much as I like Joss Whedon, he is a bit notorious for having all-powerful female characters in his works. I can't relate to someone who can kill everything without breaking a sweat. I can't relate to someone who whines all the time and gets loving attention for it, either. She had her moments, but most of the time I just wanted to smack her.

But then you have an incredible female character like Zoe on the show. I absolutely loved her! She was strong, but wasn't a ***** or otherwise a problem to the crew. She was smart, but not infallible. She was resilient, but she wasn't all-powerful. She was a normal human being. That's everything.

Maybe the problem is that many writers go into stories thinking... Okay. I need to have a female character here. How can I make her awesome? No. That's how you write a two-dimensional comic book superhero, not a real person you can empathize with.

[snip]

LOL. The beginning of your post is hilarious. Yeah, I really get your point about River. In fact, I'm going to write a Serenity review (thinly disguised character assault) soon just to get it out of my system. I guess something I'm beginning to distill from this thread is that writers crafting female characters should concentrate less on defining them through their capabilities and more on shaping them to relate to normal people.

[snip]

Thirdly, there are a few guidelines. One is the Bechdel Test [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dykes_to_Watch_Out_For#The_Bechdel_test], from a comic strip where a female character refused to watch any movie unless:

1. It had at least two women in it,
2. Who talk to each other,
3. About something besides a man.

See how hard it is to find ten movies that pass the test and you'll see why the test came to be in the first place. (I'll give you one: Death Proof.)

That's the main thing: make all your important characters, regardless of sex, race or creed, people. I went to a Q & A with J. Michael Straczynski (Babylon 5, Jeremiah and some comics) who said you should know your characters like they're your best friends. Such that, if they stub their toe on a coffee table, you know exactly how they'll react.

Good luck.

Forgot to add, thanks for the advice. I've never heard of the Bechdel test before. Seems fairly interesting (I think I'll be double checking movies I watch from now on, lol).

Sorry for the long posts.

 

[-Orgasmatron-]

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

Woot.

LMAO

This post basically sums up my thoughts here, well said.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

Feminist character: A female character not held back by her femininity, but equally one for whom her female-ness is not actually much of an issue.

The biggest problems with 'feminist' characters is that they focus so much on the female aspect of it. A truly equal society would not care at all whether the one doing the rescuing had breasts or not. I don't quite agree with the 'men with breasts' analogy, because there are other things about women which should be addressed by the ideal feminist text, but equally, there shouldn't be any real emphasis put on the fact that they are a woman, because then it drifts heavily into T&A appeal (see Lara Croft for this as a good example, her femininity does not hold her back, so she's got part one right, but because the marketing focused so much on the 'OMG GIRL!' aspect of it that it is in fact even worse.)

 

[sukotsuto]

Some places have a different view on feminism. It's the women who think being considered to be equal to a man "degrading" and prefers to accentuate her own feminine body and beauty, something only women have and flaunt them to show how proud they are of what nature gave to them. They know that they are strong in their own way, ie in the way they deal with matters of the heart and mind rather than be mired by men's standards in strength. Heck in such places, the female view of feminism is for these very women asking for the right to stay home and take care of the kids so that they don't have to deal with the drudgery of work, which is funny because it's the opposite of the western perspective on feminism.

In any case, the major flaws on writing a feminist role is that it's a guy writing that role. These writers think that the way to bring equality of the sexes in their works is to give these female characters male characteristics (and therefore, giving us a wo-man lol), as per according to what men think of strength, not the female perspective of strength. In turn, these "edgy" female characters end up being total bitches just for the sake of being bitches or being "dominant" on males ("dominance" is "strength" in the perspective of men). Because of this, they just becomes one-dimensional female characters given male characteristics, and as mentioned by the thread starter - "men with breasts".

It makes me feel that it's just as bad a sexploitation, only in a different scenario.

EDIT: Overall, a woman's feminine side shouldn't "hold them back". It's assuming that it's a weakness, when it's not (despite media depictions of how this "feminine side" making her weak, which may have been written by male writers anyway). It's a strength in their side, and it's something women have an advantage on. It's actually annoying how much writers see being feminine as being "weak", and people follow suit on that. Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth and Catherine the Great (just to name a few) certainly aren't weak in their rule, as they had embraced their feminine wiles and strength.

 

[TheSquirrelisKing]

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

Woot.

This is exactly how I feel, I honestly could not have put it better. The feminist movement is just so...schizophrenic sometimes, and it aggravates me. Honestly it got to a point where I had no clue what the word even meant.

 

[Sylocat]

I guess something I'm beginning to distill from this thread is that writers crafting female characters should concentrate less on defining them through their capabilities and more on shaping them to relate to normal people.

The problem is, "relatable" is a nebulous term that can be used to praise or disqualify any character I do or do not like, and too often it leads to this [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThisLoserIsYou].

 

[bobknowsall]

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?

The blogger behind that little rant, Allecto, is a scary, scary woman. She refuses to let you comment on her blog unless you're a lesbian separatist, and she hates men. Don't listen to what she says, because it's little more than misandry.

I wouldn't say that Joss Whedon is stellar at creating female characters, though. I'd love to see Allecto take on James Cameron. XD "Well, since Ripley actually talks to a male character during the course of the film, she's obviously subservient to men" I would laugh, and laugh very hard indeed.

 

[Spoonius]

I think that as long as women in literature are given the same respect that men are, then there is no justification to any complaint.

 

[Riven Armor]

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?

The blogger behind that little rant, Allecto, is a scary, scary woman. She refuses to let you comment on her blog unless you're a lesbian separatist, and she hates men. Don't listen to what she says, because it's little more than misandry.

I wouldn't say that Joss Whedon is stellar at creating female characters, though. I'd love to see Allecto take on James Cameron. XD "Well, since Ripley actually talks to a male character during the course of the film, she's obviously subservient to men" I would laugh, and laugh very hard indeed.

Yeah, I hear you. After reading some of her other rants, I've come to exactly the same conclusion. She's one of those people that actually uses Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies buzzwords in real life. People who fire "male privilege" and "entrenched patriarchy" into their commentary, with no discernible sense of irony, are rare indeed.

 

[atalanta]

I don't mean need rescuing as in they run into trouble and need Buffy or Zoe to roll in and save the day -- sure, the men need rescuing in that sense all the time. I mean rescuing as in, they're broken in some fundamental way and need to be saved from themselves -- River, Fred, Willow, and Buffy all go completely to pieces at one point or another and need to be pieced back together, and usually by a man.

Again, several of the male characters have the exact same problem... most notably Angel himself, as well as Spike, Xander and Riley.

It's been a while since I watched either show, so it's quite possible I'm not remembering things, but IIRC neither Xander nor Riley ever went off the rails to nearly the same extent. They had problems, but the human, garden-variety depression sort.

Angel/Angelus was in control of the situation in a way the others (except for Willow) weren't.

As for Spike -- jeez, he needed a hell of a lot more help than he got, seriously. (On a related note, Buffy the school counselor -- Robin, dear, that was a phenomenally stupid idea.)

A slightly better point here, but the ratio of male deaths to female deaths wasn't THAT much lower. In B:tVS and A:tS, maybe (though many of the surviving males weren't exactly well-off by the end), but in Firefly and Dollhouse, the ratio was about 3 to 1 in favor of male deaths.

Well, considering I was specifically talking about Buffy and Angel... :V

But that's interesting to hear re: Dollhouse. I confess I haven't seen it; I gave it five episodes to grab my attention (which is four more than I've given any other show) and I never got into it.

As for dudes dying in Firefly, I think part of that was because IIRC the majority of non-main characters who did stuff were male -- the Operative, Jubal Early, the guy with the organs, etc.

 

[Sylocat]

snip

Again, several of the male characters have the exact same problem... most notably Angel himself, as well as Spike, Xander and Riley.

It's been a while since I watched either show, so it's quite possible I'm not remembering things, but IIRC neither Xander nor Riley ever went off the rails to nearly the same extent. They had problems, but the human, garden-variety depression sort.

Riley's drug addiction and physiological enslavement to Adam doesn't count? Would he have been able to break free of that if it weren't for Buffy? Not likely.

As for Xander, well, maybe that was a bad example. Personally, I think Xander is a douchebag through and through, but that doesn't count... unless it means being saved from his own boneheaded blunders, which happened very frequently.

Angel/Angelus was in control of the situation in a way the others (except for Willow) weren't.

How was Angel in control of the curse?

Personally, I think Angel is the BEST example. If Angellus doesn't count as Angel "needing to be saved from himself," I'm not sure what does qualify.

As for Spike -- jeez, he needed a hell of a lot more help than he got, seriously. (On a related note, Buffy the school counselor -- Robin, dear, that was a phenomenally stupid idea.)

I thought she did pretty well as a counselor. But as for Spike, doesn't that just prove my point?

snip

Well, considering I was specifically talking about Buffy and Angel... :V

But that's interesting to hear re: Dollhouse. I confess I haven't seen it; I gave it five episodes to grab my attention (which is four more than I've given any other show) and I never got into it.

Ironically, most of the fans agree that episode 6 is where it really takes off.

As for dudes dying in Firefly, I think part of that was because IIRC the majority of non-main characters who did stuff were male -- the Operative, Jubal Early, the guy with the organs, etc.

Ah, but not the MAIN characters who did stuff, and two of them died as well, both males.