Misogyny in scifi

[pedanticwench]

www.scifiwright.com/2013/11/saving-science-fiction-from-strong-female-characters-part-1/

I just came across this link, it's actually pretty interesting if you can manage to get through it.

And by interesting I mean, ridiculous and short-sighted. I've only read the first few paragraphs and they're just speshul.

What do you think?

wrathofkuus Wrath0fKuus

[dr.girlfriend]

Yeah, I couldn't even force myself to read the whole thing. It does bring to mind a more interesting recent discussion I've seen, though, regarding "Mary Sues" and the backlash against this whole notion. I'll have to look for more stuff when I'm home, for some reason I can't C&P from my work computer to here anyway so it won't help me to find it now.

[nomad100]

Oh FFS. This dude is nuts. I made it through about 10 paragraphs before I gave up.

[nomad100]

That isn't to say that there doesn't need to be a discussion about good female characters in scifi, but not like female characters this wackadoodle is talking about.

[katfco]

Jan 14, 2014 16:06:07 GMT -5 nomad100 said:

That isn't to say that there doesn't need to be a discussion about good female characters in scifi, but not like female characters this wackadoodle is talking about.

Yes, this is actually a good article about it. www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/08/i-hate-strong-female-characters

[nomad100]

Jan 14, 2014 16:29:28 GMT -5 katfco said:

Jan 14, 2014 16:06:07 GMT -5 nomad100 said:

That isn't to say that there doesn't need to be a discussion about good female characters in scifi, but not like female characters this wackadoodle is talking about.

Yes, this is actually a good article about it. www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/08/i-hate-strong-female-characters

I agree that not every woman has to be "strong" but, hell, I'll take it if it means more women with screen time.   I hate when they put up one or 2 interesting/different characters in an article (like Sherlock or The Doctor) because if everyone were like them, it wouldn't be special.   Their different-ness is what makes them interesting.   And I guess I think of "Strong" differently than some people because to me it means independent and interesting.  Not just physically capable. 

I think the BBC does much more with interesting roles for women for SciFi (Orphan Black, Doctor Who, Being Human).  Love me some BBC. 

[katfco]

Jan 14, 2014 17:05:36 GMT -5 nomad100 said:

Jan 14, 2014 16:29:28 GMT -5 katfco said:

Yes, this is actually a good article about it. www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/08/i-hate-strong-female-characters

I agree that not every woman has to be "strong" but, hell, I'll take it if it means more women with screen time.   I hate when they put up one or 2 interesting/different characters in an article (like Sherlock or The Doctor) because if everyone were like them, it wouldn't be special.   Their different-ness is what makes them interesting.   And I guess I think of "Strong" differently than some people because to me it means independent and interesting.  Not just physically capable. 

I think the BBC does much more with interesting roles for women for SciFi (Orphan Black, Doctor Who, Being Human).  Love me some BBC. 

But it's more on the idea that the female characters have to be labeled "strong" or "independent and interesting" when the male leads are assumed to have those characteristics. For them, interesting is the default, but for women, it's considered a "plus." Think of Amy Pond--she orders the men around and calls them "her" boys. On a man that would be demeaning and misogynistic, but on a woman, it's cute and endearing because she's "strong."

[nomad100]

Jan 14, 2014 17:21:50 GMT -5 katfco said:

Jan 14, 2014 17:05:36 GMT -5 nomad100 said:

I agree that not every woman has to be "strong" but, hell, I'll take it if it means more women with screen time.   I hate when they put up one or 2 interesting/different characters in an article (like Sherlock or The Doctor) because if everyone were like them, it wouldn't be special.   Their different-ness is what makes them interesting.   And I guess I think of "Strong" differently than some people because to me it means independent and interesting.  Not just physically capable. 

I think the BBC does much more with interesting roles for women for SciFi (Orphan Black, Doctor Who, Being Human).  Love me some BBC. 

But it's more on the idea that the female characters have to be labeled "strong" or "independent and interesting" when the male leads are assumed to have those characteristics. For them, interesting is the default, but for women, it's considered a "plus." Think of Amy Pond--she orders the men around and calls them "her" boys. On a man that would be demeaning and misogynistic, but on a woman, it's cute and endearing because she's "strong."

Yeah, I didn't think that was endearing.  I thought it was BS.  One of her more annoying habits.   It just seemed to condescending and belittling.  I mean, Rory the Roman rocked.  (It was nice to see a man doing the whole "I will wait for you forever" thing which is a role most women have.)

And when you really take a close look, there are not all that many "interesting" male characters out there which is why guys like the BBC's Sherlock make such a splash.   Hmmm, this may be why I don't watch much TV...

[Wrath0fKuus]

This is a lot of verbose, religious-pretending-to-be-rational jawflapping.

Can we instead talk about how acceptable personality traits for both sexes tend to fall into the traditionally masculine, while the hallmarks of a villain are traits that are traditionally feminine? Take BSG, for example, and contrast the great, likable characters of Starbuck and Helo with the effeminate Baltar and the very feminine Six and Ellen.

[dr.girlfriend]

Here's the Mary Sue essay:

adventuresofcomicbookgirl.tumblr.com/post/13913540194/mary-sue-what-are-you-or-why-the-concept-of-sue-is

[BlackCanary]

"That women would be more concerned with the tasks related to childrearing than men is neither absurd nor unfair, but reasonable and natural."

Um..fuck you sir. I currently have no concern for childrearing. But thanks for putting all women into "we all want children!" box. 

"But the purpose of the specialization is also difficult to deny: children need both a father-figure to mete out justice and fight for the family against the world, winning bread and slaying foes, and need a mother-figure to quench the thirst for mercy and nurture the family within the home. The mindset needed for these tasks is different, hence the approach is different. Men fight and women nurse the wounded, and then tongue-lash any malingering men into going back into the fight. Their role is support rather than front line duty."

It sounds like he would be against same sex coupes with children. But children need a mother AND a father! 

"During courtship, nature inclines the woman to seek out the character of the man. If she were to act in the direct and masculine fashion of satisfying the physical sexual urge with the first potential mate who was no more than physically attractive, that is to say, if she were to dive bomb the target of her lust like a man, she would have no opportunity to test his character. He, in return, winning cheaply what he craves would not and could not prize it, and he will ignore or betray her as soon as his physical appetite is sated, for experience will have told him he can lift another skirt as effortlessly."

Girls, don't be a slut! 

(1)"There is a reason why Superman rescuing Lois Lane remains a charming and beloved center of their myth even after more than half a century, whereas no one remembers or cares to remember any scenes of Wonder Woman rescuing Steve Trevor. The stark fact is that a healthy woman admires and should admire strength in her man, including when such strength sweeps her up in his arms. She should be delighted even if she is offended when Tarzan throws her over his shoulder, or her bridegroom carries her across the threshold. (2)A man should not admire physical strength in women, because this is not a characteristic that differentiates the sexes for him."

1.Sadly, this is true.

2. 

I love Wonder Woman because it's ok that she is not feminine and she doesn't give five fucks if people think that's wrong.  

[IIOY]

Jan 14, 2014 18:33:38 GMT -5 Wrath0fKuus said:

Can we instead talk about how acceptable personality traits for both sexes tend to fall into the traditionally masculine, while the hallmarks of a villain are traits that are traditionally feminine? .

So much this.

[GilliC]

I stopped reading at "The strong feminine character is solid in faith in all things."
Umm... Faith in what? God? Shit. I'm not a strong woman. Faith that everything will work out? That's just blind optimism. And again, I must not be a strong feminine personality. I assume the rest was just more poorly-written, obfuscated, overly-verbose nonsense.

For the record, I do remember liking the above-linked article about hating "strong" female characters.

[DesertMoon]

Stopped reading at this

Like it or not, nature has oriented female thinking to make them generally better at teaching a child how to volunteer to do a task, so that he will naturally and willingly do his tasks once he is grown; whereas men are generally better at commanding and punishing, so that the task gets done whether the child is willing or unwilling.

[dr.girlfriend]

All right, I'm pretty dedicated to add all these gifs one by one, but I really like this quote! :-D






Here's the full quote:

"Screw writing 'strong' women.  Write interesting women.  Write well-rounded women.  Write complicated women.  Write a woman who kicks ass, write a woman who cowers in a corner.  Write a woman who's desperate for a husband.  Write a woman who doesn't need a man.  Write women who cry, women who rant, women who are shy, women who don't take no shit, women who need validation and women who don't care what anybody thinks.  THEY ARE ALL OKAY, and all those things could exist in THE SAME WOMAN.  Women shouldn't be valued because we are strong, or kick-ass, but because we are people. So don't focus on writing characters who are strong. Write characters who are people."

-- madlori

[wrathofkuus]

jezebel.com/neil-gaiman-explains-how-the-phrase-strong-women-bege-1491174288

[dr.girlfriend]

[dr.girlfriend]

This has been interesting to me, particularly in relation to my Sherlock/Doctor Who love and all the Moffat hate. It's funny how you can really see things from a different perspective once someone points it out. For example, I thought Irene Adler in BBC Sherlock was a very strong, compelling female character. But then people pointed out that they made her a lesbian who falls in love with Sherlock anyway. Instead of her outsmarting Sherlock as she does in canon, he outsmarts her, and then ultimately has to rescue her. I still think she's an interesting character, but in some ways I definitely see the beef people have with Moffat's one-dimensional "strong" women. And every time he opens his mouth in an interview he makes it worse. :-P