flyingskull | Sorry, everyone, I was abducted...

Current Mood: rested

Sorry, everyone, I was abducted...

... by well-meaning family and forced to go to nan's (Jamaica) to recuperate from what they called: "Your cretinous propention for overwork."

I'm all rested now and very sun-kissed and things and here I am.

So dear

baeraad asked me what a strong feminine woman would be like and I got to thinking about that. Fact is I don't know. I think there are two kind of differences in general between males and females of the species Homo Sapiens. One is physiological (different build of body, different hormonal fluxes and so on) and the other is social and cultural, the behavioural brainwashing we all get since birth.

The physiological differences are not immense or many, that's obvious, but they do colour our thoughts and emotions in part and, IMO, can't be dismissed as non-existent, BUT what really complicates things are the learnesd social responses so that it's now quite hard to understand when one's own attitudes and choices are truly one's own and when they are a reaction one way or another (embracing or rejecting) to social gender archetypes and stereotypes.

One woman may be strong because she embraces the cultural gender mores and lives a happy and fulfilled life; another may be strong because she rejects the cultural gender mores and attempts to re-create herself according to her views, thus living a happy and fulfilled life. I could go on for hours. Maybe being 'weak' for a woman could mean wanting to be a man - though, of course, not in the transgender sense - and have the virtues our culture attributes to males... but this sounds awfully like one of the worst clichés in history, after all.

So, yes, there's a bit of me who wants to say a 'strong' woman is one who accepts her physiology and lives as she thinks best, ignoring what other people tell her she should be, but the biggest part of me knows this is as fallacious as they come. Hell, I don't even know if I'm 'strong' or 'weak'. The only thing I can tentatively say is that probably I'm stronger now, after being physically weak and incapacitated for a long time, than I was before. Maybe all I am now is a little more aware of who I am. Maybe that's all the strength that's needed, what say?

Oh,

ingriam, I haven't forgotten you and your interesting fics. Not at all. And, as you write Alkanphel TEH PRETTY!!ELEVENTYONE!!!11, look at my pretty in icon. :-D

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Ah, there you are. :)

The physiological differences are not immense or many, that's obvious, but they do colour our thoughts and emotions in part and, IMO, can't be dismissed as non-existent

To this I would answer that they're also subject to individual variation. Knowing that someone is male or female tells you very little about them, because they'll never be a "typical" male or female - they'll be themselves, and in all but a few cases have both traits that are stereotypically male and ones that are stereotypically female. Sure, if you look at men and women as groups, you notice statistical inclinations for each one to have certain traits - but that's just not very useful when trying to understand and individual.

Again, I'm the living proof. I have some stereotypical guy traits, but I have a whole lot more stereotypical girl traits. And I don't feel that makes me less of a man - in fact, I will be as bold as to say that since I am, evidently, a man, the definition must be stretched to encompass me. =]

what really complicates things are the learnesd social responses so that it's now quite hard to understand when one's own attitudes and choices are truly one's own and when they are a reaction one way or another (embracing or rejecting) to social gender archetypes and stereotypes.

Agreed.

Actually, I was talking to a very smart person a while back who told me that people need archetypes and stereotypes to function - without some kind of predefined role to step into or at least to work from, we won't build any kind of identity at all - or at least, not a very interesting one. This, she went on to say, is exactly why we need many and varied archetypes, so that everyone can find at least one that suits them.

I think I might agree, though I'm not sure. It's a tricky question.

One woman may be strong because she embraces the cultural gender mores and lives a happy and fulfilled life; another may be strong because she rejects the cultural gender mores and attempts to re-create herself according to her views, thus living a happy and fulfilled life.

And I would again argue that ASOIAF, which started this discussion, has both types of female characters. I mean... how does Catelyn (to take an example that shows up in the first book) not fit the first category?

Maybe being 'weak' for a woman could mean wanting to be a man - though, of course, not in the transgender sense - and have the virtues our culture attributes to males...

What's wrong with having those virtues? They're not too bad, as virtues go. In fact, I'll go a step further and say that they're damn fine virtues all around and that the only reason they're attributed to males is that it's always been the males who have done the attributing. =]

I mean, this is really my point here, my problem with the whole Maureen Murdock thing. Most of the time, things that are "typically female" are things that are weak and which forces the people who ascribe to them to be weak. The archetype/stereotype of Woman is designed to be subservient and powerful. Of course it is. Men designed it.

This calls for some new archetypes, certainly - I'm all for new archetypes anyway, so I don't think women necessarily have to adopt traditionally male ones (though I don't see anything wrong with that per se). But I strongly object to any glorification of traditional femininity. That leads only to the Muhammed version of equality between the sexes - "sure, men and women are worth just as much, but by sheer coincidence, it's natural for men to do all the interesting, empowering things and for women to do all the boring, dead-end drudgery."

Sorry, that was ranty. ^_^; I do kind of feel strongly about it, because I hang out on some communities that are full of women who, according to traditional values and a lot of modern feminists of the Maureen Murdock bent, aren't proper women.

The archetype/stereotype of Woman is designed to be subservient and powerful.

Powerless, not powerful, obviously. ^_^;

You know? Martin has lots of characters with different personalities going and that's nice and proper in a work of literature, but IIRC you were asking what a 'strong feminine woman' is like, not what a 'strong female character' is like, so I went and digressed all over the place blathering about real people in the real world. :P :P :P

Actually, in the Fantasy genre, strong female characters are: Sophie (Howl's Moving Castle, Maree (Deep Secret), Polly (Fire and Hemlock) all DWJ's; Magrat, Sybil, Angua, Annagramma, Agnes (Heh... Pterry)... In other words all women and girls who have to overcome an initial self-image to be. A strong female character doesn't have to be nice or to be fulfilled, IMO. That's weak, from a literary point of view. The courage and ability to question their default values is what makes them strong characters to me.

I'm not a proper woman either, but I tried to embrace some proper masculine virtues and they don't work for me. It's an ongoing process, this constructive self questioning and I don't think people need archetypes, I think people need references (in the OED sense: In extended scientific and technical use denoting an object, property, value, or the like, used as a basis for comparative measurement or standardization).

Also weak women are utter pants at HMTL on post comments, apparently. *SIGH*

Sorry about the italics orgy.

The courage and ability to question their default values is what makes them strong characters to me.

Fair enough... but how does this make other female characters "men with breasts"?

I tried to embrace some proper masculine virtues and they don't work for me.

(*scratches head*) You think? Because from where I'm standing, it looks like you're decisive, authorative, independent, has integrity... Traditionally guy things, those. =]

I don't think people need archetypes, I think people need references

Well, it's hard to test emperically (empirically? Impiri... oh, you know what I mean. ^_^; ), since they won't let us raise a thousand children from infancy in the complete absence of archetypes. I can only say that building an identity from scratch is hard work and most people (including myself, I think) aren't up to the challenge. I do know some who defies all kinds of stereotypes, but they're exceptional. Most of us, I think, need a starting point (ie, "I am a socialist - here is what that means to me...").

Fair enough... but how does this make other female characters "men with breasts"?

Errrm... actualy it doesn't, 'men with tits' are the sass-IN-your-face-I-KEEEEELLL YOU 'tards who litter literature. Women being kick-ass aggressive psychopaths BECAUSE THAT'S SOOOO KEWL. Women whose only concept of strength is to lift a bull. Women who 'd think being the oral unique transmission of info throgh the centuries is BOOORING, DUDE! I WANNA KICK SOME SERIOUS ASS.

Clearer?

*Empirically* ... We live to serve and give info joy. *G*

Love 'starting point' can be anything at all: a picture, a poem, a story, a sound... that's why I used 'reference' and OED-ed you as to hat I meant.

That is clearer, yes, thank you. :) And certainly fantasy has a strong tendency to view as "strong" only a character who can wave a sword around well (or throw fireballs, which amounts to the same thing), which I do not like - I do love to see characters who are strong because they're smart and who don't need to be isolated to be independent (nothing wrong with isolated characters per se, but characters with a lot of ties to other characters and to their society makes for more interesting stories).

But again I wish to argue that Martin has a fair number of female characters who do not kick ass and who makes a big difference in the world just by being smart and by talking to people.

Love 'starting point' can be anything at all: a picture, a poem, a story, a sound...

Mmm. I am dubious - your faith in human beings seems to be rather greater than mine. But as I am not entirely sure of myself here, perhaps we should just agree to (tenatively) disagree? :)

Well, High Fantasy bores me to death, not because of the characters because that depends on the author, but because of all the 'manly' (note air quotes gesture) theme of war and mayhem. We talked about that once, didn't we? What Nail calls 'boy stories' as opposed to 'girl stories'. When the best thing that can happen is a righteous war, then the strong girls are all 'In-Your-Face' warriors, to prove they ain't wussies and domestics and what-not.

Again, I'm not talking about Martin here. What's with you and being so defensive of authors you worship, luv? I SAID I liked Game of Thrones and will buy Martin's other books ASAP. :-D I just prefer Pterry, so sue me. :P

It's not my faith in human beings, it's that I think we're really Apes Who Tell Stories and that we can't help telling stories about everything and being triggered to tell stories by everything. You told me Donaldson was an important influence in your life. Of course he was, I mean, books are important because they can influence our life. So is art, music, sport... We make our own legends and create our own personal myths all the time. I think both to fight current archetypes or to make them more palatable.

'Preview' is my friend, I know... *sigh*

By "Nail" I mean Neil Gaiman, of course.

I got it. :)

I think Gaiman's definition of boy's stories and girl's stories are wider than that, though. I mean, Seasons of Mist is a boy's story, but it's mostly about diplomacy and soul-searching.

Well, of course, you being all scholarly and things. :-D

Season of Mists (I do love Keats so so much!) is very much a 'boy story': it's all about the POWER. :P

Yes, I do see how it's a boy story. But it's also not a violent story. Most of it is about powerful men standing around, oozing testosterone, and very deliberately not fighting. =] I'm just saying, boy story != braindead action, yes? :)

Of course Boy Story is not = braindead action, luv! Methinks our Neil does quite correctly defines the difference between Girl and Boy Story - with a lot of tongue in cheeck, actually - as being about the different meaning each ascribes to power.

I love well written and intelligent Boy Stories! HMPH!

Ahhh... home again. I love being home. I love being away, too. It's the travelling from one to the other that I can't stand. I'm a naturally immobile person, I think - the very laws of the universe object to me in any way, shape or form budging. =]

Again, I'm not talking about Martin here.

Hmmm... okay. I think I must have misunderstood something you said in another post.

What's with you and being so defensive of authors you worship, luv?

I don't know. I really don't. ^_^;;;

I just prefer Pterry, so sue me. :P

So do I, actually. You should see how defensive I get about him. ;)

I think we're really Apes Who Tell Stories and that we can't help telling stories about everything and being triggered to tell stories by everything.

True, but stories, like everything else, get increasingly refined over time. One person tells a story, another person hears it and likes it but thinks it could do with being a bit more elaborate, so when he tells it to a third person he adds his own little twists to it. The third person likes the story too, but thinks that some of the themes should be emphasised a little more... and so on. Completely original stories, I think, are very dull stories indeed that are mostly about eating and mating. Interesting thoughts need time to build.

(okay. Sometimes stories get less interesting over time instead, as cowards remove the parts that disturb them and replace them with something safe and bland. But that is as may be)

Archetypes are old, strong stories, shaped by a lot of different people. People don't need archetypes, as such, but without them, it's back to the eating and the mating again. The civilised person is an archetype too, after all, and one that took a lot of time and a lot of effort - by great thinkers and common people alike - to build.

We make our own legends and create our own personal myths all the time.

Do we? Or do we just discover them? ;)

Then again, maybe it's just me who's a deeply unoriginal person. =]

Welcome back to your home, luv. And, y'know? (but I think we talked about this too in the past - chatty, ain't we?) I love travelling, I just tolerate places. This is one HUGE ORGY of agreeing to disagree, innit?

Believe me I have NOT ranted against Martin - except for puking at prologue which I SITLL do - not even once in all the bitchfest and things. You're just a lovely person with a somewhat unhealthy need to defend authors you like. :P :P

We make our own legends and create our own personal myths all the time.

Do we? Or do we just discover them? ;)

Possibly both, now I think on it. Prolly we start by discovering stereotypes and then we make our own, some of us, obviously, not all. I mean, if one is satisfied with the stereotype why move on? But if one is not then creating one's own myth seems unavoidable.

AND I've avoided putting gender tags on the above so bow to my sudden and unexpected attack of moderation. :-D

Welcome back to your home, luv.

Thank you. Glad to be back. :)

I love travelling, I just tolerate places.

One might hope so, since you've made a career out of it. On the other hand, you may notice that I (should the author thing fall through) plan on making a career out of the Internet, which exists mostly to make sure people don't have to move around. =]

Believe me I have NOT ranted against Martin - except for puking at prologue which I SITLL do - not even once in all the bitchfest and things.

Duly noted. I'm very sorry for jumping to conclusions - I guess you mentioned Martin close to the other thing, and I assumed a connection that wasn't there.

And you don't have to like the prologue. Few people do, really. =]

Prolly we start by discovering stereotypes and then we make our own, some of us, obviously, not all.

Aha! ;) But that was exactly what I said - that the archetype is a starting point that one can go to. It's like saying, "okay, I'm sort of like this" before you go on saying "and here are the ways in which I'm not like this."

Admittedly, not everyone does that - I know at least one person who really does seem like she's built her identity from the ground up without applying any labels to herself. But I know that I, personally, make a lot of use of archetypes - if only by breaking them apart for scraps. My current self-image... well, there's a lot of opinionated intellectual, some black-clad, pony-tailed emo poser, mysterious stranger, armchair philosopher, cultured Epicurean... I don't think I contain any original parts at all, but I like to think that the end result is unique. =]

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Sorry, everyone, I was abducted...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

GRRR

Re: GRRR

Re: GRRR

Re: GRRR

Re: GRRR

no subject

Open Arms

Re: Open Arms