Strong Female Characters
Jul. 10th, 2008 09:56 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flyingskullThe short version: When Angua was all chirpy and happy for Cheery because female dwarfs can do everything that the male dwarfs do, Cheery replied: "Yes, PROVIDED we ONLY do what the males do."
That's what I don't like in a lot of so-called strong female characters: they only do what the males do and the authors seem to forget they're, primarily, NOT males. Granted we're two genders of the same animal; granted, the similarities are more than the differences; but there are some differences and I think that to ignore them is the apex of bad writing. Well, maybe not that, but any author who writes males with boobs who are not transsexual or transgendered and calls them 'female' offends me.
I mean, it's not as if there's a dearth of strong female characters in literature that are primarily female with all the natural - I KNOW! Wrong word, perhaps, imprecise word at best. Not really important methinks, please bear with me - differences in mental/emotional processes, not to mention the differences generated by the cultural demands of society regarding gender roles.
Look at Sophie Hatter. She's strong, she's as badass - and it's so typical of male gender stereotyping that strong = badass a lot - as they come, she's the protagonist and hero of the story, she saves everyone... AND she's so female she uses housekeeping as a weapon of mass destruction; she's so female her magic is literally life-giving; she takes passive-aggressiveness to new heights and she makes wonderful lovely magic hats.
Look at Ayaka. She is the epitome of demure young womanhood and she steamrolls over everybody's life until they're living it the way she thinks it's best for them. She has a backbone of solid titanium - adamantium, even - that one. She takes ultra-polite badassness to and over the top.
And, of course, of course look at Granny, Nanny and Magrat. Look at Agnes. Look at Sybil. And look at how I could go on and on and on naming fucking STRONG female characters who are primarily female and do a lot of things that males do, but not all because they're not really interested in doing ALL the things that males do.
Mind you, some times the line dividing a well written truly strong FEMALE character and a sort of travesty of femaleness is really really thin. I admit I go by intuition while reading. It depends of what kind of subtext and implied bias I perceive in the text and I'm sure it's a very personal reaction, but I strongly feel there are lines that have not to be crossed.
Got that off me chest. *PUFF* Next, I think, villains. I love villains, there can be no hero without a suitable villain. I hate and loathe and despise badly written villains. I'd rather have a not so well written hero (of both sexes) than an uninteresting villain (of both sexes). Villain, how I love thee! :-D
That's what I don't like in a lot of so-called strong female characters: they only do what the males do and the authors seem to forget they're, primarily, NOT males. Granted we're two genders of the same animal; granted, the similarities are more than the differences; but there are some differences and I think that to ignore them is the apex of bad writing. Well, maybe not that, but any author who writes males with boobs who are not transsexual or transgendered and calls them 'female' offends me.
I mean, it's not as if there's a dearth of strong female characters in literature that are primarily female with all the natural - I KNOW! Wrong word, perhaps, imprecise word at best. Not really important methinks, please bear with me - differences in mental/emotional processes, not to mention the differences generated by the cultural demands of society regarding gender roles.
Look at Sophie Hatter. She's strong, she's as badass - and it's so typical of male gender stereotyping that strong = badass a lot - as they come, she's the protagonist and hero of the story, she saves everyone... AND she's so female she uses housekeeping as a weapon of mass destruction; she's so female her magic is literally life-giving; she takes passive-aggressiveness to new heights and she makes wonderful lovely magic hats.
Look at Ayaka. She is the epitome of demure young womanhood and she steamrolls over everybody's life until they're living it the way she thinks it's best for them. She has a backbone of solid titanium - adamantium, even - that one. She takes ultra-polite badassness to and over the top.
And, of course, of course look at Granny, Nanny and Magrat. Look at Agnes. Look at Sybil. And look at how I could go on and on and on naming fucking STRONG female characters who are primarily female and do a lot of things that males do, but not all because they're not really interested in doing ALL the things that males do.
Mind you, some times the line dividing a well written truly strong FEMALE character and a sort of travesty of femaleness is really really thin. I admit I go by intuition while reading. It depends of what kind of subtext and implied bias I perceive in the text and I'm sure it's a very personal reaction, but I strongly feel there are lines that have not to be crossed.
Got that off me chest. *PUFF* Next, I think, villains. I love villains, there can be no hero without a suitable villain. I hate and loathe and despise badly written villains. I'd rather have a not so well written hero (of both sexes) than an uninteresting villain (of both sexes). Villain, how I love thee! :-D
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-07-11 09:03 am (UTC)I do understand what you mean with a properly feminine character. But I don't see what it is you think is inherently female, in the sense that every female character must have it and every male character must not have it. As best as I can determine, these things work as a scale - typically male/female behaviour is typically male/female because in any given group, you will find more men/women behaving like that than you will women/men. Having a few organs of a different shape doesn't really hardwire you to act in a certain way, though the different hormone balance that comes with it might encourage you to do so - so what does it matter if some female characters are taciturn or aggressive or whatever it is you feel they ought not be? For just about any stereotypical male trait, there is some woman out there who has it in spades. Why limit yourself to stereotypes when that makes things less realistic instead of more?
It's even one of the few things I don't like with Pratchett, actually - he has a tendency to do gender stereotyping. It's not as bad as all that, because his characters are individuals first and foremost (and sometimes he even subverts it, like with Adora Belle Dearheart puzzling over why only men seem to become so wrapped up in a single interest that they lose all ability to deal with life outside of it - and Moist very wisely not pointing out the irony to her), but it's there. Especially in the whole wizard/witch divide - what, no women are suited to be air-headed intellectuals, no men are practical and down to earth?
In essence, I can understand you wanting heroines who are strong and feminine at the same time. Sure, I'm all for that. And certainly I can understand you wanting a reasonable proportion of girly-girls to tomboys, and feeling that the latter are overrepresented - it is probably true that they are.
What I don't understand is why you seem to consider every female character who isn't all caring-sharing to be an abomination that needs to be killed by fire. There is room for some of those, surely? Especially if we throw in some long-haired girly-men for balance? ;)
(also, I'm not clear on how my comment on Quality of Mercy prompted this one?)
no subject
Date: 2008-07-11 08:26 pm (UTC)I think what we basically disagree about - and it's a GOOD thing, I mean, I like hearing 'I agree' as much as the next person, but healthy disagreement with a person I respect it's much more stimulating in the end - is the fact that I think there are some instrisic differences between males and females of the species homo sapiens; that those differences are at times ignored and at times compoounded by the expectations of the patriarchal culture we all live in; that we homo sapiens think with our whole body and that the sum of all these things generates a different - not very much so, but enough - forma mentis in males and females of the species. Mind you, I say 'think', not 'believe'. I'm perfectly ready to jettison this hypothesis when presented with facts that contradict it.
That said, it's not that I don't like tomboys in fiction, exactly. I don't like to have a tomboy presented as a 'strong' female character. A tomboy is a 'weak' female character, nothing wrong with that, it can be quite interesting, but strong? No. Which brings us to the fact that, as usual, I get the feeling we're both using the same words but meaning different things, or maybe better, different shades of meanings.
Which comment on QOM? Where are your thoughts on QOM? Why can't I find them in your LJ or mine? Has my brain fried and am I now forced to get along as well as I can with a couple of burnt neurons? HELP!
no subject
Date: 2008-07-11 08:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-12 11:09 am (UTC)Intrinsic differences... no, I don't believe that, it's true. Don't really believe in the concept of anything being intrinsic, to tell you the truth. Pretty much everything I've ever learned tells me that everything has exceptions and that everything happens by degrees.
Everything affects everything else, certainly, so I guess how you are shaped between your legs plays a part. But only, I think, a small one - in fact, the word that comes to mind is "negligible." It doesn't matter so terribly much unless you want it to (or unless people around you want it to, which they usually do - but then we have moved away from intrinsic differences and into the area of social expectations, and I don't think we are in any disagreement about those).
Which brings us to the fact that, as usual, I get the feeling we're both using the same words but meaning different things, or maybe better, different shades of meanings.
The meaning of the word "strong," as in "strong (female) character" might need some more definition, yeah. For starters, are we talking about characters-as-people or characters-as-devices? Or to put it another way, are you saying that a woman (real or fictional) cannot be considered strong (due to being in denial about her true nature, or whatnot) if she does not embrace your notion of femininity? Or are you saying that a fictional woman who is not written according to your notion of femininity is not realistic (because all women are inherently feminine and there is not a single one in the world that isn't like that), and therefore bears no resemblance to real women, and therefore is not really any kind of character, never mind a strong one?
Which comment on QOM?
Here's what I meant. :) (http://baeraad.livejournal.com/58704.html?thread=354128#t354128)
To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-12 04:26 pm (UTC)Right. Fourth time of essaying and three erasures of everything later I surrender. I have NO intention of starting a gender war and especially of fighting with you. We have different views about sex and gender and that's wonderfully alright. :-D
Now. Strong. Well, to me a strong character is a four-dimensional character, i.e. a person, who is both not afraid to be her/him self and not afraid to develop, grow or change. Much as I'd consider a person 'strong' in RL, y'know? And yes, this time this is blatantly my own personal definition of 'strong', so fell free to demolish. The QOM thingy was this:
honourable death, according to a Slytherin's view of what is honourable
I dissent. I think Maya's version of Narcissa is brave, honourable and quite strong according to Earth logic, ethics and courage because I think that swallowing one's own pride to achieve a greater good for a person you love is much more honourable than mouthing defiance that achieves nothing and leaves the baddie unmoved. You'll remember that when she saw all her efforts were useless, she went silent, an Antigone figure judging her executioners, which, again to me, was a very powerful statement of dignity and courage. I also find Maya's Narcissa decidedly female and feminine.
Genuine question - no subtext:
the brash, flamboyant, forthright code of the Gryffindors and the pragmatic, circumspect code of the Slytherins.
So Gryffidors are male and Slytherins are female?
Oops
Date: 2008-07-12 04:46 pm (UTC)I meant to type "points of view in your comment on QOM" but I failed miserably. :P
I know you got it all the same you being intelligent and suchlike, but, just for the record...
Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-12 09:35 pm (UTC)That's a good definition of a strong character, I'd say. I guess that to avoid a discussion that no one can really win, we should leave it at that.
I suppose my own definition would be something like, "a character who knows what they want and work towards getting it to the best of their ability."
I think Maya's version of Narcissa is brave, honourable and quite strong according to Earth logic, ethics and courage because I think that swallowing one's own pride to achieve a greater good for a person you love is much more honourable than mouthing defiance that achieves nothing and leaves the baddie unmoved.
I agree, and I suspect Maya would too. But it doesn't really change what I said - that Narcissa is acting according to Slytherin ideals, and that Harry can't understand it because he doesn't understand anything but Gryffindor ideals (and never mind that we can both agree that Slytherin ideals are better, at least in this case).
I also find Maya's Narcissa decidedly female and feminine.
I guess... I thought she was a bit dull, personally, since she didn't seem to care about anything but her son. Doesn't she have anything else in her life that matters? It's canon, of course - I just felt it made her a bit one-dimensional.
On the other hand, she is certainly strong, by my definition as well as yours. She does everything she can to achieve what is important for her to achieve, right up until the point where she can't do anything more. She certainly has agency as well as dignity.
So Gryffidors are male and Slytherins are female?
Rowling has certainly given the Gryffindors a number of traditionally male traits and Slytherin a number of traditionally female ones. Which is perfectly in keeping with Rowling's apparent hatred for all things "girly."
Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-13 08:45 pm (UTC)Yeh, as I said, it's not a bad thing to meet different world-views and learn that on some things the only point of contact is mutual respect - am presuming, I know :P - because sameness in ALL things is a bit boring and doesn't promote much self analysis or even growth. HUGZ
Your definition of 'strong' is actually very good and probably better than mine. Well, no: scratch 'probably'. It's a better definition by all tenets. My emotional intelligence which has a habit of invading and despoiling my logical intelligence sees more strength in brutal self honesty and integrity than in agency, I suppose. I also have an unexplained fascination with characters who face, overcome or subvert defects (such as weakness, cowardice, etc.) because of generous impulses or rational choice. But that's just me.
Agree again. QOM's Narcissa is as dull as canon Narcissa, a song of one note. Maya gave her a heroic death in QOM but the character never took flight, so to speak. I much prefer complicated selfish Narcissa in Underwater Light, actually.
And about the Slytherin/Gryffondor thing (why the FUCK did that cretin put two more houses in that sodding school when she knew she was going to ignore them completely?) JKR is a sodding sexist bitch.
Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-14 07:05 am (UTC)Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-14 05:02 pm (UTC)Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-16 01:30 pm (UTC)Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-16 01:55 pm (UTC)Self-honesty and integrity are good too. In fact, our definitions might not be that incompatible - you need to be honest to yourself about what you want before you can go for it, for one thing. =]
I much prefer complicated selfish Narcissa in Underwater Light, actually.
Yeah, I liked her too. It's always fun to see fictional parents who aren't abusive or overtly neglectful, just sort of... not especially good at it. Like that Portugese rebel leader who Maya had Draco be married to in that other story she wrote, who says that babies "are a little intimidating at this age. So fragile. So easy to forget behind when you break camp." You just know that she's speaking from experience on that last part. Poor Scorpius. =]
why the FUCK did that cretin put two more houses in that sodding school when she knew she was going to ignore them completely?
Good question. She never did use that whole House thing to advantage, anyway - everyone, characters and readers alike, act like it's a big deal, but honestly, I haven't seen anything along the lines of defining features for different Houses. All the characters are pretty much the same, in that they are all idiots. Except that Slytherin are evil idiots, though mostly even that is an informed attribute - Slytherin doesn't act much worse than any other House, it's just that they're the designated villains so everything they do is presented as if it was an act of war.
Fanon is, by and large, a lot more interesting in that respect, because there House really does seem to matter - there's been long discussions about just what each House's philosophy entails, which completely ignores the fact that in canon the Houses don't have philosophies, just informed attributes, but at least it's interesting. Yet another thing that Rowling fails at as a fantasy writer is to understand the power of the iconic and the mythological - just how useful it is to have your fictional characters and organisations be the avatars of some outlook or trait.
Sorry, this is rambly. I think I may have a bit of a fever and it's making it hard to think. ^_^;
Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-17 08:55 pm (UTC)Get thee to a bed and heal thyself! Summer fevers are 'orrible, awful things. Poor luv. HUGZ
She said in one of the 98884339875023 interviews where she contradicts everything she's written that the houses stood for the four elements, y'know? Gryffindor=Fire, Hufflepuff=Earth, Ravenclaw=Air and Slytherin=water. Except that this is so blatantly NOT true in the books. It'd make a nice irony in that the only truly useless house would be Gryff, because one can't live without air or water and, arguably, earth, what one can live without, albeit in discomfort, is fire. Cretinous woman.
Yet another thing that Rowling fails at as a fantasy writer is to understand the power of the iconic and the mythological - just how useful it is to have your fictional characters and organisations be the avatars of some outlook or trait.
Yeh, and that's why in this fandom most fans - even rabid ones - are so much more interesting and better at storytelling than the author. Have you read the Sacrifice Arc? I mean, yeah, over the top melodrama all the way, but Lightning on the Wave's reinterpretation of canon is WAAAAAY more interesting and coherent than canon. At least, in Lightning's world, magic is consistent and subject to clear laws.
Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-18 05:16 pm (UTC)Well, water is traditionally a female element and fire a male one, so I guess that much is correct. But as for other traits associated with those elements goes, well, fire = will = drive = ambition, so Slytherin should be the fire house. And come to think of it, which house contains Harry the emotional roller coaster and Ron the mean lean sulking-machine? Traditionally, water = emotion, so shouldn't Gryffindor be the water house?
Man, Rowling can't even get her own symbolism straight. And does anyone notice? Hell no. They're too busy praising her for inventing the hippogriff. (seriously, someone asked her how she came up with such a bizarre creature. I and every other fantasy geek on the planet headdesked mightily at that one)
And good call, fire is really the "smallest" element in terms of how much of it you need and how much of it you run into. But of course it's also the flashiest element. Flash without substance - that sounds like Rowling, all right.
Have you read the Sacrifice Arc?
I'm afraid not. What's that about?
At least, in Lightning's world, magic is consistent and subject to clear laws.
That does sound interesting right there. Magic is just so much more interesting when there's hard rules behind it, or it at least feels like there's hard rules behind it. Nothing takes the excitement out of a story more than realising that the magic can do whatever the author wants it to do at a given moment.
Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-21 04:44 pm (UTC)Now I see you're talking about R Rankin! YAY! *runs to read and comment*
Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-22 05:01 am (UTC)Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-22 08:33 pm (UTC)Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-23 07:04 am (UTC)Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-23 09:46 pm (UTC)*ahem*
Almost done, you'll get yours in a couple of days. ^_-
Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-23 11:15 pm (UTC)Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-24 11:22 pm (UTC)Naaaah, no worries, mate. I LIKE it. All serious critics have bouts of evil laughter coupled with cackling when drunk with TEH POWAH OF REVIEWING!!!eleventypoo :-D
Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-27 12:12 am (UTC)I'm excited!
Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-28 02:45 am (UTC)Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-28 06:35 am (UTC)Oh, Ryan's dislike of Agito started in the tunnels, when he was getting queasy and short-tempered because of it. And, because of the fact that Ryan and Agito aren't very reflective at the best of times, neither of them talks about their feelings much, and Ryan likes pushing Agito's buttons, what might have been a simply resolved misunderstanding ballooned into... something of a situation. ;)
What is it that annoys you about Kenji? Just out of morbid curiosity.
Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-28 11:14 pm (UTC)Was just telling you my reaction to him. :)
Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-29 01:47 am (UTC)Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-30 12:49 am (UTC)Mind you, I loved and love my parents and I wasn't TEH queen of tantrums. Actually I didn't tantrum, I just tended to view adults with a cynical and an unimpressed eye, you know how it is.
As I said (98430259354 times :P:P:P) it's personal and it takes nothing away from the fact that the character is very well written and observed.
Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-30 03:02 am (UTC)I'm annoyingly persistant that way. ;)
Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-30 04:06 am (UTC)Well, I'll tell you nothing more! Do you hear me? NOTHING! TCHA! :P
... continued...
Date: 2008-07-12 04:43 pm (UTC)Besides that he isn't condescending to females in general, another thing that makes my blood boil, nor does he pretend to explain femaleness to females. The division between Wizards and Witches, for example, is stereotypical to the max, but he writes it SO fucking to the max that it becomes a paradox well worth the exploring.
Think this: if the wizards represent science, what do the witches represent? One could go with the division between 'hard' and 'soft' science - UGH! YACK I HATE IT! IT'S UTTERLY MEANINGLESS! ONE THING IS EITHER A SCIENCE OR IT ISN'T! GAAAAAAH! *ahem* sorry for capslock o' rage - and say the wizards represent 'hard' (GAH! *SPIT*) science like physics and the witches represent 'soft' (UGH! *SPIT*) science like psychology, but that doesn't explain the fact that actually witches do magic all the time and pretty powerful and useful magic it is too and wizards spend their time NOT doing magic and when they do it, it's generally destructive and quite useless. Now I don't think Pterry is saying that psychology is a much more useful and powerful science than physics; I'm quite sure he doesn't believe that at all being a technophile and a 'hard' (*SPIT*) science lover(See the Science of the Discworld series.
So what is it? Any thoughts?
Re: ... continued...
Date: 2008-07-12 07:13 pm (UTC)I don't know what to say about the fact that the wizards spend so much time being useless, but they do seem to improve over the course of the series - these days, they're at least useful as an emergency measure when the normal methods won't serve (they teleport Rincewind to the Counterweight Continent in Interesting Times, they send Vimes off to the mountains in a hurry in Thud!, they settle the contest in Going Postal by being able to talk to each other over a distance - and so on). And even the useless things they do - like that freaky Cabinet of theirs - are at least more interesting than they used to be.
But all in all, the artificial divide into male wizards and female witches is really amazingly meaningless - but I guess it's just hanging around as a rule from the early parts of the series, and it's just too iconic to get rid of.
Oh, and I think the difference between a soft and a hard science is that in a hard science, you can do meaningful experiments and find out hard facts. Soft sciences are about people - and people are just bundles of contradictions and hidden clauses and infinite individual variety, so all you can do is make wild guesses and hope for the best. =]
Re: ... continued...
Date: 2008-07-12 08:15 pm (UTC)Seriously though, I really don't think that wizard and witches actually represent anything but the cultural cliché that males think logically and females think emotionally and the dichotomy is presented as a paradox to invite the discerning reader to think on things of that nature. Besides you're right, of course, wizards are NOT useless, just a tad ineffectual in their 'heads in the cloud' and 'discussion for discussion's sake' way. They DO get things done and quite impressively, though it's not always immediately apparent - but then you have the HUGE implosion/explosion/burning/fusion/fission of the parasite city - that they have successfully done something.
OTOH, witches DO research and experiment not a little and also they can derail reality quite nicely in non-impressive ways, when they want to.
I was being a tad stupidly willful in the preceding comment because it illustrates why Pterry's sexism is not abhorrent to me while, say, JKR's sexism makes my hackles rise like anything. It's all in tone (style)?