flyingskull (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
flyingskull) wrote2008-07-10 09:56 pm
flyingskull) wrote2008-07-10 09:56 pm
Strong Female Characters
The 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
... continued...
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...
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...
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)?