On reactions to female characters

[hsapiens]

Saw this linked in rydra_wong's LJ and found that it resonated with me. Thus, I'm passing it on:

From fabu's discussion of fans and female characters:

No one is saying that you must like every single female character or you're a bad fan/bad feminist. However, if you *habitually* find yourself criticizing female characters for behavior you admire in male characters/dismissing female characters as boring (even though you spend hours developing walk-on male characters into well-rounded characters for your stories)/accusing female characters of being "Mary Sues" for having skills that you accept unquestioningly in the men, perhaps you might want to think about the bigger picture.

~~**~~

And in other news: When it's a relief to get to the refuge of work, that's a bad way to start the day. Luckily, this day hasn't gotten any worse. :)

Comments

[superbadgirl]

I'd like to think I hate the female characters I hate for pretty legit reasons, and most of those reasons are creative decisions TPTB have made and so it's not really the character I hate so much as what they've done to her. I don't hate Sam Carter, for example, but I truly, absolutely, 100% despise the way TPTB took her potential and flushed it down the toilet to make a much weaker character.

I'll admit I hate even the idea of the proposed (still wishing this was a rumor!) two female co-leads Supernatural is apparently getting. Why? Because The CW shows don't have a great track record with representing females, and the show itself already has a distinct formula that will inevitably be thrown off kilter by adding these women (no show can be a drama without UST between a man and a woman...). Maybe they'll be great, who knows? But I live in fear, for last year's attempts to integrate new characters (two of them female) fell very, very, very, VERY flat with me.

[hsapiens.livejournal.com]

I think the point here is not that disliking a female character is problematic but whether you respond equally as strongly when it's a male who is equally as poorly written. I will in no way disagree with you that Carter has been written in a way that sets my teeth on edge; I think it undermines so much of who she is and what makes her cool and interesting.

So, for instance, when Jack took a turn for the "cosmic giddiness" to the point of undermining his portrayal as a cunning leader of above average intelligence and gravitas, did you find yourself equally disgusted and annoyed and alienated from the character as when the writers screwed up and wrote Carter as unprofessional and making decisions that undermined her credibility as an officer? Did you want him to disappear with the same fervor you wanted her to disappear?

Do you condemn Carter for her inability to commit to her fiance Pete while the married Teal'c's implied night with Shaun'ac failed to raise a quibble? What about Daniel's time with the princess before the sarc twisted him? Or did you assume that was platonic before he did the sarc one time too many? What about his fling with the Destroyer of Worlds the very week after the dramatic and powerful death of his wife? What about his willingness to abandon the search for Sha're because Heliopolis was more compelling? None of these are particularly stellar moments of moral strength and dedication for the characters. Do you think less of Teal'c because he was willing to leave his wife and his son to the mercy of Apophis because the Jaffa's freedom was more important to him? How about his blindness to Jack's well-being because he was bent on revenge on Tanith? There's nothing wrong with finding a behavior wrong and off-putting and repulsive and even irretrievably wrong. The question is does the male get a free pass for a behavior while the female is condemned and hated? Is he authoritative while she's the bitch? He's complex while she's inconstant?

Do you find it as annoying to be asked to believe that Daniel earned not one but two or maybe even three doctorates before he was 24, that he is an expert in Mayan archaeology and Egyptology and British archaeology and mythology from all over the world as you find it annoying to be asked to believe that Sam's an ace shot, an expert in hand-to-hand combat, a PhD in astrophysics, a Desert Storm vet, AND she spent two years writing the program that dials the gate all before she shipped out to the Pentagon -- and all before she was out of her 20s? (Or thereabouts?)

They're both implausible but does one fly under your radar while the other sets your teeth on edge? I had the unsettling realization that when I thought about it that I was willing to suspend my disbelief for Daniel far more than for Carter and I'm not even a Carter hater. THAT is what the essay gets at and I'm not very happy with myself after looking at the issue.

[superbadgirl]

Whoa. Like, I got the point of the post. Really.

I could respond with more, but I honestly can't remember how I reacted during the height of all the hullabaloo (though I DO remember thinking it rather stupid of people to scoff at Sam's accomplishments and say nary a word about Daniel).

[hsapiens.livejournal.com]

I think my wording was extremely unfortunate because I think you're taking my comment as directed at you, which it wasn't. I meant it as directed towards myself -- those aren't questions I can answer in a way that makes me proud of my own assumptions and biases. I apologize for making it seem as if I was attacking your opinions or positions. :)

I pretty much was like, "ok, it's t.v. requirements and limitations to have Daniel an expert on every single thing in archaeology and to be able to speak the language of the week no matter what it is" but I was flat out bitchy about Sam conducting an autopsy or being a "legend" at the Academy who holds ALL the records.

Once I started thinking on it, I came up with a lot of examples that if I reversed the genders, wouldn't have flown under my radar so neatly. Sorry it seemed to be an indictment of you. It wasn't *meant* to be.

[superbadgirl]

I'm positive I haven't always been fair toward Sam...but it came to the point for me that I realized the negative energy wasn't doing me (or anyone around me) any good. I do get the stepping-back and really looking at what you're doing/saying and how you're reacting, but I think for many people, especially at the height of fandom drama, emotion will rule over logic. And fear of that emotion will make anyone with a differing POV really hesitate to get into the mix - maybe I played in the wrong places, but it felt at times that if I supported Sam, I was somehow an Untouchable. Same thing for not liking Vala.

Ultimately, at least now, for me it's about believing a character should be doing the things they're doing because they would, not doing the things they're doing because the writers need to fill in a hole (sometimes half a hole, and sometimes only to create another hole). That, I think is one of the primary reasons SG-1 lost me quite a while back. I didn't believe the story was there to support the characters, I believed the characters were there to support the story, come hell or high water. ALL of the characters. So all the little things I was able to ignore tipped the scales.

But that's rather another discussion, so I should shut up about that.