The 5 Most Overrated Pop Culture Heroines
3. Katniss Everdeen, The Androgynous Hero
Katniss is a poor girl with archery skills and smarts whose civilization calls for human tributes for a ruthless survival contest, the Hunger Games. When Katniss’s little sister is chosen for the games, she volunteers to take her place. In the contest, she saves herself and her male counterpart. In victory, she becomes a symbol of rebellion against the tribute state and battles on in the revolution.
Katniss admirably survives on her brains and nature skills. But if author Suzanne Collins had chosen to write the books with a male hero, she would only have needed to change a few details. The only womanly theme doesn’t appear until the epilogue when we learn that Katniss is married with two children. But even her dilemma about children — whether to bring them into a harsh world and how to explain what part their parents played in the revolution — is generic.
In a sense, Katniss is the ideal feminist heroine, gender neutral, but Collins had to ignore much to get the story to work. For instance, despite the brutal nature of the games, rape is never even mentioned as a threat. Collins did not give Katniss any superpowers which would make rape unlikely, but she doesn’t have Katniss out-think potential aggressors, either. Collins simply ignores the threat. Real women don’t have that luxury and so holding up Katniss as a female role model promotes a false sense of security for the women who admire her.
Katniss is a champion of individualism, but not gender.
Gender neutralization isn’t the only problem with modern heroines. Stories that claim that women’s relationships amongst themselves take priority over other relationships have exploded. “Men come and go, but your girlfriends, sisters, and mothers will always be there for you” — so sayeth the Sisterhood of the Steel YaYa’s in the City. This is true even if being there for each other means holding hands in a double suicide. That Thelma and Louise regularly rates as an admirable female heroes movie horrifies me. We deem any woman’s actions heroic if done for herself or another woman. Pixar’s Brave illustrates this infallibility of the sisterhood.
To me, many female pop-culture heroines almost seem like they were written so men can feel enlightened and self-congratulatory about ‘supporting’ them, more than anything else; as if that alone makes them supporters of feminist progress and immune from claims of misogyny.
But contrary to where you seem to imply a negative, I do think that each character has to be looked at as an individual, as opposed to a model for an entire gender.
Perhaps this is why I’m not a writer. I’m just not wired for today’s cultural sensitivities.
We must look at them as individuals, exactly, but we tend to forget that gender is part of individuality. With these popular, girl power heroes, we ignore gender yet insist as seeing them as part of their gender. We get it all mixed up.
Women acting like men and men acting like women…isn’t that what switching gender roles is all about? Pretending that men are nurturing and motherly and women have the urge to venture out alone and kill things?
I think the real reason stories are told with these superheros-with-boobs-and-without-testicles is because you could never make a movie starring a John Wayne type in this day and age. At least, you couldn’t make one and have it win any oscars. It’s not edgy enough. It doesn’t challenge traditions that have worked for millenia, so it’s not cool enough. Remember “Act of Valor”? It starred REAL heros playing themselves on screen, and the critics ripped it apart. I did my part to counter those twits and saw it twice.
Speaking of John Wayne, the Cohen brothers’ remake of “True Grit” starring Jeff Bridges and Hailee Steinfeld as Rooster Cogburn and Mattie Ross…now there’s a movie with a strong, independent heroine who isn’t also some unrealistically masculine martial artist. She was strong-willed and independent, but still had to make do with actually being a woman. She wasn’t running around shooting cigarettes out of the mouths of banditos. She was co-opting (perhaps even manipulating) a pair of men who possessed the ruggedness and marksmanship and man-tracking skills to catch her father’s killer. And they weren’t even all that great at it. But in the end, they turn out to be indispensable to each other. Mattie was barely fit to journey into the wilderness, and yet her bold determination was absolutely essential. Cogburn was fickle, easily discouraged, and a drunk, and yet his marksmanship and gunfighting experience were critical. Most importantly, the characters in this story are changed over the course of it, unlike the vapid, self-obsessed, detestable wretches we see in Twilight – just as shallow in the beginning as in the end.
And then there’s the whole shallow “Team Jacob vs. Team Edward: Who’s got the better boday? *giggles like a schoolgirl*” culture that was spawned by those awful segments of video that were recorded and projected on screens (no, they were not films).
Masculine heros are frowned upon these days. Even masculine men seem to be. And yet, even the most rabid feminist will still call out for the help of some “strapping young men” whenever the furniture needs moved.
Yes, characters are individuals, but they are also examples of an archetype and a cultural ideal. In this case the archetype of exalted superwoman has taken over fiction, and kids who look to fiction to shape part of their development are getting a warped view. Girls think they have to be perfect, super-strong tough women willing to kick butt. Boys get the Laura Croft: a woman with a perfect body who can hold her own physically. Neither is a realistic image of what women are or even can be.
We need a good healthy crop of conservative-leaning writers, or at least writers who don’t buy into the supergirl myth, to rewrite that part of our cultural story.
Back to basics. Human Nature exists and influences all normal human behavior. In any society, whatever men do is high-status; whatever women do is low-status. By definition, any hero (male or female) will have to be doing what men do. These hero-ettes have to keep moving fast, because the instant women are seen to be doing anything, that thing instantly becomes low-status. The Leftist stranglehold on higher education will become meaningless as men stop going to college (except for genetically male fields like math and hard science) because women are now the majority of those matriculating. If women are doing it (whatever it is); men will run like hell. I don’t like to imagine that the highest-status occupations in our society will soon be pro athletes, but insofar as women cannot play pro sports with men, that seems likely.
Regarding ‘Status’
Men compete for status because women desire a man with status. It doesn’t matter whether that status is based in finance, power, expertise, or athleticism. What matters is that, whatever the field of competition, the highest achieving male is the most valuable. Now you can bemoan this fact all you want, but its biological truth. Women also tend to marry up. Even in academia, women tend to marry men with more advanced education. In other words, women with masters degrees tend to marry men with PhDs.
When men seek out a woman, status does not matter. Men don’t care whether a woman is the most accomplished in her field. Men care about other qualities. Men might talk about how nice it would be to have a wife or girlfriend that’s really good at something they’re interested in, but generally speaking, it doesn’t end up working in practice. For example, girls that try to be “one of the guys” get passed over as mates because they act too much like guys. They jump in on the ribbing and competition, and those behaviors are not attractive to guys. Even a very attractive woman can destroy her chances with any of a group of men simply by acting like “one of the guys”. There’s no conscious reason behind it, really. It’s just something I’ve observed over and over again.
When a girl behaves like “one of the guys”, horsing around and punching people on the shoulder and making d*** jokes, et cetera, she earns herself the “I love you like a sister” talk. In slang terms, she gets friend-zoned.
Similarly, when a guy acts nice and goes along with what the girls want and doesn’t act decisive or assertive ever, he earns himself the “I love you like a brother” talk. In slang terms, he gets friend-zoned.
To my mind, the best illustration of differences between men and women lies in the answer and subsequent reaction to the question “Where do you want to go for dinner?” I recommend against asking a woman this question. Just pick somewhere. It doesn’t matter where you pick – if she’s in the mood to be unhappy with you, she’s going to be unhappy with your choice. If she’s in the mood to be pleased with you, she’s going to be pleased with your choice. Her reaction to your choice has absolutely nothing to do with which restaurant you chose.
Exactly why I refuse to participate, I refuse to see Hunger Games and such movies. They are for girls and women’s fantasies and for the feminized men. There should be more coming due to Hunger Games success. Hollywood always clones success.
Buffy is the exemplar of the “half as hard, twice as good” trope in female “heroes”. In the vampire-slaying genre, men have been staking the undead for decades with nothing more than grim determination. For Buffy to be even remotely credible as a vampire slayer, she had to have superpowers. So did all the female supporting cast. The male supporting cast generally did just fine slaying vampires without any superpowers at all, making Buffy look even more like the affirmative action hero he really was.
“For Buffy to be even remotely credible as a vampire slayer, she had to have superpowers.”
For the men to be credible, they’d have to have superpowers. They don’t.
If you didn’t notice, Giles spent most fights knocked unconscious, and Xander didn’t do a lot better. When she hadn’t developed any witchery, Xander and Willow spent the early episodes as bait.
@ Loftis When you have a point, you won’t need to reach so far or often.
I’ll give you the beginning of the series, but as it progressed, Giles and Xander didn’t need superpowers to save the day. Giles impressed with his fighting skills. Remember, early season 2 perhaps, when his old roommate showed up with Janus and we learned that Giles could fight? We didn’t go back to the helpless Watcher until Wesley arrived, and he didn’t remain helpless, either. And Zander’s coming of age episode when he averts the apocalypse by winning a deadly game of chicken with a bunch of zombie high schoolers who are going to blow up the school—that is one of my favorites. That Xander was a normal boy averting the apocalypse with nothing more than courage, that this is how one becomes a man, was the point of the episode. Xander didn’t play bait after that. In fact, his love and courage won again when, powerless, he saved the world from crazed and powerful Willow.
As for the far or often reaching, I don’t follow.
“when his old roommate showed up with Janus and we learned that Giles could fight?”
Against an old friend of equivalent ability.
“We didn’t go back to the helpless Watcher until Wesley arrived, and he didn’t remain helpless, either.”
No, but he did adopt black magic if I recall, he didn’t stay “plain Jane” either.
“And Zander’s coming of age…is one of my favorites.”
Mine too, but it didn’t showcase Xander’s fighting abilities as either day-in-day-out, or at much all.
“That Xander was a normal boy averting the apocalypse with nothing more than courage, that this is how one becomes a man, was the point of the episode.”
Yep, but it doesn’t support your thesis.
“Xander didn’t play bait after that.”
No, but he got hurt a lot and lost the eye.
“In fact, his love and courage won again when, powerless, he saved the world from crazed and powerful Willow.”
Which is a wonderful thing to see. In a fantasy. 9 times out of 10 or better, in the real world, the cannons are loaded with double cannister and the good guy gets spread over several square yards.
Which doesn’t support your thesis.
“As for the far or often reaching, I don’t follow.”
When he isn’t blinded by enthusiasm, Mr. Martin can get it quite right, I quote him here:
“Uh, so the point here is that these are bad role models for women because they don’t have to deal with being the “weaker sex”?”
A woman can be as brave as a man, but it is usually less smart.
Not always.
Usually.
My thesis is that we give superpowers to women not only so they can compete with men but also because we prefer heroines who compete according to men’s standards. The men aren’t directly on point, but that Xander and Giles are allowed to use violence or intellect and still be heroes without any superpower fictions underscores that Buffy requires superpowers to use violence successfully and if she only used courage and intellect, we’d likely consider her a weak heroine. (Ok that last bit is for next time.)
As for bravery, a woman can be as brave as a man, she must simply do it differently. A full frontal physical attack will rarely be our optimal option.
Did somebody forget that Buffy was originally intended as a spoof?
Don’t feel too bad if you didn’t realize that, millions of TV-watchers never caught on to that either and eventually the show’s writers just went with what the audience wanted to be spoon-fed. The whole Buffy phenomenon weirds me out, it’s as if people in the 1960s thought the main characters of Gilligan’s Island or Mr. Magoo were to be looked up to.
Brave leaves me scratching my head. I saw it in the theatre with my daughter. I’m not sure why I’m supposed to cheer the triumph of an immature future drunk (have you seen her dad?) buckle-bunny. Somebody, somewhere, has got to bear pregnancies. Who, exactly, is she going to shift this responsibility off to?
Second, she’s got her eyes on the big bodyguard. Any fleet reading of history- she’s just thrown eyes at a usurper. I am wondering how there are so many bandy-legged, ill-gotten lords of the realm. This is a fighting culture- supposedly Irish- who are famous for only desiring beautiful males.
Buffy. Meh. Kristy Swanson is Lassiter’s love interest on Psych, so at least the movie has a good outcome- Kristy Swanson is famous- ish! Enough to make it onto Psych, lame enough to not still have a big-screen career. Lassy needs love, too. Hot, fake vampire, fake nails-wearing, prison love, but still….
I’ll write more later- I had a post get eatne, and I’ve got an hour before the kids get home to get clean laundry into their drawers.
Yeah, Brave had many problems. Whenever someone gives a screenwriter a modern “moral” around which to create a story, characterization and plot logic suffer. They don’t create the world and the characters and then let them unfold. They steer them where they think they should go. Brave isn’t the worst example of this, but it certainly is an example.
In 1972, Congress passed Title 9 legislation. Title 9 or Title 10 provided for equal banking laws for women. Title 9 provided for equal sports facilities for women.
The supporters of Title 9 had to work to change the culture, mostly through women’s magazines, to force the idea that athletic women are desireable. Athletics during childhood shapes bones. Clothing patterns since the late 70′s have had to be re-drafted to incorporate broader shoulders, for instance. For the view of athletics before this, I’d reference a Dick Francis novel- a young character is disgusted by the new athletics director- “bosoms flopping everywhere.” Entire new types of clothing had to be created. The first jog-bra was made from two jockstraps sewn together.
So it’s not just that there’s a new range of heroines- the older types of heroines were necessarily silenced. Katniss’ mother can’t just be a mother- she has to be a failed, feminine mother. The nurturing sister has to die, too. By my count, the mother is a local healer, she freely chooses whom she marries. She raises resourceful young daughters. The one daughter heroically pledges her life to save the other daughter. The mother’s best friend is the town mayor’s wife. The mother is far more estimable than the callow young narrator can realize. Katniss could have conformed, escaped, not followed her own judgment. She had a role- model.
The author is disgraceful on so many other counts ( really-what sort of disaster wipes out every Bible in Appalachia, yet leaves WPA songs intact?) ( and why is NORAD a hive of com’nists?) ( and how do you have complex technology in an economically backward region? Even the Soviets couldn’t manage that feat) that I’m left wondering why on earth this book is a best-seller. Although, honestly, I liked the book better before I read an author interview.
With all the athletic heroines- they shout slogans and go on marches, and endure athletic contests- but I’m not seeing anyone who listens to anyone. I’m not sure how we are expected to run a complex, high-trust society when the only listeners are designated psychiatrists. I know it’s clever to list out advice from fifties dating manuals, as sort of a horror-show, but in the fifties, women were being trained to interview and listen to a great range of people. Not everyone speaks in executive summaries, so I’m thinking an entire skill set is being forgotten, one that most women were expected to be familiar with. I don’t know that it’s good to not have listening, at length, without expectation, generally spread throughout a society. A psychiatrist out to buy a coffee isn’t going to listen, deeply, to a quik-e-mart clerk when paying for that coffee.
Wasn’t title 9 a poison pill?
Today, the only acceptable female heroes are ‘kickass dames who are just as strong and violent as a man’ or sexy sidekicks of the male hero.
I like your mention of rape and pregnancy, by the way. Whatever the dreams of today, these are central to a woman’s life, in rejection or acceptance.
Have you ever seen “Westward the Women”? It’s a ’50′s flick, with Robert Taylor and a bunch of women trekking across the West to California. It’s kind of amazing and well worth a discussion for today. The only ‘off’ item I can cite is the Japanese character.
That very movie popped into my mind as well. Striking to me were the two gun-toting sharpshooters who ultimately engaged in a fistfight over a pair of broken glasses; definitely not too ladylike in the era the movie was produced. Robert Taylor’s character notes this fact as he admonishes Patience to let them “fight it out like a couple of “ladies.”
I’ve never heard of that movie but will check it out at first opportunity.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/01/16/re_the_creator_of_wonder_woma
nothing says hot, empowered female like bondage porn.
I was just discussing this with some Superman fans yesterday. One of the little ironies that I didn’t discuss in this piece was that Wonder Woman was created by a guy who was probably a submissive.
Nice article, my darling wife. The lefties will love it. I’m really looking forward to the Witness Protection program.
Uh, so the point here is that these are bad role models for women because they don’t have to deal with being the “weaker sex”?
Come again?
pretty much.
it’s sort of like having men in drag. It’s fine in the hands of Shakespeare- he’s got rounded characters all over the place. for the rest, not so much. that’s more ed gein/ norman bates territory. it gets old.
cinderella is not a sugar-floss story, all things considered. the young prince will get married on his father’s schedule, for the good of the kingdom. about the only choice he gets is whom he marries, among suitable girls in the kingdom. there aren’t any scullery maids from peasant families. cinderella herself is a child of the nobility or trades, being humiliated into service- but she’s not rented out to another family. It’s intra-family abjection. The king doesn’t want her for emotional solace only- he dreams of babies from whomever his son weds. he wants a walking incubator. he gets a walking incubator by forcing all the rest of the kingdom into line. the prince manages to maneuver in that environment.
Tangled, the adoptive mother isn’t all-out obvious evil. she’s manipulative. she’s aiming to keep the girl in sterile innocence. I think she’s more of the climate now. Cinderella was released around the start of the baby boom, right? That hunger made sense to the audience. Tangled is released into a world full of blended families, for generations. I think it makes sense now. I saw this in the theatre. Grown women were audibly sobbing during the step-mothers song. The distress….the catharsis when the candle kites floated across the sky- we’ve all heard lectures about catharsis from art- I was in the middle of it- I’ve never seen it from live theater.
I know my little girl was crying during Cinderella, when the sisters were ripping accessories off of her. She’s been calm during all other movies. For some reason- these ones capture lightning in a bottle.
Brave- no sweep. No magic. No catharsis. No audience anything. I was in a full theater. The big roller-coaster at the amusement park has more emotional effect than this movie. The audience was not swept anywhere.
There are feminine skills that are called “wiles” when they get mentioned or known at all. It’s sort of invisible territory for women who are committed to the manly arts of corporate ass-kicking. There really can be a different rhythm to a conversation among femme-y women, than otherwise. All sorts of people rely on this. Like, the kitchen at VBS. There are women who show up for it every year. The conversation, there are pauses after they say something. Then there’s a pause while other women wait for her to continue with a slightly different observation, or someone mirrors back a leading phrase or word, so there’s a more complete picture of what she’s noticing and sharing.
A working mom taking time off from her job to volunteer will usually jump in at that pause, to say something from her job. She won’t reflect back, or pause. I’ve been watching this happen for nearly a decade. The working mom will then get the mirror treatment- the phrase and pause routine, and she’ll expand what she’s said. She’ll walk off feeling expansive, that she’s schooled these other women on some brilliant fact or another, but if you look at the faces of the more femme-ish women, they’re faces are pinched, and there’s some fleeting look of frustration. They don’t seek out that other woman on the days following to talk.
By the end of the week, the working moms will all be talking to each other, and the more stay at home-ish ones will be talking to each other. The conversations will have different rhythms. The working moms will go over to talk to the quieter, reflective, listener- based ones, like a rock thrown into water, but the water group really will not go talk to the more self-centered, louder, not-reflective ones.
And then, the following year: the reflective ones will mention stuff from what they heard last year, while the more masculine ones will be saying ” I didn’t know that about you” to each other, when they start talking again.
It’s been really consistent, for years, across different jobs. I’m describing the VBS crew, b/c it is so pointed and obvious, even among women who are trying to stay on good terms with each other.
When some corporate hero says his wife is his secret weapon, his best friend, and we don’t see a photo of her- I know I’m looking at a man who’s got a woman listening to him, and that she’s a private reserve for him alone. That he might not know exactly what she’s doing, but whatever it is, for him it’s valuable.
Were that guy to get divorced and wed a flashier, more public woman, he usually sounds happier at first- but then he gets angrier and angrier at everyone. I’d put Stephen Hawking in that group, possibly Jack Welch. Maybe not JW. He’s pretty tone-deaf to men and women. He’s definitely tone-deaf to what might be real or not- he believed the Enron reports, and fired competent managers, b/c he couldn’t suss out that they were lying.
It’s not exactly describable- it’s not necessarily makeup, or heels, or dresses. We’ve all met aggressive, manipulative pushy women in heels and war-paint. It’s a willingness to listen, and reflect, and empathize, not in a clinical fashion, but in a general, across the board, everyone fashion. Psychiatrists have managed to medicalize and monetize it- so we know it’s valuable, but they also aren’t dealing with, say, the cafeteria lady, or the quik-e-mart clerk, or the pizza-baker. I’ve had vintage magazines, from when women started being pushed into climbing the corporate ladder. The women around them were saying these women were harder, their faces were harder- they weren’t the types that people confided in. I know it’s a trope in business articles- “the boss cares”- but notice how everyone is so surprised, time after time: ” I was in tears. She locked the door and listened to me. I was so surprised…..” Why?
What, are you still oblivious to the physiological effects of testosterone? There’s a reason we have separate athletic competitions for men and women. It’s because men have a permanent and distinct advantage: testosterone. It’s a powerful growth hormone. It changes the way men see (its been proven that men see movement better than women, and that men and women see colors differently). Judging spatial relationships, seeing movement well, and being strong are all traits that lend themselves to throwing rocks and spears at prey and taking out threats.
Ever notice how people let girl-vs-girl fights go on much longer than guy-vs-guy? Yeah, that’s because it will take longer for any damage to be done in the girlfight.
Then there’s the ways in which men and women problem-solve differently. In my observation, when presented with an immediate problem, men tend to tackle them alone. Unless an extra pair of hands is absolutely necessary, men tend to solve problems solo. Women, on the other hand, tend to network and gather groups or teams to solve problems. Example: at school, virtually all of the guys I knew, myself included, would almost always study or do homework alone. Virtually all of the girls I knew, my girlfriend included, would almost always study in groups.
These differences do not mean women are the inferior sex. They are just the weaker sex. And men being the stronger sex comes with opportunity costs. For one, we lack the ability to pay attention to multiple conversations (generally speaking).
I really wish people would stop behaving as if women and men are identical in physical abilities, because they’re not. The different strengths of men and women are complementary. Men hunt, women gather. Women nurture, men protect.
“I really wish people would stop behaving as if women and men are identical in physical abilities, because they’re not. The different strengths of men and women are complementary. Men hunt, women gather. Women nurture, men protect.”
I wonder if our society will ever get back to the point that it sees this statement as the truth rather than a “sexist” remark only worthy of dismissal? Why is it that we must struggle so much against the natural forces of human nature?
Sexism and feminism have become political issues. Don’t ever vote for that evil political party that makes “war on women”, that wants to keep women under-payed, always pregnant, chained to beds or kitchens and forced to care for a house full of unwanted children.
In order for any political party to “keep women underpaid”, women would have to be underpaid in the first place. The premise of your hysteria is a fallacy in the first place – women are not underpaid. You cannot compare the wages of women who took years off to raise children to the wages of men who did not. You can only compare the wages of women who have worked continuously to the wages of men who have worked continuously. Additionally, you cannot compare the salaries of men to the salaries of women when they have tendencies to work drastically different hours. When women go to work while still raising a family, they tend not to give up housekeeping or child-rearing duties to their husband. Instead, they tend to maintain all of those duties themselves in addition to working – so they end up limiting the amount of time they spend at the office. Men, on the other hand, tend to be able to spend more time at the office, especially married men. Women will also trade increased flexibility in their job for compensation, to better allow them to take care of their families. Women also tend to choose professions that have a lesser rate of obsolescence – example: computer engineering. Highly technical and quickly-evolving fields like computer engineering require constant and ceaseless professional development and training. Taking several years off in such a field will set you back years and will reduce your earnings potential. This is not some function of sexism – it is a function of reality. Employers in these fields need employees who are up-to-date on the absolute latest technologies. Women tend not to choose these professions.
Men and women have different goals in work. You cannot divide the workforce into men and women and then compare compensation. There are far more factors at work than just possessing a job and showing up to work it. Hours worked, continuous employment, technical nature of the job, scarcity of a given skill set, rate of obsolescence, etc. all determine compensation. And these factors vary between men and women. If you can’t handle this truth and find the observation of it offensive, then perhaps you’re not mature enough to engage in these discussions.
One last tidbit. I read about a study done a while back where some biologists were working with male and female monkeys. The goal of the study was to aid in understanding whether male and female behavioral traits and preferences in human children were innate from birth or imprinted through experience. It is nearly impossible to determine this by studying human babies, because it is impossible to ethically isolate the children from the people interaction that influences them. So they took a population of monkeys and performed various tests where they would insert different objects, toys in this case, into their habitat and then observe them. They found that a strong pattern emerged. When they’d insert a Tonka truck, the male monkeys possessed a deep interest in said truck, but the females did not. When they’d insert a doll, complete with pink and blue trimmings, the female monkeys would demonstrate a strong interest in them, but the male monkeys did not. They determined that there are innate hormone-induced preference patterns that develop in the primate mind, patterns that differ between males and females. In short, contrary to the asinine assertions of modern liberals that “gender identity is artificially imposed by society”, there are in fact sets of behavioral tendencies that are distinctly masculine or feminine.
The quixotic search for a grrl power heroine who isn’t extremely de-feminized seems to be getting further from the mark, rather than closer.
I liked the depiction of Hermoine Granger and thought it was honest. Many fans were disappointed when Harry Potter ended up with the very feminine Ginny Weasley (Ginny from the book, I’m not familiar with movie Ginny) rather than Hermoine, but Rowling was being honest about the kind of woman a hero wants. Hermoine’s man ended up being the weak, wimpy sidekick. There are tradeoffs for strong, powerful women, the biggest of which is they aren’t going to get the strong powerful man. Might as well face reality.
To my observation, Merida from Brave hasn’t struck a chord with young girls the way Bella Swan has. Bella seems to have a damsel in distress thing going on. She’s the anti-Scarlet O’hara. We’ve gone from belle to bella, and I think that’s a good thing.
Ron Weasley wasn’t weak and wimpy! He’s not the chosen one and doesn’t have the moral center that Harry does, but that’s a tough comparison.
As for Bella and Scarlet, Scarlet was a selfish b**ch. She did things for others when it served her purposes and totally had the damsel in distress thing down for all but Rhett. She married men for money and revenge. Also, Bella faced more immediate and proximate physical danger from beings standing next to her. Scarlet certainly faced danger, usually ran to Rhett when it got close. It is a good, but complicated comparison because of the perils they faced.
Great, now I’m going to think about Balla and Scarlet while my friends get married tonight.
Genetically, Hermione with Ron and Ginnie with Harry makes more sense in the wizarding world. And I’m certain this would come into play in their mate selections. Harry has muggle grandparents, Hemione muggle parents. There is no explanation in the books of dominant/recessive genes, but it seems that a Harry/Hermione pairing is much more likely to have muggle offspring then either one with a Weasley, a family that has been wizard for generations past. And, when push comes to shove, both Ron and Ginnie come through in the clutch. The Wesleys, all of them, are solid bedrock citizens, the ones who keep the community going. They don’t take the lead, but neither do they shrink from their duty when called.
Of course, they are fictional, so we can ascribe any details to them we want…
“Apparently, Merida’s heroism lies in her acceptance of a forced marriage.”
I got that it was rooted in acquiring a distasteful appreciation for political reality–because she could unite the island, and the likely results of her not–she should do it.
Maybe it is because I’m male, that I saw the forced marriage to one of the princes (but open to her choice at the end of Brave) as being a good thing for Merida to do. But then maybe doing things because they are forced upon you is something men do and not women. Or maybe the author’s point was that femanizm says ‘be you’ and how is Merida being her if she is force to pick from one of the 3.
In the times of Brave (or Cinderella’s) setting, war for rule was common and more so when the heir to the throne was in doubt. Acceptable heirs were very important to avoid war (see Norman invassion 1066 for one case of this, War of the Roses for a 2nd). I realize for noblity this makes women’s role to be mother the most important, but perhaps it is.
I hated Brave as well. I didn’t want her marrying any of those boys any more than she did, but for the mature reasons of wanting a man who could rule as a strong laird. I didn’t walk away thinking she got to choose one of the boys, because part of the reason the proposed marriage fell apart was because the boys decided they didn’t want it either, so the parents were emasculated by their children, charming.
The lack of a prince also leaves my traditional heart unsatisfied. I thought a better end would have been Mordu turned into a human, learned his lesson, and the two fall in love. As was pointed out, the “happy” ending can’t be happily ever after.
As for the others: I don’t mind a woman with superpowers who can kick butt. That’s my fantasy, but by pointing out it’s a fantasy it acknowledges the inherent disadvantage a female has physically. Though I agree that it would be nice to see the female power of networking and social/intellectual skills save the day occasionally too, rather than just portray the drawbacks of the mean girls and cat fights.
I don’t mind a woman with superpowers either. I mind when we don’t acknowledge the fantasy, we don’t extrapolate why the fantasy was needed and what it means for our practical lives. For instance, Malfoy didn’t run away because Hermione hit him but because he was afraid of her wand. That is, Hermione didn’t get a black eye herself because she threw that punch while armed. But we prefer to ignore that politically incorrect analogy. Guns are the inelegant weapon of lesser men. Only Princesses Allura and Leia in my coming list about the underrated heroines use guns. Buffy had a long running theme against guns. Wonder Woman got around it with the bracelets and ‘only women can use guns without loss of life’ nonsense. We dream of parity with men, but shun ways we could actually attain it. We naively cheer the flashy punch that shows some attitude—feminist heroine boards are full of praise for attitude. That is what’s wrong with all the superpower stuff, not that it shows women as heroes—that’s actually great—but that we see those powers as evidence of spunk, as if that were sufficient for safety and success.
There are many examples of females using social/intellectual skills but they are relatively unsung because they don’t act like men. Take Hermione again. She saves the day with serious intellectual skills, but if they hadn’t made that change in the story, I’d bet we would have heard how she’s a failed female role model because she fits the bossy and whiny stereotype for female characters.
Some heroines do use their “social/intellectual skills” to save the day, but we don’t love them as much because they don’t throw punches. I originally conceived this post as a complaint against the maligned Bella Swan, who feminists should at least recognize is their ideal of passive, compassionate power that saves the day. But they hate her. Yet, for every complaint of weakness on Bella’s part, I can name an equal or worse offense on Buffy’s part. Bella pined for her lost boyfriend and only went through the motions of life? Buffy ran away from home for months and lived as the anonymous Anne. When she finally returned, she pined for the vanquished Angel. Then when he returned, she hid him and lied to her friends who he had tortured. Bella was willing to have sex with a creepy vampire who bruised her? First, after the mega hit of the Fifty Shades bondage and discipline knockoff of Twilight, complaints that Bella is weak because she likes rough sex are…problematic. Second, Buffy had sex with two vampires. One of them tried to rape her and she still returned to his bed.
Buffy gets a pass on all of this because she is a tough, manly girl.
lmao
Honestly, I don’t get all the Brave hate in the comments (or the post). I rather enjoyed Brave. This is what I got out of it (aside from the magnificent animation, voice acting, and music):
Brave is about a spoiled brat princess that doesn’t realize that her position and life of ease (going riding for fun, not starving, not being a scullery maid) also comes with responsibilities, one of which being an arranged marriage. When the time arrives, she throws a tantrum and bails. She refuses to see that she is the cause of most of her troubles, including that of her mother being transformed into a bear due to Merida’s selfishness. As the movie progresses, Merida actually grows by realizing that her actions have consequences (like starting a war or destroying the relationship with her mother) and that she is responsible for repairing the damage she caused.
Honestly, the part that bothered me the most in the movie was the relationship between her parents. They come across like the king is rather an idiot who would let the kingdom dissolve into drunken war if his wife wasn’t there to control him. If that’s the case, how did a man like that unite the clans in the first place (unless, of course, he united them in drunken warfare against someone else). I get so tired of the modern trope of the irresponsible male buffoon who is only good for flexing his muscles when his much more intelligent and mature wife/girlfriend tells him to.
I’m with you on Brave. The princess is not a hero. Here all-to-realistic attitude of entitlement to her privilege makes her the problem.
What is heroic is her humility in recognizing her problem and fixing it.
Ms. Loftus here ignores the most important thing about Buffy. A woman empowered … will only have the most Alpha of men. And nothing really else matters about the man. Character, decency, reliability, anything but the sexy domination.
Buffy spent most of her 7 years on TV pursuing and screwing dangerous bad boy vampires. She’s Bella Swan only with powers from the start. Angel might as well be Edward Cullen, only with a sadistic streak a mile wide. After “Spike” the second line sexy vampire raped her, Buffy loved him even more. Meanwhile every woman in the Buffy-verse found Giles and Xander, beta males without powers, without sexiness, without domination, completely irrelevant if not sexless.
All those girls trying to kill Xander (Faith, Anya, demon chicks galore?) It is because as a guy who lacks dominance and power, he’s literally sexless and worthless.
Give women power, and they find only the most dominant, and dangerous, and sadistic of men attractive. What’s notable about both Buffy and Faith, is that Spike’s words to Buffy that she needed a “monster in her man” was spot-on.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer was a fun show with pop culture dialog, lots of action, good acting, and various jokes along the way. But it was just a more well-written Twilight. All Buffy wanted was domination from a sexy vampire.
And it reflects reality in a way. The world belongs to a few sexy women, various lesbians, and a few dominant, powerful, sadistic sexy men. EVERYONE ELSE is a bit-player in this corrupt, decadent, and debased society. By telling women lies they want to hear, and nothing more, Buffy like Twilight made society worse not better, by increasing the corruption, decadence, and degradation inherent in a society run by the rules encapsulated in both.
Another whack at Twilight! and Bella!
Well, I have actually read the Twilight trilogy, and I know that Bella is the center and prime mover of the story. It is HER quest. She knows what she wants from the beginning (Edward is definitely not sure about that); and in the final book, she insists, against the wishes and anger of everyone around her (except Rosalie) upon bearing that child to term, even as it is killing her. And it is her particular power – a shield – that protects her allies, that in the end, beats the Volturi.
And, as she notes, she has never been particularly outstanding as a girl. Nobody every gave someone a prize for reading books, for example. She is not athletic, and not particularly intelligent. She is just completely strong minded and determined.
I wouldn’t worry about whiskey tooo much. He skeeves off even the most repellent manosphere bloggers.
Seriously, do you look around and see a world of lesbians an Iditarod- winning sled dogs? His ravings about race, fidelity, and anything else would pretty muchhave you Lysoling the front porch he n, since he surely does not rate inviting into the house. Yu
“Buffy spent most of her 7 years on TV pursuing and screwing dangerous bad boy vampires. ”
Silly and glib. Buffy fell in love with one vampire in the first two seasons primarily because he was sweet and caring. When he turned cruel and evil, she set out to kill him. And she did kill him, even after he’d reverted to sweet and caring. She had a sexual relationship with Spike (one of the most interesting male-female dynamics in television history) during a depressed and self-degrading stretch. Recovering her self-respect, she set him packing.
“After “Spike” the second line sexy vampire raped her, Buffy loved him even more.”
False. First, he tried to rape her. Secondly, she despised him. It was only after he left to restore his soul — out of his love for her — and returned a changed man that she began to recognize the value in his character. She also, like a good leader, recognized and appreciated his warrior skills.
“Meanwhile every woman in the Buffy-verse found Giles and Xander, beta males without powers, without sexiness, without domination, completely irrelevant if not sexless.”
False. Cordelia loved Xander. Willow loved Xander. Anya loved Xander. Jenny, the sexy gypsy computer teacher, loved Giles. And Olivia, the sexy Brit, loved Giles.
“All those girls trying to kill Xander (Faith, Anya, demon chicks galore?) It is because as a guy who lacks dominance and power, he’s literally sexless and worthless.”
Faith tried to kill Xander to get back at Buffy. But Faith had contempt for almost all men. And Anya wanted to kll Xander only after he jilted her. Hardly a reflection on his sexlessness or worthlessness.
“What’s notable about both Buffy and Faith, is that Spike’s words to Buffy that she needed a “monster in her man” was spot-on.”
You’re mistaking the process of storytelling and character growth with character. Buffy wrestled with the darkness inside her, and at times a pull toward darker men. But this is a characteristic or susceptibility of many people at different times in their lives. Spike was wrong, ultimately. In the end, she wanted strength, decency and vitality.
And to add to the point about Spike not raping Buffy, couldn’t it be said she was raping him? Spike had genuine feeling for her, both before and after getting his soul back. Spike wasa poet and something of a wimp in his human life, making him a sensitive man who was turned into a monster and eventually reclaimed himself (somewhat). Buffy ruthlessly manipulated him for violent sex in season six, as a way to get over the events of her death. Doesn’t that count as rape? Doesn’t that make her the offending party in that relationship?
Not by fear is the prophet moved, but by the will of the Gods in heaven
O American women, none shall hear thy stories or excuses proven
What shall now happen, must happen
Wait not for Troya to fall, for she hath fallen
Assert not thy will in these days o American women, stay low!
For the Gods hath patiently waited long, to enjoy this coming show
Only the king and prophet ruleth thy nation in the last days, let thy men know
If Troya hath fallen for her sins, then so too thy city the same fate follow
O American women, set not a trap for thy prophet, for he knowth better
Know thee, Gods game we play and not a personal matter
This even a soldier tellth you, true safety only in the lap of his mother
Like all sinful nations, Troya too must fall at the hands of the victor
“American Woman”…stay away from me/ American woman , mama let me be. Is that you Burton Cummings?
Hey Prophet, you’re really a loss
Seems the Female Eunuch has now grown herself a handsome pair. Gals are on the rise; men, otherwise. Mother nature, however, is not amused, and will make her wrath known in sundry unforeseen ways.
Nothing will take me out of suspension of disbelief faster than the woman action hero. At least Wonder Woman and some of the others have some kind of super powers to account for their abilities. The Angelina Jolie type movies were a 110 lb woman runs around beating up men twice her size is too far from reality for me.
Old Soldier — I hear that loud and clear. I pity the fools who take “Nikita” in any way seriously.
Yeah, watching stuntmen let the female win is rather boring…
A realistic female super spy would have to rely almost entirely on stealth and tools to get the job done. Or on her feminine wiles (See: most Bond girls)
This author has overrated analytic skills: There are two flaws with her claims:
1. Merrida is a hero, not because of unruly ways and desire to be free, etc. She is a hero because of the inner strength she finds to overcome extreme adversity, save her brothers and mother, and exhibit the problem solving skills required of a future queen. And she doen’t have to chosose which one of the three suitors. I think the movie plainly makes it clear that she (and the others) are all free to chose from all possible suitors.
2. Wonder Woman is not overrated. She has a friggin Invisible Plane and can deflect bullets!! She has strength on par with Superman, is the daughrter of Zeus, and can kick the stuffing out of anyone. She’ll risk all for everyone and has gone to the depths of hell itself to serve justice. Did I mention she has her own Invisible JET PLANE?
Keep up with the genre.
And if you want an underrated hero…One who is resilient, intelligent, decisive, and triumphant… I offer up Elasti-Girl (Elasti-Woman?). Mrs Incredible is exactly that — totally incredible. Just look at how she deals with being blown out of the sky by saving her kids, calming them down, and then taking them to shore. She takes charge, gives direction and then heads off to save the day and the world — she is a real leader as well as a a hero.
Nuff Said.
Anakin Skywalker found inner strength to overcome adversity, too. (My word, what a buzzphrase THAT is…I’m sure half of all motivational posters depict something to that effect). And he became Darth Vader.
I don’t really know anything about any of these heroines except names (Katniss? what was Dogbreath already taken?) but if the choice is between them or Lindsay Lohan, Madonna,Britney Spears and Paris Hilton as role models for young girls;they can’t be all bad.
True, Buffy had steamy sex with two good vampires; but they were good vampires who had actual personalities (in Spike’s case, a little too much personality for anybody’s good).
I thought Hermione Grainger was not all that likeable at first. In the first film or two, she actually CORRECTED Ron Weasley as if she were his teacher,or something, and kept showing off in class how well prepared and advanced ahead of the others she was. A BASIC notion for getting along with the males, if you are a female, is NEVER EVER correct them or even help them UNLESS they ASK you. It’s a male ego kind of thing,which drives feminists up the wall, but men do HAVE an ego, and relationships with them go GREAT as long as you let them retain it undamaged. Ron resented her for awhile because of her behavior,which came across often as haughtiness, and then SHE runs off crying when HE is rude. Go ahead and be smarter than the guy if you can, but NEVER EVER make a PARADE of it or make him look dumb in front of other people. And I am saying this who have been told how much smarter than most women I am.
You belong in graduate school. There you’ll find men who enjoy smart women.
G.I. Jane
I figure there’s got to be a Ramboess right around the corner.
Strange how we have to create heroines, I guess that term can still be used, in order to demonstrate the power and influence a woman actually wields over a man when one stops and really thinks about it.
My parents were the typical couple who had a tough life raising five children but all through their marriage, my mother was more than a role model and an independent feminist in the truest sense of the definition of a feminist. She was an equal to my father and they stood shoulder to shoulder through life. They worked as a team, neither one dominating over the other. She gave as good as she got and vice versa.
When anyone wronged her, she didn’t run to my father for protection, she stood her ground with the support of my father. If it ever got to the point where it could have turned into something other than a verbal confrontation, then my father entered the picture because she recognized the fact that she was not as physically strong as my father. In turn, if the situation needed a more feminine touch to resolve, my father would call on my mother.
In our home, we didn’t need a figment of a writer’s imagination to know what a strong, independent, and equal example of a female who was an equal in her own way to any man. She recognized the difference and understood that she had a role and so did my father.
In other areas, my mother was much better at fishing than my father. She could catch the largest flounder in the Inland Waterway while my father would end up with a toad fish on his hook. My father could cook a steak that would rival anything you could order in a quality restaurant but my mother never got it quite right.
When we force an unrealistic image on either gender that is in direct conflict with our natural instincts that have been with us since the first humans became aware of the differences, we lose an important part of who we are.
I celebrate the differences.
There is nothing more infuriating to an ambitious student than not being able exercise his/her intellect. Hermione starts school as a pre-pubescent female. She should genuflect before the genius of Crabbe and Goyle? Much less Potter, the admittedly sloppy student?
Hermione uses her brain. Do we ask Harry to not play Quidditch?He’s obviously better at it than anyone.
I marvel at what women have allowed the pop culture do to them. The media role models today are all clichès. I suppose they must be to appeal to the lowest common denominated. Role models for men aren’t any better.
should read: lowest common denominator
Ginny weasley..femme? She is younger the. n Harry Hermione and Ron..so in the beginning of the story they all try to protect her. As ginny grows up she becomes an effective quidditch player joins in fighting voldemort and his followers and is strong enough to let Harry go off to fight voldemort with no whining or clinging. No girl who has survived Fred and George for older brothers could ever be a wimp!
Women are more likely to want peace then men because the enemy is more dangerous to men than to women. When the enemy overruns you, the men get slaughtered but the women just get raped (it is “just get raped” when compared to getting killed – the proof against a rhetorical “rape is as bad as death” is that women routinely submit to rape when threatened with death as the alternative).
Were I to play the same kind of word games as the left does with multiculturalism/tribalism/racism and patriotism/constitutionalism/white racism, I could improve the difference to “men get slaughtered and women get babies” and further to “men get slaughtered and women get … new husbands”.
Yes, women get killed in war too, and they get killed after being raped, but the fact is, the enemy is more dangerous to men than to women.
Oh goody, women “just get raped” and then killed, and you trivilise rape. What a man, protecting the “different but equal” women!!
It’s not a competition. Men get killed and women get killed, sometimes they all get raped – yeah, men aren’t always let off that easy you know!!
What a joke guys like you are. Can’t even argue properly, just assert that pathetic ego and expect us to take it seriously.
You just trivialized men getting killed. For that you get another feminist gold star.
When a female gets raped by a conqueror, there’s a small chance she’ll bear offspring – and when the female later throws herself hypergamously at her conqueror there’s an even greater chance of offspring. In contrast, her counterpart male is almost certainly dead and totally certainly has no offspring by his conqueror. With a little thought, one can deduce the evolutionary effect of this selection process. (Or one can wait for the answer in my next sentence.)
Thus, females evolve a more passive strategy when confronted by potential conquerors than do males. Don’t hate YKW because he’s more beautifully correct than you.
YKW is pretty much historically correct. The Mongols, for example: in the 13th century, any city in the path of the Mongols had a choice either to surrender or be annihilated. Some fought and, for the most part, they died, horribly in many cases. Baghdad was completely razed and its inhabitants slaughtered. So was the city of Kiev — even the Mongols themselves called Kiev “the city of tears.”
Those who surrendered faced enslavement. The skilled artisans were often shipped as slaves back to Karakorum, the Mongol capital; the unskilled might be conscripted in the army, but often were simply killed — anyone who could have been perceived as a threat. The nubile women, on the other hand, were also shipped back as slaves, but slaves of a different sort — more or less for the Khan’s pleasure.
For those who prefer living to dying under such circumstances, better to have been a nice-looking, nubile woman.
Fooey. Female heroes, super or not, are a good thing. Their pattern of weaknesses and strengths is what makes the story interesting.
This article brings to mind a Marvel comics story line, where Thor chides Loki for his cowardice, and Loki taunts Thor that Thor is the hero only because he is so strong and hard to hurt. Without all that power, Thor would be, Loki contends, as ordinary and cowardly as other beings, such as for example, himself. (Loki has magical powers, not physical power, nor invulnerability.)
Over the course of the story, they wind up in a place where neither of them have their ordinary powers, and despite continual sniping from Loki, Thor winds up using his very limited resources to barely rescue both himself and his irritating brother. On that day, a whole lot less strength happened to be enough, and although Thor originally was struck and hurt by Loki’s verbal jabs, in the end he has peace of mind, for it is not the advantages that a person has that make a hero, but the uses he makes of those advantages.
The notion of heroism expands our idea of what we, ourselves, can accomplish. It’s a way of helping us break our own internal barriers, because it gets us to think beyond what we know we can do.
I think Trinity from the Matrix was the best representation of strong heroic woman that I ever saw. She had theoretical powers and skills that came from a simulated world where everyone is essentially on equal grounds so no need to exaggerate the strengths of woman. She was also womanly and nurturing of Neo. She also didn’t have exaggerated sex appeal, she was an average looking woman. The stereotype when she first met Neo as a “kickass independent woymn” normally would have been her being cold towards him as he acts incompetent and useless without her help and she eventually warms up to him after he nearly dies saving her. It was nothing like that which was refreshing. She was warm and helpful towards him from the start. They both got into problems and both saved each other. No one was above the other. You don’t see that anymore. People are too afraid to write a minority character (woman, gay, black) that isn’t over exaggerated in their strengths and intelligence. They are terrifying of appearing bigoted. Yet they say conservatives hold back change and free speech.
I watched Ripley kick alien butt for four movies and was inspired at her toughness and ability to handle a weapon or a walking forklift.
Then, I saw the film made to show how Aliens was made, the one Ripley out fought the colonial Marines in.
I saw the actress Sigourney Weaver being coached to handle the movie prop weapon and when she stopped acting she was in a big hurry to give that weapon back and then after the Gun prop guy took the weapon, I saw Ripley shaking her hands and dancing a little dance of fear as she jumped away from the space gun.
She wasn’t Ripley alien killer then. She looked and acted like a woman who had just picked up a frog or saw a mouse.
Busted my bubble.
that’s funny
Carrie Fisher had a similar problem in Return of the Jedi. When she had to shoot the storm troopers behind Han at the bunker, she was so out off by the gun, she kept flinching when she fired and it looked like smiling on film. The had to do a bunch of takes.
Clearly, you understand almost nothing about men including what men consider heroic.
“You”? Whozzat Ozzy?
I also disagree about Buffy. She acts feminine…often. Lord have mercy, but season 2 is just one big cry-fest. And, after their mother dies, she’s thrown into the role of mother for Dawn, even once having to tangle with child protective services. And there’s that Halloween episode where she chose a medieval maiden costume, because she wanted the chance to be “girly”, since her “job” took that away from her most of the time. On top of that, one of her main obsessions is “boys”. And, with weapons, any woman can do more than subdue powerful men. Weapons equalize – that’s the point of weapons. You probably shouldn’t be doing construction work, though…which is something Buffy DID do once.
By the way, Bella is not just wimpier than heroes, she spends the entire series thinking of only herself, manipulating two men and turning them against each other, whining constantly, and never learning that her self-absorbed behavior is anything other than completely normal and acceptable.
On another note, allow me to posit the greatest female role model in pop culture:
Mrs. Brisbee (Frisbee in the book) from The Secret of NIMH. She risks her life over and over again just to save her child with pneumonia, save her children from the plow, and then activates that magic medallion to save her children from drowning in the mud. Sure, it takes the medallion for her to lift her home, but she didn’t need it to go see the Great Owl, who might have eaten her. All she needed, then, was the love of a mother for her children.
Here! Here! for Mrs. Brisbee!
Okay, here’s what perplexes me about Brave: In a Disney film, we expect the main character to grow up,to solve a problem. Secondary characters get a smaller dose of growth.
in Brave, the first conflict is that immature Merida chases will o the wisps, and attracts abear. Her father pledges his life for her iin a desperate fight,and gets mutilated for his troubles.
The next conflict, Merida runs off, her mother ends up pledged-she surely did not wish to be a bear, and nearly loses her life to the bear in a desperate fight.
Then what? Merida has proven she’s young, self- centered, immature, future slutty (she makes eyesat the bodyguard) and what,needs more time to grow? Does she need to head to Occupy, or get insurance til she’s 26, or some such?
W
What happens next time she meets a willothewisp? Her brothers get poisoned? It turns out she meets a hottie named Macbeth? Poisoning her mother on the say-so of a stranger????? I’m a mom. Why should I cheer?
No problems get solved. None. The immortal bear dies. Possibly her mother could live for millenia as a accursed bear. Merida could, technically, keep her mother as a long-lasting totem bear. The old enchanter has not been judged,sentenced,found guikty, sent away. Nothing.
The enchanter could come back next generation, or even later, after another family fight, and successfully tempt to chaos again.
And,dude, the dad is more emotionally aware than the mom. And guys learn teamwork in sports. Guys
Regarding your “teamwork” reference, I’ve just had an epiphany…
Guys engage in teamwork because teamwork is a method of leveraging the individual strengths within a group into dominating an opposing group. It’s still about becoming top dog, just in a small collective form. The end goal is domination – the teamwork is a means of getting there.
Girls engage in teamwork for the sake of the teamwork itself, for the gratification of working with other people. The end goal is often times secondary to the process of working as a team.
I think this difference, combined with differences in problem-solving strategies, is why women get so upset when their man listens to the problems of the day and then promptly starts giving advice for how to solve those problems. When a man goes to another man to talk about a problem, it is for the purpose of finding a solution. When a woman goes to another woman to talk about a problem, it is to seek comfort.
(Also, ladies, if you’d like to take advantage of your man’s obsession with crisis-solving, simply pose each task you’d like accomplished as a crisis that needs solving. Out of milk? Don’t nag your man to go pick up some milk at the store. Simply exclaim “Oh no! We’re out of milk! Now I’ll never be able to finish baking this cake!” and your man will promptly jump in the crisis-solving mobile to go capture a wild jug of milk.)
Am I off the mark or no?
And to be clear, we men do not mind being manipulated in this manner. In fact, it is in our blood to slay dragons for our ladies. When teenage boys show off for girls, they are in fact attempting to demonstrate their ability to solve crises – to slay dragons.
We men are more than happy to slay your dragons, especially when there’s sweet potato pie waiting for us when we get back.
Two words: pecking order. Women absolutely use groups to establish hierarchy and maintain order. They might (*might*) do so in a more subtle way than a group of men would, but it is still happening.
I am just really going to guess that you are in a dating relationship? In your twenties? There is a world, a solar-system world of difference between the girls that marry, and the wandering tribes of pathetic clueless you seem to be documenting.
I expect my husband to solve a problem, if I bring that problem up to him. I ask him to do something, and wait for the gears to grind on “when” and “how” and “is it feasible?” If it is, I get a yes. I don’t bring up problems unless I want them solved. I solve them, otherwise. He’s busy. We have kids- they have friends- we’re the cowboys outnumbered by the Indians. I don’t have time to have an emotional meltdown, or even, at times, a complete sentence.
There are girls who are desperately mistaken about what guys are good for. And guys who aren’t clued up. They aren’t getting married. Ever. It’s documented. Some crazy rate of not-marriage in socially liberal circles. If they do marry, it’s just painful and awkward until they divorce. Then they start writing books about the crisis in male/female relationships.
One of my duties in our partnership is to make sure we have enough bread, milk, eggs, coffee, half and half, lunchmeat, and produce for the next day’s breakfasts and lunches (dinner can be dealt with during the day). I would never begin a recipe that involved milk unless I not only had enough milk to complete the recipe, but also enough milk for the following morning’s six bowls of cereal. I kind of get your point (chiming in with Ari, though, you have a two-dimensional, immature understanding of women) but it’s a really bad example. My husband would think my “incompetent female” act was hilarious.
In defense of Studious Citizen, I think he’s just making a point with a bit of humor. Having intended to make lighthearted comment and not having it received that way myself, I emphasize. Also, the solve or listen question caused many misunderstandings early on in this household, so we turned it into a joke. Sometimes at the end of a description, my husband will ask, “Solve or listen?” Then I’ll tell him which I want at the moment and he will oblige. Or I’ll preface my description with “I’ve got a problem for you to solve…” and he then sits up with rapt attention. We snicker and then get to the problem.
This continues to leave me confounded about feminism both as a concept and as a goal. My life’s experience has led me to conclude that women want equality when it is convenient and preferential treatment when it suits them. However, I am willing to be enlightened, if that is possible.
I’ve observed the same.
Are there any true, real life female heroes left? The only one I am aware of was murdered south of the border a little whole ago. Women should probably try to emulate that lady, as we men should also.
Pamela Geller.
Wafa Sultan.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Just the first three that came to mind.
Here’s one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BD7CYLTndk
I found Hermione to be a very positive character. The target for brainy/not brawny girls. Similarly, albeit conversely, Katniss was the model for physically adept non-genius girls.
The relative lack of a great deal of sexual psychodrama in Hunger Games made some sense given the circumstances of the story. And Katniss was a pretty credibly drawn picture of a dirt poor Appleachian young woman in those circumstances. That rape wasn’t a part of the Games made sense too (the male contestants would want to make their kills quick and not spend much time with their pants down – someone else would kill them while enflagrante delecto). The story ultimately had a background thread of the winning tributes (male and female) being sexually abused by the Capitol elites.
Speaking of being attacked whilst in flagrante delicto…
http://www.cracked.com/article_19711_the-7-worst-sex-lives-in-animal-kingdom.html
See: Rhesus Macaque
Don’t overlook what might be called the “video game” aspect of male and female talents. You have one group of 10 individuals versus another group of 10 individuals. Someone in the first group takes on the male role, eliminating or otherwise overpowering someone in the second. We now have 10 on one side and 9 on the other. Now suppose someone in the first group plays a female role, seducing or otherwise convincing someone on the other side to switch allegiances. Now we have 11 on one side and 9 on the other — which is a more significant advantage than 10 against 9.
It is not exactly clear, looking at things in this coldblooded way, that young women have any real reason to envy the strength and athletic prowess that evolution has given to young men over the seductive and persuasive advantages that have been given to young women.
Yes, in many ways women’s powers are greater than men’s so it does beg the question why we have chosen to play be men’s rules. I’m not at home so can’t get to the section of Sexual Personae that just popped into my head. It’s halfway through the introduction when she is talking about mothers and sons and how women are more powerful than men, but that their power is more subtle. But we don’t want subtle, we want recognition. I’ll be home tomorrow and will find it. It’s an intriguing point.
“Buffy is an admirable hero, one of my favorites in fact, but she is not a model for womanhood. She rarely has to confront it.”
I wonder how closely you watched the series. Buffy redefined the slayer job description with a full integration of her womanhood. She battled the primal elders in their strict insistence on the source of her power; she demanded and refused to accept anything less than the model of womanhood, and proved it was more “powerful” in the clinch. Her growth from teenager trying to have a normal “girly” life to a leader of an army is a constant confrontation with her “womanhood.” And have you forgotten the episode when she loses her superpowers, and triumphs on guts and resourcefulness? But the fact she didn’t have children or didn’t confront pregnancy is dispositive of a less than full protrayal of womanhood? Purely from the point of view of a story about a vampire slayer from the ages of 15 to 22, pregnancy was logically not on the menu. Why should it have been? (Moreover, as mentioned above, Buffy served as de facto mother to her daughter for the last two seasons.) I thought the series was richest and most morally structured study of heroism — male or female — I’ve seen on TV.
“Mother to her daughter” above, meant “mother to her little sister.”
I’ve not been here commenting today because I’ve been finishing the companion piece, the underrated heroines, which gets to your point. You are right, but these days those are not the things we think great about Buffy.
Really? Do we get to read your incredbly detailed survey of the things “we” think about Buffy? and the subjects who took said survey?
No, the survey was only for that how many fan fic writers are intelligent 30 and 40something women for another piece. I was new to fan fic reading and confirming a hunch. I am not, however, new to fandom nor any of the obsessive reading, re-watching, or re-hashing it entails. The girls have to be tough girls to be liked trend has been obvious for quite a while.
For some reason, all of these comments have reminded me of a line from “As Good As It Gets.” At one point, someone asks Jack Nicholson’s character “How do you always write such strong female parts?” Jack answers, “I write men, and remove the logic and accountability.”
Yes, but what about Xena?
My list, and I didn’t watch Xena, but would love to see your question.
I am getting old. The only one I recognized was Wonder Women.
When it comes to what people watch on television, the writers write whatever they can within their production deadlines, which usually means rehashing the same old stupid stories over and over again with different actors, costumes, special effects, etc., and we the audience at home simply watch whatever crap happens to be on at the moment, because we can’t get through a single hour without that damned squawk box blaring away. Heaven forbid we sit quietly and read a good book, or even worse, have an intelligent conversation about one!
Regarding Katniss – and to a certain extent, every female on this list – my main problem with her was that all the men had to be either emasculated, removed, or turned into monsters for her to succeed. Hermione Granger, same thing – Ron had to be weaker so she could shine (can you imagine those two characters with their genders swapped? Never would have gotten published). Wonder Woman, I’ll accept, but like some people have already pointed out, she was written to be some kind of dominatrix. Merida… no interest, after my time. Buffy? Same thing as Katniss; the only men who ever stood up to her b*tch-fits were Spike and Angel (but only when they were evil), and on those rare occasions when it did happen, the script normally sided against them.
Men are almost always neutralized in these sorts of stories. They aren’t a celebration of feminity, or even a portrayal of real female bravery in the face of overwhelming physical violence. They’re stories that fantasize about putting women above men, and the men have to emasculated in order for that to happen. There have been excellent books and movies out there where female characters got a chance to shine without it being at the expense of the male characters (Aliens seems a pretty good example of that), and I’ve never understood why we can’t have more of that. The real problem with a lot of modern female heroes is that they come at the expense of the male.
But seriously, PJMedia, do your people do any research on this pop culture stuff? I mean, look into geekdom/fandom? You be amazed at what lies in the (generally liberal) Internet subcultures built around these sorts of books and movies. Might really help with your analyses on these things. I generally like the topics, but the analysis tends to be weak and improperly focused.
While I would call the problem of female heroes coming at the expense of men “another major problem” rather than the “real” problem, I agree with your point. As for the PJMedia people, in this case me, not knowing about what lies in the fandom Internet subcultures and not doing the research, a few points. 1. I know about the haunts, lurk in a fair few of them, and recognize a few commenters here from previous discussions in obscure forums. 2. While I’d probably agree with the Internet forums being generally liberal–hard to account for secret conservatives in such forums–the overall fandoms are probably more conservative or at least libertarian. I’ve been on the receiving end of insults when taking more conservative ideas into those forums. Since we are usually run off in those forums, I try to bring some of the meatier ideas somewhere they can have full discussion. 3. I do not intend to provide comprehensive analysis of these issues, but a structure and opportunity for discussion across the political spectrum. My editor has provided excellent guidance on this, making sure I don’t write too much so that I leave the topic open for further discussion, The length and variety of this comment thread makes this piece a success to me.
Now, for complaints of weaknesses or improper focus, I will happily debate if you provide specifics.
As a mom, the heroines I’ve enjoyed watching are Helen Paar and Molly Weasley. Their husbands are strong men who value the right things in their wives. Have you ever watched the short in “The Incredibles”, about the neighborhood barbeque?
I want Molly’s clock.
I love them both. I have not see the neighborhood bbq short. What’s it called? I can’t find it on YouTube. And I want Molly’s clock, as well as the spell that does the dishes. The knitting I could do myself.