Women Will Kick Your Butt
- Thread starter Firefilm
- Start date
The biggest problem with defining all characters into three categories is that by failing to provide an example of what you want the fourth (presumably better) category to be, it is difficult to provide any sort of good counterexample. For instance, if you have a woman who is willing to stand up and fight for her child, couldn't you put her in category 3 because of movies where the dad fights to save his child?
By having three categories as general as that, especially with the last one being 'the role could be filled by a man' it will be almost impossible to come up with something that doesn't fit that category.
After all, aside from specific actions involving genitalia, I can't think of anything that a man can do that a woman is completely unable to do or vice versa. Certainly not once you take into account the already heightened skills of anybody in fictionland.
As a sort of way of proving my point: I would like to see an example of a character you feel doesn't fit the three categories. I'm 78% certain I'll be able to fit her into one of the three categories given a bit of simple logical reasoning.
By having three categories as general as that, especially with the last one being 'the role could be filled by a man' it will be almost impossible to come up with something that doesn't fit that category.
After all, aside from specific actions involving genitalia, I can't think of anything that a man can do that a woman is completely unable to do or vice versa. Certainly not once you take into account the already heightened skills of anybody in fictionland.
As a sort of way of proving my point: I would like to see an example of a character you feel doesn't fit the three categories. I'm 78% certain I'll be able to fit her into one of the three categories given a bit of simple logical reasoning.
I agree with this, and I think there's another difficulty with the category. The way it's presented seems to suggest that "masculine" or even just "tomboyish" women aren't really women, which isn't really fair to women who are go-getters without feeling the need to project a "softer" or "more feminine" side as well. Those ladies aren't fiction just because some kinds of fiction overuse certain stereotypes.Falterfire said:
I liked the debate, guys--my vote goes to Ripley--but rethinking the categories might help.
You are wrong. I am sorry, but it was a good movie, maybe even great. Everything about it was excellent. The acting was great, the dialog was good, the action pieces were amazing. The only thing really wrong with it was 1 massive plot hole that has to do with our particular area of expertise. And it wasn't even that bad, we have been asked to swallow much more for the sake of entertainment. Dark Knight Rises, for example, had much dumber plot holes and everyone just gives it a free pass.Azuaron said:
It certainly was not as good as the original Die Hard, but what is?
I... honestly wasn't expecting disagreement on this point, but apparently Rotten Tomatoes agrees with you. But I do not know a single person in real life who liked it (and most people I know don't know much about computers).DrOswald said:
That being said, opinions can't be wrong.
Live Free or Die Hard was terrible.
Also: I can't believe I originally said Life Free or Die Hard. *facepalm*
Dan: "The other point made by our commenters was that greatness in female-itude should not have anything to do with being maternal, because that is a gender-role prison that men don't have to be strapped down with. I flat-out reject the place those complaints come from. Men have gender roles that, when followed, make them stronger protagonists as well. Sure, men can't give birth to a child, so it would be pointless to shoehorn character development into a male role that revolved around such tropes. But you know what men do have issues with? Impressing their father."
I have to disagree here.
I can get behind the idea that 'female-itude' should not involve the rejection of being maternal, but the way Dan puts it sounds like maternal factors are a requirement. By his own example Starbuck was a Fem-Indy of sorts, but she wasn't tied down with obligatory diaper strings.
By the same token I don't agree with Dan's assertions that 1. A core part of male character development involves Daddy issues, and 2. That maternal factors and Daddy issues are effectively equal, (or particularly comparable, for that matter).
Dan here reminds me of how MovieBob did a spiel on Metroid M and basically accused every male who criticized the handling of the Samus in that game of projecting their own desires for fem-dom as well as preconceptions onto the character.
MovieBob was wrong because there were a lot of people--like me--who didn't have a clue about Metroid's history and simply came into the game and found the plot with Samus being a wuss where her ex was concerned eye-rollingly cringe worthy.
It feels like Dan was trying to make a point by coming up with something comparable to maternal instincts and not only selected a poor choice but fell short in asserting his point.
.
.
How many fans approved? Over one and a half million.
So, yeaaaaaah. I take "Official" reviewers' critiques--good and bad--with a grain of salt.
I have to disagree here.
I can get behind the idea that 'female-itude' should not involve the rejection of being maternal, but the way Dan puts it sounds like maternal factors are a requirement. By his own example Starbuck was a Fem-Indy of sorts, but she wasn't tied down with obligatory diaper strings.
By the same token I don't agree with Dan's assertions that 1. A core part of male character development involves Daddy issues, and 2. That maternal factors and Daddy issues are effectively equal, (or particularly comparable, for that matter).
Dan here reminds me of how MovieBob did a spiel on Metroid M and basically accused every male who criticized the handling of the Samus in that game of projecting their own desires for fem-dom as well as preconceptions onto the character.
MovieBob was wrong because there were a lot of people--like me--who didn't have a clue about Metroid's history and simply came into the game and found the plot with Samus being a wuss where her ex was concerned eye-rollingly cringe worthy.
It feels like Dan was trying to make a point by coming up with something comparable to maternal instincts and not only selected a poor choice but fell short in asserting his point.
.
.
Live Free or Die Hard was a great movie. I've rewatched it I don't know how many times. And I do happen to know plenty of people who enjoyed it.Azuaron said:
On the other hand I take reviews from Rotten Tomatoes with a grain of salt (no pun intended). The "official" reviewers routinely can movies the fans love. Just a couple of days ago I checked Rotten Tomatoes' rating for 300. The "Official" reviewers (less than 300 worth) gave it a 50% and whined and condemned it. The fans, however, gave it an overall rating of 90%.Azuaron said:
How many fans approved? Over one and a half million.
So, yeaaaaaah. I take "Official" reviewers' critiques--good and bad--with a grain of salt.
Falterfire said:
I'm quoting to agree with you.
Saying 'a woman in a man's role' is basically a blanket statement to say, 'And all those other women.' Both men and women can work in the military. Both men and women can fire a gun. Both men and women have the ability to hide emotions. Just because you take role A and put in a female character instead of a male character, she shouldn't suddenly be put under pressure to prove as a character that she has tits and pussy. She should be expected to play the role. If that role involves going into enemy territory to put a hole in a few zombie brains, or stealthily go into a hide out of ninjas to take out the leader, then so be it. If she's a tough cookie or has a smart mouth, maybe she has a bitter hatred of the government, perhaps she got screwed over and is more than happy to get revenge, it shouldn't suddenly disqualify her as a good character so long as it's handled well and fits the plot. It doesn't matter if she's a woman, man, it, alien, or colorful shade of blue. She shouldn't have to have a kid tied up at the end of the tunnel or a reason to maternally want to protect shit. She can also be a reasonable, self-controlled human being.
That's what I have to say about it.
I'm gonna second or third it and disagree with you and say I thought it was a great movie. I personally love it and would go as far as to say I think it's one of the top ten films I've seen in the last decade.Azuaron said:I... honestly wasn't expecting disagreement on this point, but apparently Rotten Tomatoes agrees with you. But I do not know a single person in real life who liked it (and most people I know don't know much about computers).DrOswald said:
That being said, opinions can't be wrong.
Live Free or Die Hard was terrible.
Also: I can't believe I originally said Life Free or Die Hard. *facepalm*
Quoting to agree with you. Women are people too.Quaidis said:
Honestly, I think guys should stop trying to write Female characters to be "Female", and just write them to be "Characters". Otherwise, we end up with female characters that tend to fall into stereotypes or forced to act stereotypically 'female' in particular roles.
The problem I have with the traditional argument "Strong women shouldn't engage in [traditionally masculine activity] because it asserts that Masculinity is better than femininity by default" is that it declares the activities to be exclusively the domain of men.
All that said... I think Sarah Connor, while certainly a sympathetic and well-written character, when it comes to the all-too-often-forced "Role model issue" is NOT a good example of a "Strong Female Lead" - far too often, she's a psychotic ***** (I have similar words for similarly-portrayed males). Yes, circumstance has driven her to that extreme, but she is NOT a good model of heroism or citizenship.
Yeah.. not really. Since sci-fi movies are pretty much restricted to high-budget hollywood box-office hits, we get the dumbed down female versions. Alien is the rare exception. When you go outside hollywood it doesn't matter what the genre is, there's an instant improvement in how females are portrayed.
gonna have to toss into the pool that i know plenty of people (including myself) who love the movie, it was much better than half the crap shoveled out these days, and the actors/actresses were picked well i think.Azuaron said:I... honestly wasn't expecting disagreement on this point, but apparently Rotten Tomatoes agrees with you. But I do not know a single person in real life who liked it (and most people I know don't know much about computers).DrOswald said:
That being said, opinions can't be wrong.
Live Free or Die Hard was terrible.
Also: I can't believe I originally said Life Free or Die Hard. *facepalm*
I despise the argument "Male character with female body". It's basically saying that X behaviour is masculine, therefore if a woman does it, she is more like a male than a female.
Especially considering that by and large with the exception of our bodies, the vast majority of traits that we consider to be masculine and feminine are entirely defined by the current society that you are in, and that most of these are stereotypes anyway.
Especially considering that by and large with the exception of our bodies, the vast majority of traits that we consider to be masculine and feminine are entirely defined by the current society that you are in, and that most of these are stereotypes anyway.
Didnt like Live Free or Die Hard, but still thought it was a good movie. But it just seemed to lack... something, that other movies had...DrOswald said:
Well, to follow up on Chris's suggestion, a book (or rather books) that has incredible female characters would be the entire Dune Saga, especially the last books. I acknowledge the last two have the rather odd theme with sex and love and the Honored Matres and whatever. Still, the entire saga is overflowing with strong characters, many of whom are women. In fact, the women never fall into one particular archetype and can be warriors and loving mothers at the same time, ice-queens and people of far-reaching empathy. Heck, an entire faction of the universe is made up only of women who can cripple your mind and body in seconds but exude feminine attributes all the time, and wrestle to balance their emotions and their reason constantly.
Not suprisingly, my choices for strong female game protagonists come from those that resemble books the most, having Grace Nakimura, April Ryan, Zoë Castillo, Victoria McPhearson, and I'll add Jade in there (even if not from an adventure game). Of course, none of these are particularly bad ass in a physical sense, but man, can they put up with tons of shit.So, yeah, none of them are badass in the way it's being debated here, but I just wanted to give them a shout out.
Not suprisingly, my choices for strong female game protagonists come from those that resemble books the most, having Grace Nakimura, April Ryan, Zoë Castillo, Victoria McPhearson, and I'll add Jade in there (even if not from an adventure game). Of course, none of these are particularly bad ass in a physical sense, but man, can they put up with tons of shit.So, yeah, none of them are badass in the way it's being debated here, but I just wanted to give them a shout out.
As for the whole "strong" character thing, I believe that Hollywood and, by association, the game industry, have a poor conception of what makes a character strong. By and large, they think it's someone with no other emotions other than anger, depression, bitterness, or just general apathy who don't take shit from anyone and can kick everyone's ass, which ironically can result in very bland, uninteresting characters. I like to think that a strong character is:
-someone that is flawed, a character with as much positive traits as negative. In some cases, you could have a positive trait bringing about a negative trait on the character.
-A character that can be easily recognized, particularly because of the personality trait that defines them. Now, this isn't saying the same as the character being one-dimensional, I'd say that there are a lot of villain characters that I find fascinating even if they are mostly defined by simply wanting to BE the bad guy, although having a wide range of emotions, motivations, etc. cetainly helps. For example, just because your character is the comic relief doesn't mean you can give the character a certain insecurity or unfunny trait. In fact, a layer of vulnerability can make such a character much more than the "funny guy".
In short, a strong character is one that feels wholesome and fascinating, regardless of who he/she/it is.
Now, I really can't post this without giving credit to Ms. Sofie Liv, host of Red Suitcase Adventures over at agonybooth.com. Some of what I wrote here is paraphrased from the following video:
http://www.agonybooth.com/video354_My_Little_Pony_Friendship_is_Magic_Five_Arguments.aspx
What? Don't give me that look.
-someone that is flawed, a character with as much positive traits as negative. In some cases, you could have a positive trait bringing about a negative trait on the character.
-A character that can be easily recognized, particularly because of the personality trait that defines them. Now, this isn't saying the same as the character being one-dimensional, I'd say that there are a lot of villain characters that I find fascinating even if they are mostly defined by simply wanting to BE the bad guy, although having a wide range of emotions, motivations, etc. cetainly helps. For example, just because your character is the comic relief doesn't mean you can give the character a certain insecurity or unfunny trait. In fact, a layer of vulnerability can make such a character much more than the "funny guy".
In short, a strong character is one that feels wholesome and fascinating, regardless of who he/she/it is.
Now, I really can't post this without giving credit to Ms. Sofie Liv, host of Red Suitcase Adventures over at agonybooth.com. Some of what I wrote here is paraphrased from the following video:
http://www.agonybooth.com/video354_My_Little_Pony_Friendship_is_Magic_Five_Arguments.aspx
What? Don't give me that look.
