Why do women like ***** characters?

[2012 Wont Happen]

Guys like asshole characters. Why is Bart Simpson widely considered the best character on that show? Why does every mothafucka I know wanna be cold, aloof, alcoholic James Bond? Why is Dewey Novak hands down the greatest villain of all time (if in disagreement, research Eureka 7 over and over until you agree).

Movies and television are forms of escapism. People tend to like characters in them to behave in ways that would make a real person intolerable.

 

[thundra]

Oh my god all you people are giving this dude straight answers instead of the mockery he deserves.

"All women like bitches in fiction. Bitches like that stupid ***** Buttercup in Powerpuff Girls, she's such a total *****!"

OP, here's your answer. Women like bitches because they like jerks instead of nice guys, and all women are secretly bi even though they won't even look at you twice. It's a conspiracy to keep you alone instead of providing you with the sex you deserve for being a good dude. Now curl up under your fedora and take a nap.

Dude I know right! Also vaginas whats up with that? like what are they hiding in there? Probably secret plans to impose the matriarchy, that's why they never let me get in there.

Don't forget that that, women are also EVIL! And wish to steal money from innocent men.

 

[Something Amyss]

and I don't wanna talk to no Color-Scientist....she be tellin lies and gettin the guys pissed

Okay, that was amusing.

I'm gonna have to slightly disagree here...I feel we give at least a little more leeway for male charachters to be bastards than women charachters

I did immediately after bring up that people only raise the issue with women. It was kinda my point.

Probably because those assholes tend to be charismatic. It's all down to the writing.

In gaming? That's hilarious. Those assholes are often as charismatic as the "bitches" or less. This sounds like rationalisation.

 

[AJ_Lethal]

In gaming? That's hilarious. Those assholes are often as charismatic as the "bitches" or less. This sounds like rationalisation.

I'll be honest: I only can come up with Tommy Vercetti and Officer Tenpenny as examples in gaming right now; I'm kinda out the loop :/

 

[viscomica]

Do they? I don't know anybody who likes "***** characters" on any count.

I liked Cameron Diaz's character in Bad Teacher but I don't know if she's truly bitchy.

 

[Lightknight]

Is it improper to talk in generalities when discussing large numbers of people? Do we really still need to preface all of our generalizations with "Ok, I know not all, but in general..." before asking a question? I think now that society has successfully demonized things like racism and sexism that our general assumption is the person is talking in generalizations.

The whole question of this is though whether these numbers are actually that large. Length of hair is something that can be empirically measured by masses of people you need know nothing about to come to a determination of whether women have longer hair than men.

The issue is in instances like this are the words "in my personal experience". Believe it or not, we don't get to know a particularly large number of people within our lifetime. More than just limiting the number of people used to base generalisations on though, is that we tend to only interact with a very narrow subset of people.

So yes, if you are basing your conclusions only from your personal experience, then you SHOULD concede that any conclusions you come to will be generalisations and likely inaccurate ones at that. If you actually have evidence taken from a larger sample size picked at random (like a decent scientific study will do), that's another matter.

Otherwise, it's just stupid arrogance really.

A generalization is specifically intended to imply that large numbers of X group does or thinks or is Y. Terms surrounding any discussion about a generalization will usually sound a lot like absolutes.

To have to preface any generalization with a "but I understand how stereotypes work and that not all members of X necessarily conform to Y" is really just a way of having to say, "I'm not a racist/sexist/bigot, but..." before any generalization.

Just seems a bit unnecessary. Most of our generation grew up with diverse groups thanks to desegregation and don't even naturally think along those lines at all to have to preface the subject in a way the previous generations may have had to.

Now, as to the topic at hand, we've already discussed that people in general are attracted to that tough guy asshole/tough girl ***** character. So the statement made is a legitimate generalization of females because it's a legitimate generalization of humans. Tough and rough around the edge characters are seen as strong and independent characters. Capable and powerful.

Who doesn't prefer that in a protagonist?

 

[Lightknight]

Is it improper to talk in generalities when discussing large numbers of people? Do we really still need to preface all of our generalizations with "Ok, I know not all, but in general..." before asking a question?

It is quite important, yes. First of all, generalisations generally suggests what you generalise holds true for most if not all of the generalised population. This is not always the case, OP specifically and continuously claims it is indeed not the case, yet the question carries a different meaning.

Also: why do blond people like McDonalds? why do black people listen to Bon Jovi? why do Christians drink tequila? why do Serbians put ice in their drinks? Even though each of these questions generalizes a population, all of them also carry the implicit meaning that what this part of the population is odd and/or not shared with the rest of the world. This is verbal segregation and itself carries ideas across. Phrasing is important. If you don't want to say "Serbians are weird for putting ice in their drinks, even though it's only some of them that do it", then don't phrase it in that way. Not to mention you're breaking how

Breaking how...? Forgive me if my following response would have been somehow altered had you completed that sentence.

I'm sorry, I just don't see why you get to control how commonly used phrases work or don't. It is commonly known that without an "all/every single" preface that the phrase "why do X do Y" is a generality. As part of the common vernacular, I get that it doesn't mean all and so should others who are familiar with common phrases. We don't have precision of language laws yet so we're going to have slang and phrases that evolve in common use.

If I'm asking an honest question with such a phrase, I'm not sure I really trust people who don't understand generalities with understanding whatever topic I'm inquiring about.

Now, did you personally think the OP was specifically saying that every woman across the globe likes ***** characters? Did you really think that or did you just show up to balk about the semantics? I'm really asking that and am not trying to offend. If you really thought this person was saying that then kudos for you on squashing stereotyping. If you're just here as a grammar police then you're forgetting that common use overrides traditional use of phrases. Linguistic drift happens whether we resist it or not.

Now, if the context seems to indicate that all (as in every single member) likes X then sure, the question should be raised.

OP pretty much said "I asked some women and they said X, why do all women think X". That's the context of the question. If OP wanted to ask something different, then he communicated it wrong. Also, if OP wanted to ask something different as he keeps pleading then it seems it's either "I asked some women something and they said X, why did they say X" which is useless to ask as OP knows these women and OP already asked them. Alternatively, the question actually is "I asked some women and they said X, why would a woman say X" which is really no different in terms of verbal segregation to the initial meaning.

I'm sorry, you incorrectly inserted the term "all" in there. Or at least, from glancing back over the OP I'm not seeing the word all in there at this moment. So that's your bias, not the OP's. You inserted that yourself while reading the post unless an edit has happened since to clarify. Something that I'm perfectly will to believe but am not seeing.

We should save our offense for cases that actually deserve it. Not someone who just has a question and is open enough to ask it.

But I'm pretty tired of people having to explain how stereotypes and generalizations work before getting to their point.

Then maybe those people need to actually learn how these work. "Some I know , therefore I'll generalise that all " is not that.

"Generalize" is not "all". All is stereotyping. Generalizing is discussing in terms of aggregate numbers. For example, why do people dislike physical pain? That's a generalization because most people don't like pain but there are absolutely masochists out there. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with discussing generalities. That's how we discuss large groups in any meaningful way. Whether the generality is right or wrong and whether there are any negative/positive implications to be derived from said generality.

 

[NoX 9]

This is the first I've heard anyone say they like Buttercup 'because shes a *****' - I guess thats not a common way to say it where I'm from...-, but Buttercup was in fact my favorite Puff. She is tough, cool and agressive, doesn't take shit from anyone -simply put, she's a badass. I was (and still am) far too tall to be considered cute, not at all sexy and I didn't command much athority or respect, but I suppose I decided a teenagers defenition of 'agressive cool' was within my reach. I was never a huge fan of the show and haven't seen it in years; I have no idea if I'd feel the same about it today. Then again -as my avatar will reveal- I do seem to have a thing for women in green with an atitude.

I never really found a 'gang' for myself until high-school, where I became freinds with a bunch of videogames-and-starwars-fan guys who thaught me the ways of the Force (and also Battlefield 1942) -when that happened I sorta forgot all about my aspirations of badassery. I'm so happy they turned out to be the ones to accept me into their circle, sometimes I wonder if I might have turned out like the girls that work in the shoe store at my local mall. Now them I would certainly describe as 'bitches'...

 

[V4Viewtiful]

double post ;P

Oops...

 

[V4Viewtiful]

Well first off the Phrase "Strong Independent Woman" is a BS phrase to begin with. But ***** is no better, but I know females of varied age say it with pride but cuss you out for calling them it.

I think it's because we're just plain lazy :/

Anyway, there's a song about the dynamic of the word ***** and how it's used.

 

[Harleykin]

men like badasses.... now try do differentiate the two for me.
it's a rebel aura surrounding those tropes that's making them intersting that's it.
in my opinion at least

 

[DoPo]

Breaking how...? Forgive me if my following response would have been somehow altered had you completed that sentence.

Not sure what that sentence does there - I'm pretty sure it belongs somewhere else, so ignore it.

I'm sorry, I just don't see why you get to control how commonly used phrases work or don't.

Many people in this very thread say the same thing I did. So it's not me controlling it, and if OP is throwing fits trying to explain what he meant, then that DOES suggest he didn't word it properly to begin with, now doesn't it?

If I'm asking an honest question with such a phrase, I'm not sure I really trust people who don't understand generalities with understanding whatever topic I'm inquiring about.

Why is OP generalising women? Why not "people"? As I explained, it's verbal segregation and also by generalising to women it does imply it's...well, women as even generalised it's quite specific. Had OP said "people" then yes, it'd fit, but again - segregation.

Now, did you personally think the OP was specifically saying that every woman across the globe likes ***** characters? Did you really think that or did you just show up to balk about the semantics?

OP asked. I answered. You asked. I answered. It wasn't the first, nor the last to suggest it, as well. But thank you for inventing a devious plot behind my actions. It's me - it's all me, of course. All the other people you've been trying to explain are wrong for correcting OP are probably my puppets or something - I don't know, please make it up - you seem to have little trouble with it.

I'm really asking that and am not trying to offend.

And failing miserably.

If you're just here as a grammar police then you're forgetting that common use overrides traditional use of phrases.

I like how you say that and then you go on and correct people for their usage of the common phrase. And that they are wrong, and you are the sole holder of the true meaning. Nice one.

"Generalize" is not "all". All is stereotyping. Generalizing is discussing in terms of aggregate numbers.

Generalising is collapsing large amount of instances into a general form. While it's not "all" it's "large enough numbers to be prevalent/norm" and almost a substitute of "all" - it's "all (except this one and that one)". Instance of A, which are generalised in B but don't hold true for the generalisation are exceptions, e.g., metal is solid at room temperature, except mercury. If you truly want to say "some As have trait X" then generalising that into "Category B has trait X" does not work.

When you combine generalisation with a specific instance of the generalised form itself, it, again, implies that it holds true for all of these and/or that this specific instance is different than other sibling instances.

That's how we discuss large groups in any meaningful way. Whether the generality is right or wrong and whether there are any negative/positive implications to be derived from said generality.

Do you or OP have evidence to suggest this holds true for women at large? OP keeps claiming it's not, it's just some of them, so, I'd hazard a guess that the answer is "no".

someone who just has a question and is open enough to ask it.

The question makes no sense as I explained before.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Do they? I don't know anybody who likes "***** characters" on any count.

I liked Cameron Diaz's character in Bad Teacher but I don't know if she's truly bitchy.

I think she qualifies as a "magnificent bastard". Bitchy characters are like the bitchy posse in Mean Girls, or anyone Amanda Peet plays.

 

[Mikeyfell]

Forget women for a second I want to know why men like the ***** or "Tsuendre" characters and why they're deemed acceptable in general.

I looked at the list of the top 10 female anime characters and 8 of them were Tsunderes, not even interesting or well written ones just the bland stock off the rack caricature of the ***** who for some unexplained reason wants to fuck the main character by the end of one arc or another.

Maybe it's because in fiction like that bitchiness is painted as a character strength along the lines of independence or something, when in real life everyone would just go; "What's that *****'s problem?"
Or maybe it's because there are so many clever ways to be mean and very few clever ways to be nice.
so a ***** could have a quip for why she hates every character in the script.

Or maybe, just maybe... in fantasy land everything works out for the ***** characters in the end, so people like to project themselves on to that character, to give themselves the false sense of "It's easy to act like that and according to this show everything will work out for me"

Or maybe it could be that different people have different senses of taste that aren't bound by the laws of logic by trying to understand them we're just wasting our time

 

[Lightknight]

Is there a rest of the post where you respond to the point I made where the original poster did not say "all" and you just inserted that from your own assumption of him (aka bias)?

I'm sorry, I just don't see why you get to control how commonly used phrases work or don't.

Many people in this very thread say the same thing I did. So it's not me controlling it, and if OP is throwing fits trying to explain what he meant, then that DOES suggest he didn't word it properly to begin with, now doesn't it?

Are the people in this thread in charge of mankind's language? If they are, please tell them that I'd like the word gay to return to the common vernacular as "happy" again. I mean, not to get rid of the current definition but just to share the spotlight. It's a gay day outside and I just want to prance, prance the day away without getting hit on by dashing young men with chisled buttocks... [/joke]

But seriously, just because people get offended easily doesn't mean something isn't a commonly known phrase.

"Why do men always want sex"
"Why does it always rain when I want to go outside"
"Why do women smell better than men"

These aren't literal sentences. They're just using a commonly understood mechanism to set up a generalization. You can disagree with the generalization being representative, sure. But they aren't literally saying all X always Y.

Why is OP generalising women? Why not "people"? As I explained, it's verbal segregation and also by generalising to women it does imply it's...well, women as even generalised it's quite specific. Had OP said "people" then yes, it'd fit, but again - segregation.

This is why people ask questions. It's because they're ignorant about the topic. When you don't know something you should ask. Basic learning 101. That's why you response should have just been that all people like the *****/jackass hero because it means they're tough and independent of the people around them. Not "how dare you think ALL women are like X" even though he used the phrase correctly, without the word all. You just mentally inserted that in his question.

Being instructed that your question is wrong to begin with is every bit as valid an answer to the question sometimes.

Now, did you personally think the OP was specifically saying that every woman across the globe likes ***** characters? Did you really think that or did you just show up to balk about the semantics?

OP asked. I answered. You asked. I answered. It wasn't the first, nor the last to suggest it, as well. But thank you for inventing a devious plot behind my actions. It's me - it's all me, of course. All the other people you've been trying to explain are wrong for correcting OP are probably my puppets or something - I don't know, please make it up - you seem to have little trouble with it.

Actually, I responded to you because you appear to be one of the most coherent and thoughtful posters. I figured I could have a legitimate conversation with you. Not that you were alone or evil in your intentions. You just took offense along with others so I was wondering the motive of "you people" if you will.

I'm really asking that and am not trying to offend.

And failing miserably.

My apologies. But you have to admit that a lot of people

If you're just here as a grammar police then you're forgetting that common use overrides traditional use of phrases.

I like how you say that and then you go on and correct people for their usage of the common phrase. And that they are wrong, and you are the sole holder of the true meaning. Nice one.

Correcting a grammar police for incorrectly policing people is different than being the original grammar police. Once the subject is breached then it's open for discussion. The grammar police is the one that speaks up when no one else asked. Not that you were the first, just that you were amongst a group of said grammar aficionados.

This is common etiquette, as well. Like not being mean to someone unless they're mean to you first. Not throwing the first punch but it being ok to followup the first punch with a few punches and a kick. The onus of minding one's own business or playing nice is on the first actor and not the second. Even our laws follow these guidelines.

Generalising is collapsing large amount of instances into a general form. While it's not "all" it's "large enough numbers to be prevalent/norm" and almost a substitute of "all" - it's "all (except this one and that one)". Instance of A, which are generalised in B but don't hold true for the generalisation are exceptions, e.g., metal is solid at room temperature, except mercury. If you truly want to say "some As have trait X" then generalising that into "Category B has trait X" does not work.

When you combine generalisation with a specific instance of the generalised form itself, it, again, implies that it holds true for all of these and/or that this specific instance is different than other sibling instances.

No, you're adding your own definition. Generalizations are by definition being derived from a limited number of instances. If you get enough instances together that are random enough you start to get into statistically relevant numbers which steers away from the general into the specific.

Here's the definition via google: "a general statement or concept obtained by inference from specific cases."

Now, the OP literally started the sentence by describing the specific cases he is basing the generalization on. He set up a text book generalization scenario and then you came in here and read it literal. That's on you, not the OP.

Do you or OP have evidence to suggest this holds true for women at large? OP keeps claiming it's not, it's just some of them, so, I'd hazard a guess that the answer is "no".

Women don't generally like action films like men do. Being that it's the action films that lend themselves to the *****/jackass protagonist then I would tend to lean towards this being more of a male thing with women who like action flicks being in the category too.

Do you have evidence that women who enjoy action films express a particularly different taste in protagonist attributes than males?

 

[(name here)]

Well, actually, males totally do like asshole characters. Not all of them, of course, but lots of them. I guess I can only speak for myself on why I sometimes like them.

First, they tend to get lots of really amusing lines and actions. If there's a mean joke of some description available, it goes to them. Second, the ones people like tend to be very competent and get things done, which viewers always appreciate. They also tend to feel like they're in control of the situation.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'll be honest: I only can come up with Tommy Vercetti and Officer Tenpenny as examples in gaming right now; I'm kinda out the loop :/

Tommy Vercetti is an example of what I'm talking about, though. He's not really charismatic, he's just a douchebag. The only praise I can offer him is that in a world of grimdark douchebags, it was slightly refreshing to go back and watch a sociopath from a slightly brighter era. But he's not charming, except in the same sense one might conflate "bitchiness" for an endearing characteristic.

The idea that this is somehow different than the topic at hand is comical. It's a farce. A travesty for the masses.

 

[AJ_Lethal]

I'll be honest: I only can come up with Tommy Vercetti and Officer Tenpenny as examples in gaming right now; I'm kinda out the loop :/

Tommy Vercetti is an example of what I'm talking about, though. He's not really charismatic, he's just a douchebag. The only praise I can offer him is that in a world of grimdark douchebags, it was slightly refreshing to go back and watch a sociopath from a slightly brighter era. But he's not charming, except in the same sense one might conflate "bitchiness" for an endearing characteristic.

The idea that this is somehow different than the topic at hand is comical. It's a farce. A travesty for the masses.

I don't think we played the same game. Especially since Sonelli, Diaz or Lance Vance fit more the "douchebag" label for fucking Tommy over in first place.

Now that I think it... Tommy won't fit the "asshole" label since he won't attack you unless you cross him and/or stand in the way of his operations.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

They ar'nt truely powerful. They ar'nt hardcore badass'. They're just mean and cruel.
It just comes down to, some women are stupid, I think.

All of this is true of the joker, an arguably brilliant character and villain. His fans are not stupid.

If your conclusion on any situation is "i guess these people are just dumb" a LOT of the time youre probably just not trying to see it from their perspective, its very easy to just declare them stupid and move on. I tend to heavily critique my own perspective when i come to this conclusion.

Theres been a trend lately to make villains always have a soft side, or a personal justification or to add some humanity in them or to earn our understanding. Villains or even heroes that abandon a lot of that can be pretty entertaining and unique simply because it allows them to earn our pity without any of our support. Its why the joker is such a good villain.

Its also quite rare in media for women to be properly angry and in a position to use that anger to actually do things. Consider this:

Can you remember a scenario where a woman was unapologetically angry and actually got to unleash that anger to change the situation? Probably, but they are probably outnumbered by scenarios where:

The women is demure and accepting and doesnt show such an ugly emotion.

The woman is held back (sometimes physically and literally) by men/other characters/herself to render her rage almost pitiful rather than reactionary.

Women have a history at the very least of being characters whose every action and choice, clothing, speech ect was done to please/pander to a third party, the audience or another character. Selfishness, even being selfish toward the audience, is refreshing in a female character, anger that exists to please me isnt a real representation of anger, its meant to be raw and ugly and brutal and i think its worth showing that aspect of it in media.

Anger is ugly. And since a lot of media likes to paint their female characters in terms of any sort of beauty (Either inner or outer so we can relate on at least one level) having a totally ugly personality in a woman character is a rarity. Its nice to see a woman in media who is apologetically angry for any reason, justified or otherwise just because it better represents reality.

Theres a difference between liking a character and LIKING a character so to speak. I LIKE the joker as a character. I wouldnt be friends with him at a bar. That doesnt make me stupid id like to think. I just realize the appreciation of fiction doesn't involve wanting the fiction to be true or even analogous in my own life. Its a pretty simple concept.

Not to mention ***** seems to be the female word for badass except with negative connotations. I struggle to think of many "badass" male characters who arnt excessively cruel when you really think about it, lack empathy and generally dont give a fuck about anyone else (or very few people). When female a *****, when male a badass.

 

[(name here)]

Not to mention ***** seems to be the female word for badass except with negative connotations. I struggle to think of many "badass" male characters who arnt excessively cruel when you really think about it, lack empathy and generally dont give a fuck about anyone else (or very few people). When female a *****, when male a badass.

I should probably have mentioned this earlier, but we're probably not going to get anywhere with this argument (I mean, even more than usual) unless we actually decide what our criteria for calling a female character a ***** is. Personally, I only use it for female characters I don't like. Also, my dividing line between likable badass (even if villainous) and unlikable is a combination of pettiness, motive, and targeting. I don't like characters who are pointlessly cruel just to be cruel (though I forgive them if they make me laugh), and I don't like characters who are really cruel to the characters I do like. However, if I want to punch a character, and then another character punches them, that makes me like them.

Also, I'm willing to like villains who possess a certain degree of class. Even if they break the above rules, grand ambitions, self-assurance that they can back up, and solid villain speeches can sell me on them.

Now, one example of a female character I do like is Rita from Edge Of Tomorrow, who has the nickname Fullmetal ***** in-universe but not to her face.

Spoiler: Big plot spoilers

In addition to being rather sharp-tongued, she has a habit of shooting the protagonist in the face to reset the time loop. But there's a point to that: they can't lose the looping power so it's best to reset once a loop dead-ends.