Why do women like ***** characters?
- Thread starter happyninja42
- Start date
Well a lot of times "*****" is the only flavor of badass we're given to choose from. Apparently somewhere along the line it was decided that there's only so strong and ruthless a woman can be without also being a *****. So this sort of "***** threshold" developed where you've got the badass but nice chicks on one side, but if you REALLY want somebody who is guaranteed to not give into the pressure and require comforting or backup, she's got to be a total ***** in order to be on the other side of that threshold.Happyninja42 said:
It's also often the only flavor of attitude we're given to choose from. You've got "quirky" females and "nice" females and "quiet" females and "loud" females, but a lot of times you just can't get a female character who wields some amount of sarcasm or sardonic wit without going full *****. We can't have a happy mix of somebody who likes to be sarcastic and sardonic but really does it as a way to endear people to her and give them a laugh. No, she's got to be either nice and straightforward with her feelings, or sarcastic and bitchy.
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.
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.
Okay, that was amusing.Vault101 said:
I did immediately after bring up that people only raise the issue with women. It was kinda my point.
In gaming? That's hilarious. Those assholes are often as charismatic as the "bitches" or less. This sounds like rationalisation.AJ_Lethal said:
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.zhoominator said:
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?
Breaking how...? Forgive me if my following response would have been somehow altered had you completed that sentence.DoPo said:
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.
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.
"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.
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'...
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'...
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.
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.
Not sure what that sentence does there - I'm pretty sure it belongs somewhere else, so ignore it.Lightknight said:
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?Lightknight said:
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.Lightknight said:
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.Lightknight said:
And failing miserably.Lightknight said:
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.Lightknight said:
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.Lightknight said:
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.
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".Lightknight said:
The question makes no sense as I explained before.Lightknight said:
I think she qualifies as a "magnificent bastard". Bitchy characters are like the bitchy posse in Mean Girls, or anyone Amanda Peet plays.viscomica said:
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
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
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)?
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.
Being instructed that your question is wrong to begin with is every bit as valid an answer to the question sometimes.
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.
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 have evidence that women who enjoy action films express a particularly different taste in protagonist attributes than males?
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]DoPo said:
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.
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.
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.
My apologies. But you have to admit that a lot of people
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.AJ_Lethal said:
The idea that this is somehow different than the topic at hand is comical. It's a farce. A travesty for the masses.