![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
There's this flowchart. It ticks me off.
I has a rant.
This flow chart provokes in me an irrationally angry reaction.
That chart has 75* different "stereotypes" for female characters. In other words, pretty much any female character is going to fit onto that chart. Not a problem. You know because pretty much anyone will loosely fit into one archetype or another. But then there's tone in the article that implies that all of these 75 stereotypes (and the women they've chosen to represent, including Tsukino Usagi, Azula, Zoe Washburne, and Yoko Ono) are somehow representations of poorly done female characters. Yes, one of those is a real-life figure.
*facepalm*
I'm all for critical examinations of source material, but seriously? This is the kind of critique that says, "Hey, there's no right way to ever write women," and takes for granted men are more nuanced** because seriously, trying not to write a woman who calls to mind one of those tropes is well, a nightmare, and something of a useless effort.
Oh, and seriously, most male characters wouldn't even make it through the first gauntlet if someone decided to turn a critical eye to them, so why do people set that as a minimum standard for female characters? I don't even know. We already have so many rules and codifications for what makes a good female characters, why is this flowchart needed? And why is the point being proven in the accompanying blog post that somehow there is a lack of development/variety/nuance in female characters? Why don't male characters get the same level of examination?
I may be a touch bitter because it's the type of thinking displayed in the making and presentation of that flowchart that also seems to fuel the excuses for not wanting to read/write/watch female characters.***
*sigh*
This touched a huge sore spot.
* I counted. Even if I'm off, it's still a lot of archetypes/characteristics that are being painted as stereotypes. Also, if you're curious, 56 of those "stereotypes" don't even require a love interest.
**Oh, you do not want to hear me rant about much of a myth the "nuanced male character" is. Really.
*** I honestly have no problems with people preferring to focus on male characters, but it's definitely something I'd rather not see people not try to justify beyond "This is what I like," and how they personally relate to male and female characters.
ETA: I've been linked on the metafandom delicious. The text accompanying their bookmark is irrelevant and kind of hilarious.
This flow chart provokes in me an irrationally angry reaction.
That chart has 75* different "stereotypes" for female characters. In other words, pretty much any female character is going to fit onto that chart. Not a problem. You know because pretty much anyone will loosely fit into one archetype or another. But then there's tone in the article that implies that all of these 75 stereotypes (and the women they've chosen to represent, including Tsukino Usagi, Azula, Zoe Washburne, and Yoko Ono) are somehow representations of poorly done female characters. Yes, one of those is a real-life figure.
*facepalm*
I'm all for critical examinations of source material, but seriously? This is the kind of critique that says, "Hey, there's no right way to ever write women," and takes for granted men are more nuanced** because seriously, trying not to write a woman who calls to mind one of those tropes is well, a nightmare, and something of a useless effort.
Oh, and seriously, most male characters wouldn't even make it through the first gauntlet if someone decided to turn a critical eye to them, so why do people set that as a minimum standard for female characters? I don't even know. We already have so many rules and codifications for what makes a good female characters, why is this flowchart needed? And why is the point being proven in the accompanying blog post that somehow there is a lack of development/variety/nuance in female characters? Why don't male characters get the same level of examination?
I may be a touch bitter because it's the type of thinking displayed in the making and presentation of that flowchart that also seems to fuel the excuses for not wanting to read/write/watch female characters.***
*sigh*
This touched a huge sore spot.
* I counted. Even if I'm off, it's still a lot of archetypes/characteristics that are being painted as stereotypes. Also, if you're curious, 56 of those "stereotypes" don't even require a love interest.
**Oh, you do not want to hear me rant about much of a myth the "nuanced male character" is. Really.
*** I honestly have no problems with people preferring to focus on male characters, but it's definitely something I'd rather not see people not try to justify beyond "This is what I like," and how they personally relate to male and female characters.
ETA: I've been linked on the metafandom delicious. The text accompanying their bookmark is irrelevant and kind of hilarious.
came from metafandom
It kinda saddens me that I'm not more angered by this. Saw it earlier in the week and didn't bother.
It's an attempt at mocking sub-culture, with the usual humour of calling girls whores, vapid whores, sex-kittens, or lesbians and the always popular psycho bitch. I'm not going to spend the evening thinking up hate-mail to send the author. She clearly misses the point of a lot of the characters she attempts to pigeon-hole.
Take the "Lois" (Family Guy) example, now I loathe Lois, however, if you actually watch the show, you understand that she is supposed to be a satire on the "perfect wife". Not an actual Stepford. The WHOLE POINT of a show like Family Guy is mocking television tropes. As is the "Lucy Lui bot" from "Futurama" .
It's a cheap attempt at character study, when it's already a truth universally acknowledged that Hollywood is a master at peddling off the one-dimensional character. Male or female.
Re: came from metafandom
no subject
It's regular-fare YA, but to me, it's still one of my favourite books ever, because the main protagonist was a girl, and it's not about her falling in love or saving her family farm, but about her truly finding herself. And she doesn't really get a happy ending.
Don't let what other people think bother you too much. My favourite characters are always the ones that transcend gender and are just plain awesome. And people who find female characters uninteresting have just robbed themselves of something indefinable and precious. They're people who can't see beyond the trope, and are probably unable to fully enjoy Shakespeare (XD). It's their tragedy.