There's this flowchart. It ticks me off.

[dagas_isa]

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.

Comments

[sunnyskywalker]

I... cannot figure out how this is supposed to work, because so many characters fit all the criteria for one of the dozens of stereotypes, but also can carry their own storylines, have flaws, etc. and so would also count as "strong women." And it's so linear - what, you can't be a strong supporting female character? Ever? Pretty much every possible aspect of any character, male or female, can be a stereotype if that's all they are, but having a particular characteristic or role isn't an automatic ticket to Stereotypeland. But going by this chart, it's almost impossible for a female character not to be a stereotype.

And I complain about stereotypical female character all the time. It is a problem. And a female character being stereotyped does have a different effect than a male character being stereotyped, because of all the history and context baggage... but even if you stipulated that, say, female characters had to be twice as original/strong to be thought half as good, this sets the bar way more than twice as high as the bar for the male characters. Most of whom get way more credit for being nuanced and original than they actually deserve. How many World-Weary Law Enforcement Dudes alone get credit for being soooo nuanced because they have one quirk or a dead younger sibling or war angst that gets mentioned once or twice a season in passing, with maybe one episode that one time focusing on it?

[ladysugarquill]

Pretty much every possible aspect of any character, male or female, can be a stereotype if that's all they are, but having a particular characteristic or role isn't an automatic ticket to Stereotypeland.

This. Tropes Are Not Bad after all.

[sunnyskywalker]

And this chart gives no opportunity for mix and match combinations - you only get ONE box, the end. Which isn't how many characters work!

[dagas_isa]

But going by this chart, it's almost impossible for a female character not to be a stereotype.

Pretty much this.

How many World-Weary Law Enforcement Dudes alone get credit for being soooo nuanced because they have one quirk or a dead younger sibling or war angst that gets mentioned once or twice a season in passing, with maybe one episode that one time focusing on it?

Also this.

I think any character has to at least roughly fit into a box or trope, I mean that's kind of what our brains do. Most of the nuance comes from giving time and focus to characters. If one character has twice the screen time as another, and we always see things from his PoV, of course he's going to be the one who is more nuanced. If he wasn't, there's something wrong.

[sunnyskywalker]

I think the problem often isn't which tropes are used (though occasionally...), but who gets to be the focus of that show or episode, exactly for that reason - that gives time to build nuance.