There's this flowchart. It ticks me off.
Oct. 12th, 2010 01:03 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dagas_isaI 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.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-14 12:36 pm (UTC)Some of my favorite female characters? Two members of the military in the world they are from, each with their own career in a different branch, with an adopted daughter the two raise.
Hurt the daughter, and either will go Mama Bear on anyone daring to hurt the daughter. Bad? No. It's awesome.
One of them completely destroying a villain who hurt her daughter is the crowning moment of awesome for the entire series the characters star in. That scene is liked enough to be found multiple times on youtube.
And if she were male? I bet nobody would whine that he'd not be nuanced.
My point? Mamabear is not bad. Most of the things listed in the charts aren't.
What is bad if a character is only one thing. But them having moment of trope X or Y? not bad at all. That's just writing. YOu can't evade every trope that exists. It's not possible, unless you write about eleven-legged amoebas from planet Y.