McAnally's (The Community Pub) > Author Craft
Hero vs. Heroine
Paynesgrey:
For one thing, the physical difference usually isn't as great, between average guy and average mook as it is between average girl and average mook. Indy usually cheated, btw, by hitting the mook with things like an airplane propeller. And James Bond didn't fair to well either going toe to toe with Oddjob or Jaws. He always had to fight smarter too.
For another, in the real world against an average sized guy or gal, the mook is usually gonna win. Excepting those cases where the smaller object is smarter and is skilled enough to not match weakness against the enemy's strength.
jeno:
--- Quote from: Paynesgrey on January 26, 2011, 04:33:45 AM ---For one thing, the physical difference usually isn't as great, between average guy and average mook as it is between average girl and average mook.
--- End quote ---
To this I would say -
--- Quote from: Paynesgrey on January 26, 2011, 04:33:45 AM ---For another, in the real world against an average sized guy or gal, the mook is usually gonna win.
--- End quote ---
-oh look, you already said it for me. ;D
The original argument was that some female characters (none actually specified, but moving on) were written in a way that made them read as not-female. The one example put forward for this not-femaleness was a situation where a female would charge a larger opponent and win, when in reality she should have gotten her head bashed in or some such.
I'm trying to figure out exactly what part of this scenario is not-female. Is it the part where she charges the opponent against all odds? Hm, I don't think so. Like I said above, brashness is not an exclusively male trait. Neither is foolhardiness, or desperation, or bravery, or sheer determination - all of which would be perfect motivators for such a charge.
Is it the winning part of the scenario? Again, I don't think so. Winning, in this case, doesn't depend on maleness or femaleness, or even strength - it depends on being unrealistic and on the needs of the story. If the fight happened in the real world with an average person against an average mook, then the average person would get their ass handed to them on a platter, no matter what their sex was.
You can't say that a woman taking down a larger mook is 'male' when a guy taking down a larger mook is equally unrealistic.
Which brings me back to the point. Just what actions make a female character read as not-female?
Lord Rae:
See I don't see the Gena Davis thing as an example of a badly written female but more an example of bad action in general. Is it worse that its a girl? Maybe a bit... but if a guy character had done the same it would have seemed equally as cheesy in my eyes.
There are other movies with awesome badass women like Resident Evil that don't come off as being that bad or cheesy. Not great cinema maybe... but it didn't strike me as being a "guy in a girl suit".
The pass I give to the Resident Evil movies (2-current) is that the main character had turned into a super hero(heroine) essentially so all the wall flips and awesome kicks to zombie heads didn't seem as unbelievable as they would have had she still been an ordinary human like she was in the first movie. But even then when she had to fight something bigger and stronger she did lots of evading and strategy rather than going straight brawler with it. And for the first half of the movie she just ran whenever she saw it. That was less about being a "girl" though and more about being a smart action hero.
Snowleopard:
--- Quote from: jeno on January 26, 2011, 05:18:05 AM ---To this I would say -
-oh look, you already said it for me. ;D
The original argument was that some female characters (none actually specified, but moving on) were written in a way that made them read as not-female. The one example put forward for this not-femaleness was a situation where a female would charge a larger opponent and win, when in reality she should have gotten her head bashed in or some such.
I'm trying to figure out exactly what part of this scenario is not-female. Is it the part where she charges the opponent against all odds? Hm, I don't think so. Like I said above, brashness is not an exclusively male trait. Neither is foolhardiness, or desperation, or bravery, or sheer determination - all of which would be perfect motivators for such a charge.
Is it the winning part of the scenario? Again, I don't think so. Winning, in this case, doesn't depend on maleness or femaleness, or even strength - it depends on being unrealistic and on the needs of the story. If the fight happened in the real world with an average person against an average mook, then the average person would get their ass handed to them on a platter, no matter what their sex was.
You can't say that a woman taking down a larger mook is 'male' when a guy taking down a larger mook is equally unrealistic.
Which brings me back to the point. Just what actions make a female character read as not-female?
--- End quote ---
I'm about to get slightly uncouth here so pardon.
If I read of a female character standing around scratching her (pardon) cr*tch, belching, and farting - and there was no realistic reason for her to be doing that. I'd think someone had just transfered a male character into a female skin.
Yes, a woman can be crass but usually in a different way than a guy. Men and women are the same but they also are very different. It's a paradox. It's on a case by case basis, Jeno. Some female warriors don't read any righter than the male ones, others read very true. Maybe it's not so much about what the character is written like as how I read the character. It could be a personal thing on my part.
jeno:
--- Quote from: Snowleopard on January 26, 2011, 05:01:47 PM ---If I read of a female character standing around scratching her (pardon) cr*tch, belching, and farting - and there was no realistic reason for her to be doing that.
--- End quote ---
Clearly you haven't spent a lot of time around drunk sorority girls or in a girls' dorm. :D
--- Quote from: Snowleopard on January 26, 2011, 05:01:47 PM ---Men and women are the same but they also are very different.
--- End quote ---
And those differences are largely based on the gender roles of a society. A female in a business suit and running a company was extremely unwomanly - in 1950's America. Today? Not so much. The differences you're talking about aren't nearly as hard wired as you seem to think.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version