![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Oh boy, I just finished something, and I'm so proud of the result! *schnuzzles self* [/cryptic comment]
Hey, I read someone's LJ today, and there was the infamous 'how dare they write InsertNameofMaleCharacter as a woman' speech, and I realized I was getting a little tired of that term, and that I didn't agree with the definition in the first place...
To me, talking about how a male character is acting like a woman because he's suddenly weepy or whiny - talking about 'womanizing' him isn't the correct way of describing the thing.
So what? If a male character suddenly whines, weeps, bitches, and acts wimpy he's supposedly acting like a woman? I'm always a little surprised when no one ever argues that the expression is actually pretty offensive. Being weepy and wimpy and weak equals being a woman? And I only ever heard women mentioning it, which is pretty ironical if you think of it. The term only refers to the stereotypical behaviour of a woman who's supposed to be hysterical and wimpy as a way of life, and if male readers were to use it, I would understand --I still would hate it and I would call them sexists and macho jerks, but from a twisted POV, I would understand-- but coming from female readers, it just sounds weird somehow *shrug*
I mean, to me the idea of 'womanizing' a male character is a) offensive and b) pretty reductive anyway, and uh c) not accurate at all. Try to portray Miss Parker from The Pretender as wimpy and whiny and you'll have a nice case of womanizing her because she just never acts that way - but obviously she's already a woman, so I don't see how those attributes could be described as turning her into a woman, right? Hell, try to portray Sam or Janet that way, and we'll see the reaction, too. They would just act out of character - nothing else.
To make a long story short, to me, it's just a matter of writing a character out of character - and only that. I understand how using the other term is an easy way to describe the phenomenon, after all, everyone understands what point the other person is trying to make, and technically, I see why we would use it - but still, I don't agree and I don't like it *g*
Oh and yes - obviously that's how I see it, now how it should be, all right? Different opinions and all of that *g*
Hey, I read someone's LJ today, and there was the infamous 'how dare they write InsertNameofMaleCharacter as a woman' speech, and I realized I was getting a little tired of that term, and that I didn't agree with the definition in the first place...
To me, talking about how a male character is acting like a woman because he's suddenly weepy or whiny - talking about 'womanizing' him isn't the correct way of describing the thing.
So what? If a male character suddenly whines, weeps, bitches, and acts wimpy he's supposedly acting like a woman? I'm always a little surprised when no one ever argues that the expression is actually pretty offensive. Being weepy and wimpy and weak equals being a woman? And I only ever heard women mentioning it, which is pretty ironical if you think of it. The term only refers to the stereotypical behaviour of a woman who's supposed to be hysterical and wimpy as a way of life, and if male readers were to use it, I would understand --I still would hate it and I would call them sexists and macho jerks, but from a twisted POV, I would understand-- but coming from female readers, it just sounds weird somehow *shrug*
I mean, to me the idea of 'womanizing' a male character is a) offensive and b) pretty reductive anyway, and uh c) not accurate at all. Try to portray Miss Parker from The Pretender as wimpy and whiny and you'll have a nice case of womanizing her because she just never acts that way - but obviously she's already a woman, so I don't see how those attributes could be described as turning her into a woman, right? Hell, try to portray Sam or Janet that way, and we'll see the reaction, too. They would just act out of character - nothing else.
To make a long story short, to me, it's just a matter of writing a character out of character - and only that. I understand how using the other term is an easy way to describe the phenomenon, after all, everyone understands what point the other person is trying to make, and technically, I see why we would use it - but still, I don't agree and I don't like it *g*
Oh and yes - obviously that's how I see it, now how it should be, all right? Different opinions and all of that *g*
