![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
castalieOh 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*
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 11:32 am (UTC)I have to disagree with this one. I think that the writers did an excellent job in the early seasons in developing the characters on the show.
We're given insight through Jack's background and experiences as to why he is so closed off emotionally. The loss of his son, his time in an Iraqi prison camp, his job in black ops.
On the same note, we're given some insight into Daniel's losses which helped him develop very differently emotionally.
I see these as characterizations based on history and experience, not as gendering the characters.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 02:14 pm (UTC)That's very true. The writers have done a pretty good job of providing the characters with enough backstory so that their actions make sense, and of course I don't think of the characters strictly in terms of their sex. On the other hand, I do think that gender is an incredibly important and powerful tool and that it does affect us in subtle and influential ways.
In other words, of course it's their experiences that make them who they are, not anything inate that comes from being born with penises and a Y chromosome. But the fact that they were born male means that they were socialized as masculine, and it is that experience that contributes to their personalities, that will affect everything they see, that will be the filter through which they see, well, everything that ever happens to them. Their entire socialization, a very important part of which (especially in this culture) is their socialization as male.
For instance, see the very different ways in which Jack and Sara reacted to Charlie's death. Jack closed off emotionally; Sara wanted to talk about it.
I'm not an essentialist, nor do I neccessarily think that gender *should* be important, merely that it *is*, and that there is a strong trend in fanfiction for female writers to underestimate the importance of masculine socialization in writing their male characters. Which is why I feel that "feminization" is an accurate and appropriate term.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 02:43 pm (UTC)I view Daniel in the same way. I think that the character could have been female with very minor changes. That doesn't mean that I think he's whiny or weak, just that it's a neutral role. That's one of the reasons people can identify with him.
I think one of the objections that I have with the genderization of characters is that they do tend to fall into stereotypical traps. For me, Sam is a prime example of that over the past couple of seasons. We've never seen the show focus on one of the guys' love lives unless it was part of a bigger plot. Unfortunately, with Sam, it is the plot. There are instances where there is no other reason for showing her storylines than to develop her feelings and emotions. I think that's sad, because it automatically places her in a separate category than the other three. I didn't have to do that in the first three seasons. She was just another member of the team. Not the 'girl' on the team.
I understand what you're saying about gender being an influence on the character and on us as humans, but I just see it as a very minor part of who they/we are.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-17 05:32 pm (UTC)Up until the events of the movie, maybe. But the events on Abydos would have unfolded very, very differently if Daniel had been female, given the way society is structured on Abydos, where gender has very particular meanings, far more traditional and less fluid than our own conceptions of gender. I don't think a female!Daniel could have risen to a place of prestige, would have been rewarded with a wife, been allowed the freedom to go exploring to find the big ol' Abydos cartouche.
And without the Sha're arc, Daniel simply isn't Daniel. It defines him. And I think in a large sense it is a gendered arc. Yes, it's specific to Daniel and the way Daniel views and understands the world. But it also works within the context of Abydonian concepts of marriage and honor, and Daniel's protectiveness towards his wife. And if that isn't a traditionally gendered marriage, I don't know what is.
I'm not saying that a woman couldn't or wouldn't have the same reactions or responses. But they would be different and have different meanings because they would still exist in a world where gender is real, would still be in reference to gender, whether defying or reinforcing traditional notions of gender relationships.
We've never seen the show focus on one of the guys' love lives unless it was part of a bigger plot.
"Bigger" in what sense? It seems to me that 100 Days, for instance, is about Jack, Jack's feelings, Jack's emotions, Jack's love life, etc. Sure, there's a plot in the sense of "we must find Jack; we must