Cnt: From here
I just saw the perfect snippet (from a piece on Twilight 'the phenomenon') describing perceptions of women and for me, women in fantasy fiction societies, wherein the heroine alone gets to prove herself different. I disagree with the author's final conclusion - “If I can condemn vigilantism and stand up for due process while still enjoying 24 and Batman pictures (or pulp fiction like The Devil’s Advocate), then feminists can certainly enjoy Twilight.”
I'm not going into Twilight more than to say that I don't view it as female escape fantasy and I do not believe a man, the quoted speaker, should get to decide what female escape fantasy is - far less what feminists, womanists or gender equalitists can enjoy.
The quote, however, I find useful to the point of my previous post.
There are two main classic cultural myths of females, two false assumptions that have been used as the definitive excuses to subjugate and disenfranchise women for centuries in all manner of societies. The first is that women are devious and reckless creatures who tempt men who can't control themselves. As a result of these fiendish seducers, the weak but noble men do all manner of vice and corruption, deeds that without the temptation of the women they would not have even considered. But, wait, they are also weak-willed and emotionally fragile creatures that cannot care for themselves and must be protected from peril and shielded from emotional complication ('the fairer sex'). - (Source)
These descriptions sparked a flow of words and comprehension from me. I went "Of course! It's the Whore/Madonna Complex all over again" A simplistic title of my current thoughts, perhaps, but no less apt, I think. Fantasy fiction societies, particularly those in an ethnic fantasy ghetto do tend towards Vamps and whores and dangerous women of which the heroine is NOT one. Or good girls, Madonna's, virtuous if fragile women, of which, again, the heroine is NOT one. She is the Spunky Determined Girl! An option three squished in around the edges, though these days more likely firmly wedged in between to make the stereotypical depiction duo into a trio.
And yet, all the while the one main thrust of all these types of heroines is that they have to disdain other women. Disdain the good girls who never reach out and grab what they want; disdain the bad girls who never let things come to them for being selfless and noble or disdain both for not being (just as good as) a man with breasts and more open emotions.
And I think I understand better now why I associate the combination of world building with such underpinnings mixed with a fantasy ghetto to come from a white female author. History has shown far too many white female, self defined feminists, disdaining other women and walking all over them (or throwing them under a bus, or to the wayside) to get what they want.
PS: Do not mistake my thoughts to mean I will embrace, blindly, the hand of a white self labeled feminist who calls me sister. I'm pondering fiction & fictional representations, not indulging in a round of Be Stupid.
The essay quoted above was a quasi-sequel of sorts to a piece I wrote awhile back that more explicitly compared male escapism vs. female escapism. It was revolving around the reaction of male critics to Sex & The City The Movie and how their attitudes toward it and its audience was far more venomous than that of equally mediocre male escapism such as Transformers. It might be worth a gander as it goes into more detail on the two genres. Either way, thanks for reading and offering your insight.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-mendelson/sex-and-the-city-the-movi_b_142308.html
Scott Mendelson
http://scottalanmendelson.blogpost.com
My general impression of the "girl proving herself different from those other, wrong girls" conceit is one where the writer has the urge to Do Feminism, but hasn't figured out that this involves critical thinking on the whole paradigm thing. So, they're trying their darnedest to make a feminist hero, but fail abysmally because they're making what the status quo thinks is a feminist hero, rather than an ACTUAL feminist hero.
ReplyDeleteI think I did stuff like that when I was first trying my (twelve-year-old) hand at Serious Writing. Along with lifting entire plot elements and ideas from stories I liked at the time.
Furikku:
ReplyDeleteDOING FEMINISM, that seems like the right verb. It galls me because it often seems like "All these OTHER women need is one EXAMPLE" as if society changes all because one individual (only Susan B Anthony no one else!) did something - as if it's not about groups and coalitions and repeated efforts and several people punching holes in the same exact spot.
But yeah, you're right. It's a lack of critical thinking.
And yet, all the while the one main thrust of all these types of heroines is that they have to disdain other women. Disdain the good girls who never reach out and grab what they want; disdain the bad girls who never let things come to them for being selfless and noble or disdain both for not being (just as good as) a man with breasts and more open emotions.
ReplyDeleteThat's my biggest problem with Hamilton's books. The worst was in the first Merry Gentry book, where she allows herself pity for a woman who is enslaved, but then immediately goes on about how the woman is implicit in her own oppression and blech. Said woman is apparently never seen again.
Quietprofanity:
ReplyDeleteAnita Blake & Merry Gentry are definite spokesmodels of that kind of 'Other women are weaker/aren't me'. But being templates as such, it means the market is currently glutted with tough, has a gun, AS GOOD AS A MAN female characters that I personally find to be far less empowered than their writers want me to believe.
I refer back to Furikku's excellent point that the authors seem to be trying to DO FEMINISM without thinking deeper.