![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Old News Blues
Mar. 31st, 2011 05:07 pmHat tip to Rachel for this article:
http://geekfeminism.org/2010/10/05/connecting-with-female-characters-in-geek-television/
This is a well-written article, but I have problems with it because it trivializes and fails to engage with legitimate complaints about these characters--i.e. you CAN legitimately find a female character poorly written, over-powered or problematically inconsistent in her characterization and thus uninteresting/irritating. And /at times--though not always/ I happen to find the examples pulled, Gwen (who I love, largely on the basis of S2 and CoE) and River (who I think is poorly conceived and executed) prime examples of poor writing. Tossing women who don't like female characters onto the Bad Feminist pile is not productive or fair, and certainly doesn't produce good critical understanding. It's not like a male character is never poorly written and thus unlikable for the same reasons. The problem's with consistently poorer or less-interesting writing of female characters than their male counterparts on shows as much as it is with biased misogynist reception.
A dichotomy that would ask you to chose between supporting feminism and a relentless demand for quality in art is a false dichotomy: these imperatives should not be privileged above each other, and /are not in competition/.
Picking some obviously silly 'these women fail to live up to my aesthetic standards' comments up for the aether isn't good enough. Neither is 'But these women (here Gwen and River) are /just like/ Jack and the Doctor, respectively, and you never find that problematic, except THESE ARE WOMEN!!' Well, I often find those particular characters unevenly written and problematic, but also, for the sake of establishing these parallels too much context is given up. Among other, possibly Bad Feminist reasons, people resent Gwen for screwing around on her clueless fiance who do not resent Jack for potentially screwing around on his not-committed-or-declared-exclusive-or-ltr boyfriend who's made rather aware of Jack's proclivity for non-monogamy. That seems... very different, and understandable? People resent River for smugging it up a la the Doctor, and because her Mysterious Past, Hitherto Unheard of Levels of High Ability For a Non-(Insert Alien/Magical Creature Here) and Connection to the Doctor seem like cliches of high-fantasy writing (and borrowed from timely successful work (Time Traveler's Wife) or re-used Moffat cliches (the Girl in the Fireplace's Suddenly Important Love Interest Without A Development Arc)) from a tell-not-show character who enters the scene proclaiming her personal importance to both the protagonist and the over-arching narrative in a way that seems unearned?
We accept a lot more from the Doctor not exclusively because we presume he has a legitimating alien phallus somewhere about his person, but because his character and his abilities are not automatic, and have been the work of decades of narrative-building (compare One's abilities to Eleven's)? And I /still/ deeply suspect New Who's smug neo-Cartmell-Master-Plan 'Doctor as More Than A Time Lord/God Figure' shit. I think it reaches for archetypes at the expense of characters in a social world.
And while I /know/ the Doctor as a character, over a long period of development, in his silliness and vulnerability and mistakes, as well as I know him in his bombastic success, all I know about River (even now, after six episodes--I knew dearly departed Donna /well/ after six episodes) is that she is Mysterious and Kicks Ass. I cite this http://www.overthinkingit.com/2008/08/18/why-strong-female-characters-are-bad-for-women/ re: why a Strong!FEMALE!Character is not a strong character, female.
The writer of the article says "Guys, this thread is not the place for “I dislike Gwen! Let me ‘splain why!” or “I dislike River, how dare you call me a sexist!” types of comments. If you want to justify your dislike of these (or other female) characters, you have the whole internet to do it in. If your reasons for disliking these characters are completely different than what I talked about, then I’m not necessarily talking about you! If you don’t like the shows at all, I’m still not talking about you! Which means that you are being off-topic. Any comments that are mainly or solely “But I hate River! The explanation! I will gives it!” will not be approved any more.
To head off the “you just don’t want me to disagree!” arguments, let me point out: my argument is that the specific reasons given by the majority of fans for hating these characters are misogynistic. You can disagree with that! But saying “I hate Gwen!” is not actually disagreeing with my point, since my argument is not that Gwen is super awesome."
Which seems... totally beside the point? Because saying that the reasons women claim they don't like female characters are at heart sad cover-ups/rationales for their tragic internalized sexism and then denying/shutting-down discussion of the ways it's more complicated than that because it's not 'on topic' is more than controlling the discussion flow, its delegitimizing anyone who disagrees with the article's core premise. And women silencing women being bad was... what she wanted to talk about, I thought.
http://geekfeminism.org/2010/10/05/connecting-with-female-characters-in-geek-television/
This is a well-written article, but I have problems with it because it trivializes and fails to engage with legitimate complaints about these characters--i.e. you CAN legitimately find a female character poorly written, over-powered or problematically inconsistent in her characterization and thus uninteresting/irritating. And /at times--though not always/ I happen to find the examples pulled, Gwen (who I love, largely on the basis of S2 and CoE) and River (who I think is poorly conceived and executed) prime examples of poor writing. Tossing women who don't like female characters onto the Bad Feminist pile is not productive or fair, and certainly doesn't produce good critical understanding. It's not like a male character is never poorly written and thus unlikable for the same reasons. The problem's with consistently poorer or less-interesting writing of female characters than their male counterparts on shows as much as it is with biased misogynist reception.
A dichotomy that would ask you to chose between supporting feminism and a relentless demand for quality in art is a false dichotomy: these imperatives should not be privileged above each other, and /are not in competition/.
Picking some obviously silly 'these women fail to live up to my aesthetic standards' comments up for the aether isn't good enough. Neither is 'But these women (here Gwen and River) are /just like/ Jack and the Doctor, respectively, and you never find that problematic, except THESE ARE WOMEN!!' Well, I often find those particular characters unevenly written and problematic, but also, for the sake of establishing these parallels too much context is given up. Among other, possibly Bad Feminist reasons, people resent Gwen for screwing around on her clueless fiance who do not resent Jack for potentially screwing around on his not-committed-or-declared-exclusive-or-ltr boyfriend who's made rather aware of Jack's proclivity for non-monogamy. That seems... very different, and understandable? People resent River for smugging it up a la the Doctor, and because her Mysterious Past, Hitherto Unheard of Levels of High Ability For a Non-(Insert Alien/Magical Creature Here) and Connection to the Doctor seem like cliches of high-fantasy writing (and borrowed from timely successful work (Time Traveler's Wife) or re-used Moffat cliches (the Girl in the Fireplace's Suddenly Important Love Interest Without A Development Arc)) from a tell-not-show character who enters the scene proclaiming her personal importance to both the protagonist and the over-arching narrative in a way that seems unearned?
We accept a lot more from the Doctor not exclusively because we presume he has a legitimating alien phallus somewhere about his person, but because his character and his abilities are not automatic, and have been the work of decades of narrative-building (compare One's abilities to Eleven's)? And I /still/ deeply suspect New Who's smug neo-Cartmell-Master-Plan 'Doctor as More Than A Time Lord/God Figure' shit. I think it reaches for archetypes at the expense of characters in a social world.
And while I /know/ the Doctor as a character, over a long period of development, in his silliness and vulnerability and mistakes, as well as I know him in his bombastic success, all I know about River (even now, after six episodes--I knew dearly departed Donna /well/ after six episodes) is that she is Mysterious and Kicks Ass. I cite this http://www.overthinkingit.com/2008/08/18/why-strong-female-characters-are-bad-for-women/ re: why a Strong!FEMALE!Character is not a strong character, female.
The writer of the article says "Guys, this thread is not the place for “I dislike Gwen! Let me ‘splain why!” or “I dislike River, how dare you call me a sexist!” types of comments. If you want to justify your dislike of these (or other female) characters, you have the whole internet to do it in. If your reasons for disliking these characters are completely different than what I talked about, then I’m not necessarily talking about you! If you don’t like the shows at all, I’m still not talking about you! Which means that you are being off-topic. Any comments that are mainly or solely “But I hate River! The explanation! I will gives it!” will not be approved any more.
To head off the “you just don’t want me to disagree!” arguments, let me point out: my argument is that the specific reasons given by the majority of fans for hating these characters are misogynistic. You can disagree with that! But saying “I hate Gwen!” is not actually disagreeing with my point, since my argument is not that Gwen is super awesome."
Which seems... totally beside the point? Because saying that the reasons women claim they don't like female characters are at heart sad cover-ups/rationales for their tragic internalized sexism and then denying/shutting-down discussion of the ways it's more complicated than that because it's not 'on topic' is more than controlling the discussion flow, its delegitimizing anyone who disagrees with the article's core premise. And women silencing women being bad was... what she wanted to talk about, I thought.
