![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Writer's Block: Anti-bullying month
Oct. 3rd, 2011 11:51 am[Error: unknown template qotd]
Probably myself. Nobody makes my life as much hell as I do.
Probably myself. Nobody makes my life as much hell as I do.
Oct. 3rd, 2011
strong vs. empowered
Oct. 3rd, 2011 03:01 pmA few years ago, in some discussion in some community, other women and I were discussing the idea that in some circles, a woman not wanting to have children is seen as a rogue, burden, or liability to that society, for not fulfilling her ostensible role. I made a joke about those of us being "a bunch of uppity whores" who wanted to do what we wanted to do, someone else made a few icons out of it, and lo and behold, here you go. /points to avatar on post
Now what people who don't know the story think when they see this icon, I haven't the foggiest. Friends are probably amused, knowing me. But it's the icon I thought of when reading a few things this morning via LJ that enlightened and amused me about how female characters are treated in fiction.![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
philosophercat linked to an essay on the difference between 'power' and 'empowerment', and her commentary echoes most of what I think:
The big idea to take away here is that Powerful Woman does not equal Empowered Woman. I could never quite put my finger on what bothers me about the types of female characters writers have been shoving at us in modern times as exemplars of "strong women." This does so very nicely.
The basic formula that offending writers are following, unknowingly in most cases, is that you can make any female character "strong" by giving her skill with weapons or physical strength. She can be a basketcase so long as she "can totally, like, punch a guy." This falsely equates physical strength with empowerment. Why is this so common? Because it's so EASY. And it seems to work: how many women look at a female character suddenly sprout fighting skills and cheer even though it makes no sense? Do YOU know anyone like this? It's a little confusing to me. This isn't even what happens in real life, except in freak situations that end up as Cracked articles about random people going crazy.
The post also discusses the next step in the process of creating a Strong Female Character: you have to make her "realistic" by slapping on some token weaknesses. So, to compensate for being able to "totally, like, punch a guy" our heroine has a random failing which she never overcomes.
Empowered characters are more difficult to write, but also far more engaging and interesting. They don't always win, they're not always the toughest in the room. I think there's a similar problem with male characters (Rory [from "Doctor Who"] was generally despised until he became an action hero), and certainly it takes different forms for marginalised groups (magical minority characters, for instance). I'd recomend this post as reading for my writerly friends.
And this is the crux of what I tried so hard to say so many times about Elizabeth Swann in the POTC fandom all those years ago, when it felt like I was beating my head against the wall when addressing fellow fans who pitied her or were angry at her husband for her at the end of AWE, but I just couldn't apparently find the words to phrase what I meant: She didn't need to be "saved" from her circumstances, or from Will Turner, by Jack Sparrow or any other character, because she was as responsible for being in them as was her husband. The situation the two of them were in after a certain point didn't allow either a whole lot of self-agency, but they struggled within that to each do what their character dictated, with the knowledge they had. This means Elizabeth did, too, and could easily be imagined continuing to do so after the end of AWE. (Hell, even being imprisoned doesn't mean one can't be empowered; Will may be tied to the Dutchman, but that doesn't strip him of the character that empowers his actions and thoughts. Same with Lizzie.)
Now what people who don't know the story think when they see this icon, I haven't the foggiest. Friends are probably amused, knowing me. But it's the icon I thought of when reading a few things this morning via LJ that enlightened and amused me about how female characters are treated in fiction.
philosophercat linked to an essay on the difference between 'power' and 'empowerment', and her commentary echoes most of what I think:The big idea to take away here is that Powerful Woman does not equal Empowered Woman. I could never quite put my finger on what bothers me about the types of female characters writers have been shoving at us in modern times as exemplars of "strong women." This does so very nicely.
The basic formula that offending writers are following, unknowingly in most cases, is that you can make any female character "strong" by giving her skill with weapons or physical strength. She can be a basketcase so long as she "can totally, like, punch a guy." This falsely equates physical strength with empowerment. Why is this so common? Because it's so EASY. And it seems to work: how many women look at a female character suddenly sprout fighting skills and cheer even though it makes no sense? Do YOU know anyone like this? It's a little confusing to me. This isn't even what happens in real life, except in freak situations that end up as Cracked articles about random people going crazy.
The post also discusses the next step in the process of creating a Strong Female Character: you have to make her "realistic" by slapping on some token weaknesses. So, to compensate for being able to "totally, like, punch a guy" our heroine has a random failing which she never overcomes.
Empowered characters are more difficult to write, but also far more engaging and interesting. They don't always win, they're not always the toughest in the room. I think there's a similar problem with male characters (Rory [from "Doctor Who"] was generally despised until he became an action hero), and certainly it takes different forms for marginalised groups (magical minority characters, for instance). I'd recomend this post as reading for my writerly friends.
And this is the crux of what I tried so hard to say so many times about Elizabeth Swann in the POTC fandom all those years ago, when it felt like I was beating my head against the wall when addressing fellow fans who pitied her or were angry at her husband for her at the end of AWE, but I just couldn't apparently find the words to phrase what I meant: She didn't need to be "saved" from her circumstances, or from Will Turner, by Jack Sparrow or any other character, because she was as responsible for being in them as was her husband. The situation the two of them were in after a certain point didn't allow either a whole lot of self-agency, but they struggled within that to each do what their character dictated, with the knowledge they had. This means Elizabeth did, too, and could easily be imagined continuing to do so after the end of AWE. (Hell, even being imprisoned doesn't mean one can't be empowered; Will may be tied to the Dutchman, but that doesn't strip him of the character that empowers his actions and thoughts. Same with Lizzie.)