|—||a forum post I read recently, trying to give a solid example of what ‘male objectification in gaming ’ would actually look like if it was anything equivalent to current female objectification in gaming. (via nothingbutsurrender)|
[rebloggable by request]
Well, first of all, WELCOME TO ONE OF MY PET PEEVES.
A female character does not have to be “strong” (whatever your definition of that is) to be a good character.
Women can be strong, or wussy, or emotional, or stoic, or needy, or independent, and still be legitimate people and interesting characters.
In our totally understandable desire to see portrayals of strong women (in reaction to decades of damsels in distress and women as appendages), we’ve somehow backed ourselves into this corner where the only acceptable portrayal of a woman in the media is a strong, kick-ass woman. That is not doing women any favors. It just leads to the attitude that you have to be ONE WAY ONLY to be legit as a woman. You shouldn’t have to be Natasha Romanoff or Xena to be considered a good character. Don’t get me wrong, I love a good Buffy as much as the next person, but that should not be the only acceptable portrayal. It should be okay for a female character NOT to be strong, too. Let’s take Molly Hooper as an example. She is not the stereotypical “strong” woman. But hell, she went through medical school, didn’t she? She’s smart, and she’s funny, and she serves a story function - she is not a major character, but she doesn’t have to be. But her character gets criticized because she pines after Sherlock. What, you never pined after somebody? Did it make you invalid as a person? You never got a bit silly over a crush? I know I did. And I still consider myself a strong woman. It should be okay for Molly to have a crush on Sherlock without getting the “oh, she’s so pathetic, what a terrible example, what a horrible female character” thing she so often gets. Yes, because it’s so terrible that a female character should reflect an experience that like 99% of us have had.
Screw writing “strong” women. Write interesting women. Write well-rounded women. Write complicated women. Write a woman who kicks ass, write a woman who cowers in a corner. Write a woman who’s desperate for a husband. Write a woman who doesn’t need a man. Write women who cry, women who rant, women who are shy, women who don’t take no shit, women who need validation and women who don’t care what anybody thinks. THEY ARE ALL OKAY, and all those things could exist in THE SAME WOMAN. Women shouldn’t be valued because we are strong, or kick-ass, but because we are people. So don’t focus on writing characters who are strong. Write characters who are people.
The only bad female character, if you ask me (and you did), is one who’s flat. One who isn’t realistic. One who has no agency of her own, who only exists to define other characters (usually men). Write each woman you write as if she has her own life story, her own motivations, her own fears and strengths, and even if she’s only in the story for one page, she will be a real person, and THAT is what we need. Not a phalanx of women who can karate-chop your head off, but REAL women, who are people, with all the complexity and strong and not-strong that goes with it.
This is why I disagree with the “damsel in distress” criticism of Irene in the last scene of Scandal. Here’s the thing about being a damsel in distress…it’s only bad if that’s all she is. If the character’s defining characteristic is being a damsel in distress, that’s bad. But if an otherwise complex character with lots of other agency and actions happens to be in distress, then…that’s all it is. She is in distress. That happens. Characters are often in distress, or there would be no plots. Should a female character never be allowed to be in distress, at ALL, to be valid? No.
A strong female character is one who is defined by her own characteristics, history and personality, and not solely by the actions or needs of other characters. She is a person in the story, not a prop. That is the best definition I can come up with. Note that my definition did not involve martial arts.
That was probably longer than you were anticipating! I’ve had that percolating for a long time.
this won’t get 1% of the women’s version of this post.
the world we live in, and people in general don’t care about men. we are pretty much robots who aren’t allowed to show emotion. we’re taught from a young age that boys don’t cry.
fact is women are sexualised, men are idealised. because men can’t be raped because they’re big and strong right? right? yea, pretty much the idiots view of living.
signal boost this shit
this needs much more notes, people need to see this
No means no, no matter what fucking gender you are
these kinds of posts always get notes on tumblr though because we realize and acknowledge the problems of everyone (no matter what gender)
welcome to the queerfabulous tumblr : ohthentic.tumblr.com
Isn’t it nice how people twist their religious scripture to suit their weds but when it’s used against them it’s suddenly not okay
I talked to a monk about this quote once (we have mutual friends, and he came to a New Year’s Eve party at my shared art studio). He said this isn’t even talking about homosexuality. That the bible never actually says homosexuality is wrong. What that passage means is this:
Women were treated as subservient and it that you shouldn’t treat other men as subservient, like they are beneath you. It is not talking about homosexuality. If it was, it would say it outright since the bible lists other things outright.
I take the word of a monk who have studied the bible extensively more than a self proclaimed Christian.
I’m a Christian and I approve this message.
This says a lot about people
THIS SCENE WAS SO POWERFUL
I don’t know where this is from, but that’s actually really strong.
please somebody tell me what this is from
The L Word
Jenny Schecter, ladies and gents. (I met Mia Kirschner some time ago and am glad for the opportunity to tell her how powerful this scene was for me).
listen to me
paris hilton’s BOYFRIEND released a SEX TAPE featuring her and everyone made jokes about it FOR YEARS AND YEARS you STILL see jokes being made about it on tumblr TODAY
a woman filmed a video of justin bieber SLEEPING FULLY CLOTHED for 15 SECONDS and you’re all saying how “invasive and rude” it was and how she’s a “horrible person”
please check your internalized misogyny at the door bc i am not here for it.
I love this image so much.
I’ve seen some women who are offended by this and say it’s ridiculous that her cleavage is showing and things of that sort.
Personally, I think it’s great.
Why should we have an image of a women with her hair tied up and flexing her muscles like she’s a man? (not that that isn’t great too!) In a way it suggests that when our hair is down, our breasts are visible and we wear (GASP) lipstick, we’re somehow lesser than men? We can do it! We can be feminine and successful.
You see what I’m saying here, ladies?
You don’t have to lose your femininity. Being feminine is great. Being masculine is great. Strength is not limited to one way of being.
oh my fucking god, this again
Have you even looked at the actual Rosie the Riveter poster lately?
She’s ALREADY WEARING LIPSTICK. AND MASCARA. AND BLUSH. Her eyebrows have been PENCILED AND TWEEZED. And underneath her work bandana? HER HAIR HAS BEEN CURLED. Rosie the Riveter is a beautiful woman. This image in no way implies that wearing feminine apparel (like cosmetics) is a negative thing.
The reason that she has her hair up and her shirt buttoned and is flexing her arms has nothing to do with prudery, or with trying to be “masculine” (as if shows of physical strength are unique to one gender). It has to do with the information at the bottom of the poster: Rosie is involved in war production. That means doing hard physical labor in a 1940s factory, where large heavy machinery can easily snag a loose lock of hair, or a bit of jewelry, or an undone button. “Makeover” Rosie would not be able to do the real Rosie’s job without serious risk of injury to herself or the people around her. In that sense, the new poster is implying that no, women are NOT capable of doing the same work as men, because they are too weak/vain/self-absorbed/whatever. The old poster is saying that, while still being feminine, women are just as capable of doing the same work as men.
Also? The new and “improved” Rosie was specifically drawn to be ANTI-FEMINIST. “[William Murai] created this image for the Brazilian Alfa Magazine to accompany an article about the End of Feminism. 'The idea was to remake the famous feminism symbol “Rosie the Riveter” [into] a lady who is giving up on her duties and trying to look sexy again.’” (emphasis mine)
Giving up her duties and trying to look sexy? For whom, exactly? According to the artist (and the patriarchy), men. In other words, quit your job, look hot, find a man, gb2 the kitchen, and make me a sandwich, bitch. Also known as THE SAME TIRED-ASS SHIT WOMEN HEAR EVERY. FUCKING. DAY.
The new poster is not “progress.” It is not about women being “feminine and successful.” It’s about the exact opposite: women being reduced to their appearance and their sex appeal according to the standards imposed by the male gaze. She is pretty, but that’s all she is, because that’s all women are supposed to be. The real Rosie (you know, the feminist icon?) is beautiful, and feminine, and strong enough to do the work necessary to keep her country safe, just the same as any man. Her worth is not in her appeal as a decorative object, but in the product of her labor and her own awareness of her abilities.
Rosie the Riveter. Accept NO substitutes.