Every time I go outside, it starts to rain.
I don’t think there’s an actual cause and effect there, but it’s been happening a lot. I get a quarter mile out the door and it starts spitting. Ptooie! Ptooie!
Fascinating little discussion just came up on Too, regarding authors who “who write women characters as men with breasts, and the other way round.”
To me, the “man with breasts” approach suggests that the *idea* of a female character is inherently weak, and that a strong woman presumably can’t be anything other than a man with breasts. Harold promptly wanted to know if Joanne Walker was a man with breasts. Well, let’s look at her:
She’s a woman in a traditionally male field (both as a mechanic and as a cop), she’s not particularly comfortable with her emotions and would rather clam up than deal with them, and, at almost 6 feet in height, she’s physically imposing. She also shoots well, drives fast, and can’t cook.
Yes. If you define her in those ways, or define masculinity in those ways, sure, she’s a man with breasts. Image’s response was that, according to that description, except for his profession, he was evidently a woman with a schlong.
Exactly. I think it’s a specious argument. If the intended point of the “man with breasts” concept is that a reader thinks a female character is acting in too masculine a fashion because that character isn’t in touch with her emotions (or a male character poorly because he is), or because she acts first and thinks later, or (insert your favorite masculine stereotype here), then I suspect what is lacking from the story isn’t a female character, but clear motivation and behavioral consistency.
And those things can be *really hard* to do. They’re one of my own weaknesses. I’m getting better at them, because I’m aware of them now, but it’s really hard for me to work in enough motivation and explanation without feeling like I’m bogging down.
I seem to have a lot to say on this, so perhaps I’ll do another post about it later. But for now, I’ve been totally sidetracked me from my original post, which was just going to say things like, “I made an appointment to set up a retirement fund; don’t I feel all adult,” and, “Yay, I called Atlas,” and things like that. :)
It’s clearing up. Do you think if I go out to bike, it’ll begin to rain again?
miles to Mount DOOOOOOOOOM: 7
miles to Isengard: 374.5
I think there’s an inherent conflict between two competing ideas here.
* Some people have serious failings understanding other genders. (Typo’d genres for a sec, which is amusing.) See: Robert A. Heinlein for examples.
* Some people act in ways not consistent with gender stereotypes.
I know _lots_ of guys who are comfortable with their emotions, who enjoy cooking or cleaning, who like being supportive and nurturing. Most of them don’t want to grow breasts.
I similarly know _lots_ of girls who are decisive, strong willed, bad with emotions, messy, dominant, and don’t have any problem with that.
So, by writing characters that don’t marginalize people who aren’t gender stereotypes, you get accused of bad writing. WTF?
I think the key is that characters are characters. If all people of a certain gender or race or whatnot are interchangable and shallow, there’s a big problem. That’s clearly not a problem you have.
I think I mentioned when we were discussing HoS that Margrit didn’t ‘sound’ like an African-American, and that except for a brief glance into the mirror I wouldn’t know that she was one. And I think that’s fine – these people aren’t defined by their genders or their race unless it’s important for them to do so (just like some people are).
And by ‘sound like’, I don’t mean that she doesn’t speak in ebonics and therefore doesn’t sound black. I mean that there’s no characteristic in her internal dialogue which gives her a racial definition.
Wow, this form doesn’t work well with Firefox. No box labels. Or perhaps black box labels on a black background. I think I can see something faintly…
In re. retirement fund – I have found that having funds locked up in the US is extremely irritating in the EU. You might find the same
I’m with you; it’s a specious argument. Why does everything has to be seen through the gender lens? Joanne Walker/Siobhan Walkingstick is a great character who makes a great book because she is a complex *person.* No, she’s not a girly-girl, but that doesn’t mean she’s any less of a woman.
Sometimes I wish both fictional and non-fictional people could just be seen as humans, rather than as representatives of a group. If men and women were secure in their own masculinity/femininity, they wouldn’t need to go around slamming others who don’t fit into their carefully constructed categories.
Catie, just keep on creating great characters and don’t listen to them.
The form looks fine in my version of Firefox, Geni. Have you upgraded to 1.0.6?