FEMINISM

Today I was perusing livejournal, as one does, when I came across something that was discussing feminism as it relates to the media, particularly the failings of some feminists fans to really grasp choice (as it pertains to how someone chooses to be a woman) and the difference between characters and the real women they represent. As a response, I formed up a bunch of thoughts and spilled them on the internet. I found myself unusually articulate, so I've decided to share them with you. Here is my first comment:


Feminism, for me, is about the freedom to make a choice without being pressured into preordained roles. If a woman wants to go into construction, or a man into nursing, hegemonic ideas about "femininity" and "masculinity" should not have any bearing on their ability to do so.

Conversely, should a woman want to stay and home and raise children while being supported by her husband, she she feel free to do so, as long as it is an educated decision. If she has made the effort to look at other systems and viewpoints with an open mind, and still determined, by herself, that a life at home (or whatever) is what she wants, she should be able to do so without malice from those who lead different lives.

However, fictional characters in popular media should be scrutinized, because they are the mirrors we use to look at and analyze ourselves, which we should always always do.


Someone responded:


I think the OP [original poster] was saying fictional characters should be scrutinized, but not as 'women' but as 'fictional characters who are potentially written by men'

For example, when I say most of David Eddings female characters seem to fit a "perfect mommy" role where they're smarter than the men but exist only to support and guide and wipe their noses so they can run off and save the world, I'm not going "Mothers are evil!" Or that it's Wrong for women to support the people they love, just that the way he has EVERY character fit in that role is a writing flaw on his part. Does he have mommy issues? Or a fetish?

Same way as when the Simpsons has yet another beating heart appear I go "Heh, Groening and his heart fetish."


To which I elaborated:

I did not mean to say that fictional characters should be scrutinized as women, I am sorry if it came off that way. I think they should be scrutinized in how they are women, and what that does and how it is received.

In further detail: When writers create fictional characters, they are generally trying to make them sympathetic, or at least someone with which the most people can relate. In that sense the writer must include a level of "realism". By examining a character (and the reactions of the audience to it, interactions with other characters, cliches, metaphors, symbols, etc.) we can see not only what the author considers "realistic" but also society as a whole, and it is this way that we can divine problem areas. By problem areas I mean the incidents and behaviours that maintain and reinforce inequalities (here in gender.)

To use your example: certainly one, or a few, women characters who are "perfect mother" are entirely acceptable, even desirable, and in no way are bad characters, just as real "perfect mothers" are not bad people. The problem exists if these are the only women we see, or the only mothers we see, and if they never question their roles.

Certainly the way a character is written can reveal truths about the individual writer, particularly when certain aspects reoccur as you point out, but not always and seldom reliably.

Lastly, I take issue with the implication that problematic depictions of gender stem only from the writings of men.


My new friend replied again, mentioning that because something was on TV does not make it real; just because House is someone's conception of a doctor does not mean it is OK to follow his medical advice. I responded thusly:


One person's conception of a woman (or a doctor) is not the issue. The issue is that when that person is a writer whose work is consumed by a great number of people, it means that others are accepting their interpretations, and I think that anything and everything should be examined (and yes, critiqued) before it is accepted.

I see your point re: reality vs. fiction, but the fact is the fabric of society is changed by the media just as the media is changed by society. Because the science on House is questionable and requires the suspension of disbelief does not mean it is unworthy of discussion. The pseudo-science on TV shows (such as CSI) has been shown to have an impact on real society; it is because of influences such as these that analysis of the things we consume is so important.

And that, ladies and gents and everyone neither and in between, is why I enjoyed my women's studies class. It has given me the guts to partake in fun discussions on the internet!