Skip to main content

Workin' On It Wednesday #36 -- On Women In Action

Recently, there's been a bit of controversy in the blogging world* ensuing from The Rejectionist's review of Maggie Stiefvater's latest book Shiver.** The Rejectionist's primary objection to Shiver is that she feels that the protagonist doesn't do anything but live for her man.*** The Rejectionist uses Shiver as a springboard to talk about the weak nature of female characters in YA fiction. Since I haven't read Maggie's book yet, I don't have an opinion about whether The Rejectionist is right or wrong on the issue of Shiver's protagonist.**** But I agree with her whole heartedly on being tired of what The Rejectionist calls "feeble and inept teenage-girl main characters."

And that's why I didn't like 2012. Because the women in it (no teenagers, actually, but grown women) were both feeble AND inept. One of them was more feeble and inept than a ten year old boy, in fact. For real.

Normally, I love disaster movies. I love the parts where stuff blows up, and the parts where people try to figure out what the hell is going on, and the parts where the hero***** escapes (along with anyone he likes and some people he doesn't) certain death by the narrowest of margins. I love good disaster movies and bad disaster movies (sometimes the bad ones even more the good ones, if the truth be told).

But the whole time that I was watching 2012, I was wondering why there were no good woman characters. NONE. Zero. Zip. Zilch.

Now, the disaster movie genre is, traditionally, a primarily male-dominated. That's fine. I accept that that's how disaster movies generally work.****** But there's a huge difference between "male-dominated" and "women as useful as a dishrag" in facing disaster. In Armageddon, for example, 99% of the cast is male, but one of the NASA astronauts who saves the world is a woman. She doesn't have a big part, but the part she has says "women can be astronauts."

Or in Volcano, even though the protagonist is played by Tommy Lee Jones, the second lead role is a scientist played by Anne Heche. And her scientific partner is also a woman. Or in Dante's Peak, Linda Hamilton plays the mayor of a small town. Or in Independence Day, one of the characters is a kick ass stripper (okay, not the most empowering role in and of itself), who, in the face of an alien attack, commandeers a fire truck and gets herself, her son, and a bunch of other people (including the First Lady) to safety.*******

But in 2012, there are only three women: (1) Amanda Peet, who plays a wife and mother with no discernible job or skills. She's the one who is less useful than the ten-year-old; (2) Thandie Newton, who is ostensibly some sort of art professor, although her main purpose is to look cute for the guys in the movie, and (3) a blond Russian golddigger character, who is actually a little cool but has such a small part that she doesn't really count.

No scientists. No politicians. No women who are useful or capable of more than crying and screaming.

So I didn't like it.

I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with The Rejectionist that I would like it if the female characters in movies and books were a little more there, if they're going to be there. I do not believe that all books or all characters have to conform to some sort of feminist agenda********. Every woman that appears in a book or a movie doesn't have to be smart and brave and capable and awesome; frankly, that would be a little boring and predictable.

But I would like them to have interests, and professions, and at least one skill, and one interest beyond a boy. In other words, I would like them to be three dimensional characters.

~~~

* In the fanfic world, we call these "kerfluffles." No, I'm not sure why.

** Full disclosure: I haven't read Shiver, yet, but I really enjoy Maggie Stiefvater's blog.

*** This is also an argument advanced by critics of the Twilight series protagonist Bella Swann.

**** And if I did have an opinion, I wouldn't put it in a blog entry. :)

***** And it's always a hero, never a heroine. sigh.

****** As opposed to horror movies, where women have really started to move from victim to protagonist over the last couple of years to surprising effect. See, e.g., The Descent, which was (a) AWESOME and (b) had an all-female cast.

******* One of the things that makes this character a little better than the typical stripper role because she's a take charge woman. So, for example, she saves a bunch of people, including a bunch of men, but she still ends up driving the fire truck and being the leader of the group.

******** Although there's nothing wrong with the feminist agenda, per se.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Are you trying to tell us that YOU would be useful in a disaster? Ha ha. My experience has been that women's usefulness in different situations varies with the woman and the situation. For example, if you have an emergency mathetmatics problems, Mrs. Anonymous is your strong female solution. If you have cut yourself practically to the bone (which, I dare say, is basically equivalent to needing to save the world from an exploding volcano), Mrs. Anonymous is actually less useful than a dishrag. At least a dishrag will sop up some of the blood while you try to revive Mrs. Anonymous from her fainting spell.

Then again, Mrs. Anonymous has not spent her life preparing for zombies and other disasters the way you have. Should I run into any zombies, I'll give you a call.

Today's word verification: IMPLESSE.

That's GOT to be a word in some language.
Jay Montville said…
Anonymous, are you somehow implying that a woman's usefulness in a situation varies, but a man's does not? Because, if so, then we're going to have it out, baby. There are several men I know who would be...less than useful in a disaster situation, and one of them is someone you and I have both worked for.

In my experience there are people who can handle disasters and people who can't, and that's true regardless of gender. I just would have liked 2012 to show one chick who could do something besides appraise art at the end of the world.

Popular posts from this blog

Monday Miscellany

1. I've been watching old episodes of The West Wing on Bravo lately, and have come to the conclusion that I love the character of Sam Seaborn. He's smart, he's earnest, he's a good writer, and he's played by Rob Lowe. What's not to love?* 2. I just bought the cutest jacket at Ann Taylor Loft. I know you care, but it's not every day that one can find a white denim jacket with styling reminiscent of Michael Jackson and a tailored waist. I'm just saying. 3. NaNoWriMo proceeds apace. There is no way that I'm going to be able to keep writing at this pace after this month is over, but I'm on track to finish. It's an interesting project...in some ways the speed is freeing and in other ways it's extremely limited, as to make the word count I have no time to go back and revise. 4. Alien and Aliens are amazing movies. Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection ? Not so much. 5. This week's Glee characterization inconsistency watch: Rache...

Why Are The Characters Friends?

Lately, I've been reading a lot of books where the main character and her best friend don't get along. This is confusing to me. Why is the main character friends with someone she dislikes, or is afraid of, or actually hates? I get that it happens--I've seen Mean Girls . I've read Queen Bees and Wannabes . Heck, I'm old enough to have been the prime audience for Heathers . But in order for this fractured best friend relationship to be convincing, it has to be set up. In both Heathers and Mean Girls , there's a reason why the protagonist is friends with a bunch of b*tches--she chose to be. She knows that they're jerks. In fact, she can feel herself becoming a jerk right along with them. It's part of the character arc, the point of the story, that being friends with these girls is not who she really is. But the relationships I've been seeing lately don't make that kind of sense. The protagonist doesn't have a reason to be friends with...

Jay Takes A Stand

Moonrat, still at Editorial Ass, is making me think a lot lately. She did a recent post here about sexualized violence in print ads, and connected the dots to sexualized violence in books and other media, which got me thinking about how I treat girls and women in my books. To be clear--I'm a feminist. I believe in equal pay for equal work and reproductive choice, and the whole ball of wax. I'm not going to go into detail about all that here because, frankly, there are people out there whose blogs are dedicated to that kind of thing (like Jezebel *) and they do it way better than I ever could. But that's my political orientation, in case you care. So when I was writing The Book, it was very important to me that my female protagonist S did not fall into any of those "heroine needs saving by the hero" tropes that so many books for teenage girls do. Sure, there's something very "romantic" about the hero swooping in and rescuing the heroine, right? ...