That? - That’s
what I actually got to wondering. I’ve
been toiling with a rather oddball bit of fiction, and have chosen to use it as
the test kitchen for future writing. This
has meant an intense amount of research across multiple subjects. Well, research interspersed with Facebook, catchy
indie rock, and liters of coffee, but you get the idea. I’m not trying to redefine a genre, or write
my magnum opus. I’ve already done the
scrambled eggs and bacon – I’d like to make a substantial brunch. I really can only define what it will be by
what it won’t, and it won’t be anything within my comfort zone. Of this, I am pleased.
Generally speaking.
The query I have
is how to make better characters. I have
a hell of an adventure mapped out that, honestly, writes itself. The characters are good, well-defined, and
pretty likeable… save their whole dynamic being more predictable than either a
night playing a SquareEnix videogame, or a fraternity kegger ending with
someone vomiting in a hall closet. Combined.
See, if a male
character has to go through a series of trials and tribulations, he’s
considered a very functional – albeit, normal - character. Why is it, then, that when this character is
gender swapped and undergoes the same process, is she considered “strong”? Who has created these standards? Why do they exist? Shouldn’t she be
substantial enough for just having played the role?
Why is Zoe
Washburne considered stronger than Lara Croft?
Why is Lisbeth Salander stronger than Veronica Mars? What makes Stephanie Plum stronger than Harry
Dresden? He’s a wizard, for ball’s sake –
a wizard!
These little
wonders made me take the theory a step further down the road. See, the basic thought would be that women’s
rights have been propelled so highly that they surpass men’s rights. That same basic thought proposes that this is
a good thing. If you are thinking that,
stop it. Seriously. That’s fucking stupid. There’s a very basic principal that exists in
anthropology, mathematics, socioeconomics, politics, et-frickin-al, and it
outlines that the current “normal” level of equilibrium is well below the
ideal. In order to achieve full
equilibrium, one controlled factor must be elevated and leveled. After this leveling, all controlling factors
would create a new equilibrium. If you
can’t tell by the way I’m detailing all of this, I have – in fact – forgotten its
name; feel free to contribute.
In a more direct explanation,
this would mean society agrees to propel one demographic lower while pushing
another higher. It then reinforces this
through regular indoctrination of every person introduced into that group. We already have an innate desire to hold a
woman’s life in higher regard – it’s part of programming for preservation of
the species. The modern way of thinking
takes this notion of preservation, and tells you why men must do this: because they
are inferior.
I don’t want a woman who is ‘better’ – I want a woman who is
‘as good as’. The problem is how to achieve
this, while making her memorable. If I
follow popular literature, she would have to be tragically saved by a beloved
male in freezing cold water outside a boat sinking in the Atlantic, or survive
a violent assault and reciprocate by tattooing “I am a sadistic pig and a
rapist” on the assailant’s stomach. Both
are examples of what we’ve accepted as a strong female lead. In the case of the former: American
romanticism and the perpetuation of the disposable male. More on that in a bit.
On the latter, though – now THAT’s something to go on
about. In a country filled with gross
inequalities the likes of which we have not seen as largely here in America,
she IS a strong lead. What intrigues me (bit
of conjecture here) is that while women can rally behind Lisbeth Salander, this
was a character created for men. By
making this character a battle flag, the plight of women’s oppression in Sweden
would have never reached the magnitude that it has since Stieg Larsson’s first
printing. And not just the banner of
females, but the hero of men alike.
Those that can’t view her as a hero are just enough afraid of her to do
whatever she asks.
Sometimes, fear is as effective a weapon as guns or knives.
The American expectation is to give a woman equal
rights. I agree with this – I don’t feel
one human should have authority - or be a limiting factor in any way – over their
right to life, liberty, and the true pursuit of happiness.
Oh, and men are also taught that it’s always “women and
children first”, don’t share your feelings, don’t cry, don’t hit a woman, they
are the fairer sex so tread lightly around them, and ignore their petulant
child because she can, at least, have them.
If you get sick or are feeling depressed, tough it out, bottle it up,
and you’ll be good. While we’re at it, we’re
also going to carve up your genitals, but they’re not going to, so, deal with
that one. We will also back this up by
making you still look to be the stronger of two sexes so that you can support all of this, and be ready to give your life for them.
And, uh, one final note: you’re not going to get any
recognition for the rest of your life, and, most of them are going to say you’re
not doing enough. If you complain about
it, other guys will thinking you’re either joking or pussy, and women will just
think you’re an insufferable arsehole. Got
that? – thanks! – have fun being male!
Look, I get it. Women
can have babies, guys can’t. They also
have a monthly cycle that has taught me the lesson of knowing when to shut the
fuck up and chose my battles (praise be unto Aunt Irma). Fine.
I support an international standard of giving them the week off of work during
this. I wouldn’t want to go into work
like that, man. But beyond that? – we are
all human. Plain and simple. I don’t
have any right to deny women their rights as human beings, they don’t have the
right to cut off my dick while I sleep at night. It really is as easy as that.
Maybe it’s that these strong female characters remove men
from their lives. Which, while they are
awfully badass while doing this, strikes me as being even more sexist.
So the question still remains: what makes a female character
strong? I believe equilibrium - finding ways
that the character compliments a group and playing it out in spades. Hermione Granger was a stronger character
because she was integral to that dynamic.
Each character in that triad had their specialties, without which, the
group would fail. Zoe Washburne (from
Firefly, if you’re wondering) worked well with the crew of Serenity for this same
reason.
Maybe even they’ll just be charitable enough to say “Thank
you,” after I’ve held the doors open for them. I know my female characters would.
No comments:
Post a Comment