![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Here is what I think:
If you think that a female character has been treated misogynistically by the writers, it is not feminist to duplicate that misogyny in your so-called "feminist" criticism of the character — that means that if you're talking about a character you think has been objectified, it's not feminist to then objectify her again in your use of language: don't call female characters who you think have been objectified "rubber dolls", "T&A", "nothing but a pair of boobs/legs", etc. Just don't do it. You can say that you think they have been objectified and give examples of that objectification, but there is no fucking reason to use that kind of language to speak pejoratively about a woman, fictional or otherwise. Because when you do? You're the one objectifying them.
If your "feminist criticism" of a character makes other women feel like terrible people or terrible women for identifying with them then you are doing it wrong; if your "feminist criticism" of a character deems her 'unrealistic' because she is "too smart" or "too insightful" or "too witty" or etc. then you are invalidating the lived experiences of real women who are smart, insightful, witty, etc. and you are setting a standard of realism for female characters which just does not exist for male ones. In fact, if your standard of anything for female characters differs from your standard of the same thing for male characters "for feminist reasons" then it's not actually for feminist reasons. Like, I just don't get why it's perfectly all right for Matt Smith to get more naked in "The Lodger" than it is for Karen Gillan to get in any episode of Doctor Who — and yet the fact that Amy goes around on average wearing, um, about as much as every other female companion is horrifically sexist and Matt Smith flashing almost every part of himself passes without comment.
I don't think that a woman can practise sexism by the mere fact of her existence, fictional or otherwise. I think that female characters can be sexist stereotypes, but it's overwhelmingly more common for female characters to be treated misogynistically by the narrative than to be misogynistic in and of themselves by virtue of the fact that they exist and have a particular set of character traits. I find it more than slightly problematic when dissection of a female character centres entirely on how everything about that character is an affront to all women everywhere rather than taking the text as a whole, including the way other characters treat that character (but then I suppose nobody wants to accuse their favourite male character of behaving sexistly towards a female character they dislike) — because then it's less like, "Hey, let's talk about the problems this text has," and more like, "Hey, let's talk about how much this one character fucking sucks and what a perfect feminist utopia the show would be without her. I suspiciously have no problems whatsoever with any of the male characters."
If you think that a female character has been treated misogynistically by the writers, it is not feminist to duplicate that misogyny in your so-called "feminist" criticism of the character — that means that if you're talking about a character you think has been objectified, it's not feminist to then objectify her again in your use of language: don't call female characters who you think have been objectified "rubber dolls", "T&A", "nothing but a pair of boobs/legs", etc. Just don't do it. You can say that you think they have been objectified and give examples of that objectification, but there is no fucking reason to use that kind of language to speak pejoratively about a woman, fictional or otherwise. Because when you do? You're the one objectifying them.
If your "feminist criticism" of a character makes other women feel like terrible people or terrible women for identifying with them then you are doing it wrong; if your "feminist criticism" of a character deems her 'unrealistic' because she is "too smart" or "too insightful" or "too witty" or etc. then you are invalidating the lived experiences of real women who are smart, insightful, witty, etc. and you are setting a standard of realism for female characters which just does not exist for male ones. In fact, if your standard of anything for female characters differs from your standard of the same thing for male characters "for feminist reasons" then it's not actually for feminist reasons. Like, I just don't get why it's perfectly all right for Matt Smith to get more naked in "The Lodger" than it is for Karen Gillan to get in any episode of Doctor Who — and yet the fact that Amy goes around on average wearing, um, about as much as every other female companion is horrifically sexist and Matt Smith flashing almost every part of himself passes without comment.
I don't think that a woman can practise sexism by the mere fact of her existence, fictional or otherwise. I think that female characters can be sexist stereotypes, but it's overwhelmingly more common for female characters to be treated misogynistically by the narrative than to be misogynistic in and of themselves by virtue of the fact that they exist and have a particular set of character traits. I find it more than slightly problematic when dissection of a female character centres entirely on how everything about that character is an affront to all women everywhere rather than taking the text as a whole, including the way other characters treat that character (but then I suppose nobody wants to accuse their favourite male character of behaving sexistly towards a female character they dislike) — because then it's less like, "Hey, let's talk about the problems this text has," and more like, "Hey, let's talk about how much this one character fucking sucks and what a perfect feminist utopia the show would be without her. I suspiciously have no problems whatsoever with any of the male characters."
no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 06:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 06:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 06:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 06:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 10:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 10:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 11:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-12 05:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 06:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 06:45 pm (UTC)Why do I always click? I tell myself I won't do it but I always do.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 06:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 06:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 06:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 06:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 06:46 pm (UTC)I think what people don't understand is that feminism is about EQUALITY! Its about holding PEOPLE to the same standards, regardless of gender. And its obvious that here most people are holding women to much higher standard, one of unachievable perfection.
If you wanna say someone is "anti-feminist" or "sexist" simply because of the length of her skirt or how loud her voice is, then you need to go back to college and take a gender and womens studies class. Cause that would let you into the little secret that the only one sexist in that scenario is you.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 06:52 pm (UTC)If you wanna say someone is "anti-feminist" or "sexist" simply because of the length of her skirt or how loud her voice is, then you need to go back to college and take a gender and womens studies class. Cause that would let you into the little secret that the only one sexist in that scenario is you.
Exactly.
Like, I just don't see how it can be 'feminist' to say something which, if you took out all the pseudo-feminist rhetoric and replaced it with sexual slurs, would be indistinguishable from a misogynistic screed.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 06:55 pm (UTC)And as far as Amy actually being an example of sexism, I wont even get into that. Basically I read that discussion, got angry, read your replies and 100% agreed with them.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 07:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 07:07 pm (UTC)So you know what? Fuck them.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 09:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 09:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 10:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 10:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 10:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-12 01:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-12 12:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-12 05:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-12 12:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-12 05:31 am (UTC)WORD.