blogs_blog_1374

True virtues of femininity?

 

Can I just say I don't understand who some people insist on separating the sexes at all. Beyond the terms of simple biology and some minor chemical changes, we are the same species. Any huge variation that has a dramatic effect on someone's abilities is.....far fetched. The virtues of being feminine or masculine, are basically the same thing.

Once you get further down the list you'll see that this is essentially my attitude, and this post doesn't contradict my views. I use the term "virtues of femininity", but I don't believe that certain virtues are feminine, so much as I believe that "femininity" has more virtue than what most men give it, hence shallow portrayals such as Black Widow that aren't really as human as Selina Kyle. I prefer characters who feel like real people, and I like to be able to see other people as real as well. I don't believe that there are explicitly feminine virtues and masculine virtues distinct from each other, but they share the same virtues and experience life, albeit in what I perceive to be in slightly different ways, since at the end of the day a woman experiences her life through a feminine mode and a male experiences life through a masculine mode. However one is to define those is a bit tricky, and figuring out what that is is bound to get someone to trip up with their wording from time to time as well as make certain false statements while trying to emphasize certain correct ones. The point is that I am writing this list as a man, looking from the outside in, knowing that I will never truly understand the opposite sex but knowing that I will almost certainly marry one of them, so I'm trying to put down what I know and what I value in a relationship. I gave some of my thoughts here because the virtues that she represents - virtues I admire universally - come up in a unique and feminine way that I find attractive.

 

I recognize that tone, by the way. I had it once with Wrack'n'Ruin, and I don't like getting the same vibe from anyone else. Some friends of mine have complained about your treatment of them as well, which can get derogatory, and I'm just going to speak out on the behalf of a site that stands against negative attitudes and call you out on inciting a discussion that could lead to very hard feelings and insecurity on the part of the receiving end. I agree with your points, but you say them in such a way that makes it sound less like positive contribution and almost like an attack on me.

 

24601

How you choose to perceive my comments is, of course, completely up to you.

I'm not sure a female character who is not as powerful or capable as the male characters in a narrative, and is basically incapable of affecting the male-power-struggle is empowering, and a female character who holds her own is not? It seems very clearly that you have that backwards.

 

(Also I have to quibble with your use of "gratuitous" for Black Widow's cleavage in the Avengers. It's actually very slight, especially compared to, well, a lot else out there).

 

Though let's be fair, both of these women are there for the male gaze. Though Catwoman's catusit vs Black Widow's (film, at least) uniform jumpsuit is far worse. The shiny material would be bad for a cat burgular, and not flexible enough for the acrobatic movements she engages in. Not to mention the heels. However you feel about Black Widow's cleavage, her outift is much looser, she is wearing boots, and it's just a black version of the same jumpsuit Maria Hill is wearing. Seems to be a black-ops version of the standard SHIELD female jumpsuit. Which is basically the same as the male SHIELD agent jumpsuit, just fitted. I'm having a hard time with the idea that Catwoman's suit is less male-gaze oriented than Black Widow, at least in the Avengers film.

 

Both women are, when it comes down to it, though, eyecandy. Which serves no interest of equality or empowerment at all. At least when she does it, Black Widow also holds her own, on her own.

DeeVee is quite correct.

 

A simple comparison between Black Widow and half the other "empowered" female characters is quite telling. One only needs to look at what happens to a female character in Skyrim when she wears fur armor to see that. A women can be the most capable fighter in existence within the fictional universe, but sadly, due to the need to appeal to an unfortunately large crowd...well, they are transformed into objects. I would argue that a female being able to fight her way out of any situation is, at least, a step in an empowering direction, though a bit blunt. Considering how many times the same formula has been applied to males, I think this is less of a problem with action girls and more of a problem with protagonists in general. Black Widow at least, has a sensible (more sensible) outfit and despite how some may feel about the revealing portion of it, it's hardly out of the norm. I can walk down the street and see things worse then that. Might even be used for a distraction-she is an assassin after all and every advantage counts in battle.

 

I'll also quibble a bit with your statement on relationships-you don't have to need or look for a good relationship? Considering the amount of loveless marriages out there and the number of happy celibates, I don't think this is accurate. People seek out mates because they feel the need to, the amount of people who fall in love with one another on sight is quite low. Relationships take work and dedication, and if you weren't looking for one in the first place...well, you won't put much effort into it.

Black Widow and Catwoman were both 'eyecandy,' as it's called(Personally, the person who thought that up should be shot.).

 

I liked Catwoman/Selia Kyle much better then Black Widow, probably because I'm biased against Black Widow already(Honestly, she sucks as a super-hero.).

 

I agree with DeeVee on Catwoman's uniform, but Black Widow's wasn't much better.

I have one or two opinions to inject. Firstly is the fact that I never saw fanservice as that much of a problem; what's the problem is when it's used gratuitously and doesn't benefit the story any. Really, if a crime fighter, be they male or female, wanted a versatile light weight crime fighting suit that didn't inhibit movement, I think yoga pants and a hoodie would be the way to go. This looks no where near as menacing or attractive, but it's surprisingly practical. Really, you can fight pretty good in them, I've had some heated polearm duels in that outfit.

 

Ahem, back to my point. I could care less about Black Widow's cleavage dip, which is more modest than a lot of clothes I see nowadays. I'm more wondering just how exactly she's so nimble in what appears to be skintight leather or spandex or some combination of the two. That's a lot more restrictive than it looks.

 

I suppose my TL;DR opinion would be; screw fanservice, I'm worried about how you're suppose to fight supervillians without ripping a seam somewhere.

 

Oh, right, I need to talk about empowerment somewhere. I'm a terrible person to speak on this, because I very rarely feel empowered by someone of either gender. The strong woman archetype... I don't know, I don't really care. Methinks the issue is that fiction makers think of women as women, rather than as people. I point to my favorite Star Trek captain, Captain Ben Sisko. While not a woman, he was the first black captain, and guess what, he was awesome. Why was he awesome? He did awesome things. And you know what? No one ever brought up his race. No one ever said "wow, the black guys doing this awesome stuff."

 

Compare to Captain Janeway, who the writers could barely go a week without saying "look guys, a woman, who's a captain! She's strong, she's awesome, and she's a woman!" This is the wrong way to go about it. Captain Sisko was the captain. He wasn't the black captain, he was the captain. He didn't feel the need to bring up his race, he didn't make snide racial jabs, he just did his job, and he did it awesomely. He was an awesome captain, not an awesome black captain. Janeway was always portrayed as the woman captain, not just the captain, and in my opinion that's where her character failed.

 

I'm hoping that somehow someone's going be able to figure out what I'm saying in my ramblings, but in case not, allow me to try to sum up. Fiction makers have the tendency to think of women or minority characters as women or minority characters, instead of just characters. Captain Sisko was written as a character; every now and then we'd have an episode of him making some old fashion Jamaican cooking. He didn't rub it in our faces, he didn't go "gee it's great to be black and Jamaican", he was just cooking his cultural food. Kinda like how future space Americans will no doubt cook hotdogs.

 

Characters have development and flaws and personality and background. So long as you write the character, and not, say, the female character or the black character it'll be fine. Unfortunately we get this state where authors, even some female authors, will write women who are archetypical, be it weak or strong, because that's how they think of them. Just look at Stephenie Meyer for proof of a female author that, ah, has some odd ideas about her own gender.

 

Second nonsensical and rambling opinion to inject, hopefully shorter this time. The whole male perspective female perspective thing stands true in a society such as ours, but I don't think the genders are doomed never to understand each other. Methinks it's more of a placebo than anything else; people don't try to look through the other's eyes because they don't think they can, or if they do they get a colored image of what they want to see/think they see. Idunno, could just be me. My friends of the opposite gender seem to think I have a pretty good grasp on it though, probably because of my somewhat odd outlook on life.

*Slow clap*

I've heard the "distraction" excuse for action girls' clothes before, and I've never bought it. It's a poor excuse for what logic says is just an excuse for giving male viewers something to ogle. Assassins would zip up catsuits because they need to be invisible, not a distraction. If a woman actually does that sort of thing, she would wear something like Ziva David or the other girl in NCIS:LA that I can't remember the name of right now. Of course, both Catwoman and Black WIdow are comic book characters, and they kind of have to wear that sort of thing.

 

As for my opinion on the main subject, Black Widow in The Avengers seemed to me to be nothing more than your average movie assassin-ninja-spy-feminist-empowerment-girl. Catwoman in The Dark Knight Rises, however, was refreshing because she can and did fail. Was she a feminist empowerment symbol for that. No. But frankly, it makes for a more interesting character, and I don't really give a care for that sort of thing in my movies anyway.

Basically, 'strong female character' should stop being a thing that needs pointing out. Because it's saying 'Oh this is so different, she's a strong female character' as if it's the exception to the rule.

 

Also Black Widow is 'eye candy', but Thor has his massive arms out a lot of the time, and then there's the part with Captain America in his needlessly tight blue shirt.

 

Just sayin'. Not sure what I'm adding to the conversation with that. But yeah, follow this up with the 10 most beautiful male characters and you'll be fine.

 

- Tilius

EDIT: this whole post was written before everyone else posted and would have come directly after Basilisks's response to DeeVee.

 

After having this discussion with a friend (and seeing how this list is from immediately after seeing The Dark Knight Rises), I have to agree with the point about the catsuit. She's partly there to be seductive, but dangit if she didn't actually succeed. For the most part, though, I refer to the character as Selina because for the most pat I view her beyond her life in the catsuit and through the clothes that she wears most of the time, which reminded me of the 20's, which was interesting for me. Then she switched into the skintight suit and I guess that does begin the process of objectifying her, but usually she was put next to other figures in black and the drama did a good job of distracting from it, while I also accept that skintight cloths tend to be a part of the genre, much like leotards are with Olympic gymnasts, and similarly I look at it unphased. But yeah, she does wear that suit quite well, and she does have to mannerisms to get me to blush.

 

Really, though, the reason why I would put her above someone such as Natasha Romanov is because she strikes me as more human. Granted, I guess she can only be so empowering, but then, empowerment isn't the only thing in play. I also think she's more relateable. I also think that she still manages to hold her own to a realistic degree, but she also has actual fears and actual concerns. For these, I think she represents the things that Batman is supposed to symbolize better than Batman. Batman has essentially become a dark, extralegal Superman for people, whereas the tale of struggle for Selina is more down-to-earth for me and I found myself relating with her character. And if we're talking about empowerment, I think that humanizing a character and making her more relateable is more important, and then the next most important is giving the character self-respect, which is what she had a lot of. Then yes, the next thing is to establish competency.

 

They both fill the role of token female, though. When you're the token female and you happen to be as strong as a man, that actually sort of objectifies you. I don't like it that Black Widow was objectified. The Dark Knight Rises fought against this somewhat, and as far as my judgment went actually succeeded, because I thought of her as a person first and then as a figure.

 

Ultimately, I do question placing her on this list. I have from the beginning, and it's good that other people do, too. Yet, I find myself really liking the character and I'm quite attracted to her, and while the list is primarily dedicated to my views on beauty, it's also completely based on characters and performances that I like, and it's a personal list, not something I would put into something more official.

 

A much bigger debate comes from the philosophy on relationships. What I intended to address here is the importance of two people balancing each other out as complementary identities within the single unit of a relationship, and in no way did I intend to imply falling in love at sight or during a first encounter is ideal. I'm not against that (especially if "first sight" means "first encounter"), since this has apparently worked, but I don't believe that people should be dependent on one another. I believe that a person should be independent and whole, because I don't believe that two people are two halves that create a whole, but two wholes that create another unit, that is to say, the function of a relationship. For this, I want to establish myself both economically but also emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually, because I really believe that a proper relationship requires maturity on the behalf of each member, and that each member should know and understand themselves to a considerable degree so that the nature and the direction of the relationship is more clearly defined, and they know what they get out of it. Otherwise, people just walk into a relationship, longing for security, and they don't get it on the long run. I encourage people to live life and first be themselves before getting into a relationship, and even then not looking too hard, lest it be forced. When the right person comes along, if you have the proper amount of self-knowledge, you should know. It's a person who complements you, someone you can respect, who can have a healthy relationship. So basically, I suggest that people should be ready for a relationship and not be needy for one, because we all know that relationships can go wrong.

 

24601

I cannot say how much I agree with your points on the woman warrior concept. That, especially in the case of Black Widow always turns me off. Has some good elements, but overdone. I very much agree that how Catwoman is shown, or for that matter Snow White from Snow White and the Huntsman is a much better way of showing it; their nature and goal in life is not fighting. It's more like they fight because they're forced to. Yes, you may call me sexist if you want. I will laugh if you do.

 

And of course, in my defense, male characters whose whole character is fighting also bore me.

So women have a different purpose then men? Women shouldn't be fighting?

 

.....Nope. Nope. That speaks for itself honestly. I could say something, but it'd just detract from that.

Now in response to the posts that have accumulates since then. Alex Humva's right, and so are LewaLew, Tilius, and Zarayna. By now we know that the "strong female character" can way too easily become too gimmicky, and the proper way making characters equal is to get to a place where it's not conspicuous and you no longer have to think of it. For example, I liked Selina Kyle and found her more likable than Batman, given that her flaws, fears, and objectives were more relatable. It also just so happened to be that she was female. It's good when a female character can address something bigger than female empowerment, because empowerment means that you tackle the big issues and themes, so she can stand for something big just like Batman and Superman can. Sociology is about learning about how ultimately we're all more alike than we are different, while at the same time accepting those differences for how they make us unique, and I do think that in part this movie subconsciously contributes to that sociological goal.

 

24601

So women have a different purpose then men? Women shouldn't be fighting?

 

.....Nope. Nope. That speaks for itself honestly. I could say something, but it'd just detract from that.

 

Ideally no one should fight, but that's not happening. We also have different views of the purpose of humanity, just because I believe one thing regarding holiness and eternity, and you believe another. Next, define fight. I could argue that a woman like St. Catherine of Siena did a better job fighting than most men, even though she never touched a weapon in her life. Fighting doesn't have to involve matter or weapons.

 

Of course, it's obvious that you were referring to physical fighting. I could most likely make a long case for why I don't like the idea of woman in the military, or why I believe that men should fight in wars rather than women, but not only would it be rather edgy regarding BZP rules, but I also feel it would detract from the purpose of the blog entry. To add to that, this is not a position I can fluently defend. Defend, yes, but not fluently.

 

Oh, hey Kraggh. I just wanted to let you know that I will be very mad if the other most beautiful female characters do not include Eponine. >=(

Wow. I don't even...wow.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nusaybah_bint_Ka%27ab

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Pingyang

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rani_Lakshmibai

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladiatrix

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kittur_Chennamma

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut_Nyak_Dhien

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut_Nyak_Meutia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Christina_Tiahahu

 

I'll let historical examples speak for me here. Considering the competence of the above, there is no logical reason to keep women out of the military.

Again, this is off topic. I have neither desire nor wish to discuss the topic. Let us go back to discussing Catwoman perhaps?

And I can list about half a million men against that.

 

What's your point?

Then why did you bring it up in the first place?

I was replying to your statement on women and fighting. It was an aside, not a topic in itself.

 

@thebeggerpie: Are you seriously telling me that half a million men won't talk about Catwoman? Ow.

I believe he was talking to me. Your logic, Beggerpie, is flawed. Considering the indefensible bias of many societies ancient and present, women have not taken to the battlefield often enough for their numbers to match the males. It's beyond me why you are even bringing up numbers. More often then not, when the women we know of in history, go to war, they perform competently or above and beyond that. This would suggest that women face no serious problems due to their gender when on the battlefield and that means there is no logical, empirical reason to keep them from fighting.

 

From the sample group we have, this is the conclusion that can be drawn.

On women in the military/combat in general, here's a fun idea - how about people who, regardless of the precise nature of a couple of their chromosomes, feel inclined to partake in military service just go ahead and do that. Those who are not adequate will be weeded out in training, and those who can go ahead and do the job will just go ahead and do that.

 

On the main topic... eh. The argument actually presented to say that Catwoman is better than Black Widow is unconvincing, and honestly the argument about one being superior because she is somewhat less than competent to deal with what has been put in front of her just seems weird to me. That being said, I'm not a fan of either of them. Too little practicality, most obviously with regards to clothing, but also combat technique.

Again, this is off topic. I have neither desire nor wish to discuss the topic. Let us go back to discussing Catwoman perhaps?

You did kind of just drop the bombshell that you're sexist, and then didn't bother to explain or defend it. You can't really do that, and you can't try and push away discussion from something you brought up.

 

See now it looks like you don't think women should be in the military because they belong in the kitchen and should be at home raising a family, AND they're obviously all weaker than men, especially those female bodybuilders (who think they have a right to lift weights alongside men, HA!). Because men of the modern day are ALL in peak physical condition, none of them sit around eating crisps and arguing on the internet (....) and we've all come a long way since the days of those unhealthy gladiator sorts. Or perhaps you believe that if women fought in wars, there would be nobody around to have and raise children, and we should impose a ban on military women for that reason - and in an ideal world, we'd pen them off and keep them in a stable, ensuring their safety and limiting their freedom so they never come into any harm. Obviously they shouldn't be able to drive or cross the street or anything either, because their sole purpose is to have and raise kids and we can't risk them dying else the human race will die out. Maybe that's why they should be in the kitchen - so they can cook for themselves and others so we don't even have to refill their troughs.

 

That's what I'm taking from your 'no women in military' thing. Either way, you're not allowed to dictate where a discussion flows to.

 

- Tilius

Here here!

 

That about sums up the implications behind that statement. Discrimination based on mere biology is illogical in the extreme. Denying someone the right to take up arms for the cause they believe in simply because of the arrangement of a few chromosomes is hardly the mark of a just society. Perhaps this is not the purpose of this blog article, but as it has evolved into this, I see no reason not to voice my opinion on this vital issue. We might have differing views on certain things Zarayna, but your views seem to involve denying people basic rights. Last I checked BZP had many female members...per chance does this violate the "respect other members" rule? I mean, you can't get more disrespectful then saying that they are not fit to fight because of their gender.

I said nothing that I was sexist. To call me such is entirely on your part. Furthermore, I must apologize for any bluntness, but please.

 

Please.

 

Be rational. Not raging, not flying into a tizzy, not being irrationally sarcastic. Just nice, civil and rational. Deal?

 

Don't make massive assumptions, 'kay? I say one thing, you assume I'm a bigot. I make a guarded statement and you assume you know my principles by heart. Seriously. I don't have a problem with woman not being in the kitchen, I don't have a problem with men being in the kitchen. If a man wants to cook, that's their choice, if a woman doesn't, that's hers, and vice versa. You're serious applying a label to me based on a few sparsely worded posts, and that's seriously not cool.

 

I don't believe women are stronger than men. Bam, we run into definitions of strength. Women can be very, very strong. Mother Teresa and other such amazing woman far outstep men like me in terms of strength. When it comes to men being physically stronger or not, it's all relative. My reasoning for the subject is a lot wider than that. As I said, it's also a lot different than this blog entry. Woman warrior? On topic. Military? Not so much.