distaff counterparts

[mustinvestigate]

There's a new Nostalgia Chick up this morning called The Smurfette Principle, which has had the husband and me debating modern token chicks and chickification. He's hopeful that the mass brain-dump that is the internet, particularly youtube and the like, is establishing a lot more variety as the 'default' of both demographic groups and just 'human.' I'm a bit less hopeful, as it seems those who really want attention (and get the tap to join the ‘legitimate’ media family) usually revert to shrill, retrograde stereotypes of whatever demographic they fit.

Or, actually, I’m not as grim as all that. Like, I have fanatical love for the canon Sally and Laurie, because they’re legitimate crimefighters, entertaining, attractive in a sort of big-strong-manly-faced way, and there’s the whole meta where what limits or ruins their lives is the different limiting ruining definitions of ‘woman’ their two generations face. And I don’t care that probably wasn’t so much what was intended as just how two male writers might unthinkingly box up two female characters. (See several previous tealdeer natterings on the subject.)

Then there’s the fanon Jupiter/Juspeczyks, which is generally a whole different and even more awesome thing. Especially when I think back to what was available when I first discovered fanfic as a young ‘un (mostly on geocities and surrounded by animated gifs) – and the Harlequin treatments commonly given to Scully or Buffy or Dr Crusher in order to make them fit fannish plots that didn’t have to get approval of executives and advertisers…yeah. I’m actually getting quite hopeful for the future of fictional women, if these are our wish-fulfilment versions.

Comments

Re: caution: tealdeer crossing

[daylilymoon.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry it took me so long to reply, but really, YES.

latter-day feminism, in which being 'feminine' (in a primarily consumerist fashion) is more laudable than any other effort, particularly in media figures.

God yes. It is consumerist. I never really got that until just now. It takes so much money and time and energy and more money to achieve a look which is considered properly feminine now. Just being in a natural state and making no modifications whatsoever is so often considered (gasp) mannish. And of course shopping itself is painted as feminine too. Thanks for pinning down for me what has always sort of subconsciously bugged me about "Pussycat Dolls Feminism"--It doesn't feel like an honest expression of sexuality or womanliness--just an expression of how well you can please the universal male gaze, coupled with an expression of how close you can get to the upper upper class. Lord, the money obsession is eating itself.

So Buffy wants a 'normal life,' but as she doesn't seem to have a burning desire to be[...]

You're right, she didn't seem to have lifelong ambitions beyond "get a normal life" which is implied as "date boys, go shopping." Which if you look at in a metaphorical sense... really sucks. Giving up super strength and a purpose to become kind of a stereotype? I used to think maybe she was this way because she thought longterm plans were useless in the face of a job which had very low life-expectancy, but then again... did she not have any goals or dreams before being chosen? For that matter, hobbies at all?

There’re a few Slayers in the show who do exactly that

Yeah, that's disturbing. Robin's mother dies, Kendra dies... Faith suffers but ultimately lives, since Faith is walking sexuality and also super hott.

Can there not even be one big super-strong girl who’s gung-ho like Vasquez in Aliens?

Seriously! Gung-ho in attitude and in body would be great. I mean, petite women can be totally fierce, but can we please also have some women cast in a fighter role who actually look like fighters, with muscles and scars and maybe even a big frame sometimes? And no matter what they look like, don't really care all that much about pretty?

Re: caution: tealdeer crossing

[mustinvestigate.livejournal.com]

Long gaps in replies are kinda my thing :)

"Pussycat Dolls Feminism" is such a great term for this! I've got a vendetta against it, which is partly personal...I moved from a culture where there was at least a 'tomboy' template to one where genuinely enjoying exercise for its own sake is deeply suspect. Forget keeping your hair short and make-up minimal on top of this...there's probably a re-education camp somewhere in Surrey for my kind. Sigh.

But on a larger scale, it impoverishes a culture's grasp of eroticism and sensuality. It's like, women who fancy guys have a pretty good range of lust objects...there's the male Pussycat equivilents (whoever took over after Brad Pitt and George Clooney started taking actual acting roles), but you can also quite acceptably lust over JEH, Ron Perlman, Tom Waits, any 'quirky' male figure and consider it normal sexual focus. It's not even considered too outre in most circles to admit to girl-crushing, either - hell, guys do that, and they're the default, so it's gotta be fine for women to imitate it :D

Whereas straight men are conditioned that finding any women outside this very narrow (and mostly unobtainable) look isn't normal sexual attraction but fetishism. It's something a bit weird that needs a market-demographic name to make them feel like they're at least part of a group of like-minded weirdos. Which is really pitiable! Like, the husband has had quite an education in the pervy female mind since we started dating. He knows I write slash, and the gist of the plots, and why I find what I do unbearably hot...which, from mainstream society's perspective, is all pretty damn weird stuff, right? And yet he'll only be partly joking when he asks, 'Is it too weird that I find her really, like really, hot?' - in regard to, for instance, the solid, strong, determined wife in A Serious Man.

My point of this ramble being, it's bad for women, and it ties men up in knots just as much, and it's all frakking pointless except to advertisers. Humph.

Re: caution: tealdeer crossing

[daylilymoon.livejournal.com]

Oh that's so true! Women are restricted to living in that narrow range of looks, men are restricted to finding that narrow range of looks attractive... sigh. Pointless indeed!