Male Roles Vs. Female Roles in Fiction: Discussion/Analysis/Troperwank

I love that comic book, personally.

Although I would argue that it's got both good and bad themes on gender politics. Yeah, Prince Charming is deconstructed and all, but...

• Big Bad's relationship with Snow.
• Boy Blue's relationship with Rose Red.
• Jack's relationship with ... well, anyone.

Yeeeeeeeeeeah. Those are some really unfortunate relationships.

Yet, the coping mechanism for men who feel helpless is to imagine they have power, not that they get rescued. This has it's problems as well, (not accepting help when it's offered) but ultimatelly it's the healthier of two flawed coping mechanisms because it puts the possibility of doing something yourself in your mind.

Than why don't men have the same fantasy?

It evolved over time and got better in the first part and for the other two... it's really hard to talk about that series without spoiling the hell out of everything, but I will say that Jack is a prat forever and always and never truly gets the karmic spanking he well and truly deserves.

I guess you could argue that the Manic Pixie Dreamgirl is along similar lines, but with less impressive brow ridges and more Pinkie Pie levels of randomness.

edited 24th Jun '14 8:31:46 AM by chi_mangetsu

"I'd like to be a tree." - Fluttershy

Indeed. And, realistically, she can be just as much of a "flawed coping mechanism" as the charming prince. So, no dice on the "men don't react that way" theory.

I honestly don't think it's the more healthy.

I would rather we end up with slightly more stories where both men and women help and rescue each other than a saturation of stories where everybody solves every problem themselves.

This isn't a question of agency versus no agency. The two shouldn't be a dichotomy. One should attempt to help themselves as much as possible, but help and rescue should be available nonetheless.

No, the Manic Pixie Dream Girl is not the equivalent of the Prince Charming using the very definition you provided as the core fantasy.

You said that the Prince Charming archetype rescues women at their Darkest Hour to remind them that they're valued. The Manic Pixie Dream Girl "rescues" a man from a successful-but-boring life and teaches him to have "fun" or whatever. Again, it's about the man, and even then, his "darkest hour" is not the same level of helplessness as the captured, enslaved, or enchanted woman.

Your argument is implying that a man living a modest-but-boring life is the equivalent of a woman being held captive or enslaved.

edited 24th Jun '14 8:40:08 AM by KingZeal

Prince Charming is an attractive man who enters into a helpless woman's life and solves all her problems for her.

Manic Pixie Dream Girl is an attractive woman who enters into a helpless man's life and solves all his problems for him.

I see little difference here.

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

Anti: you're focusing on the "rescued" part; I'm talking about the more general aspect: "Someone thinks I'm important enough to do something that is at least inconvenient for them and may cost them greatly because of me.". That "something" may be rescue, but just staying within the Fairy Tale genre it's just as often — maybe more often — a quest, or a task or series of tasks.

And for males, that same "I matter enough that someone will do something that costs them because of me" aspect shows up as well; it's only what the woman does and risks that changes — she defies her family or social conventions as a whole to be with him, she gives up a job or a dream.

So the social ramifications are different, and reflect a disturbing difference: the most important thing a man can risk is his life or physical well-being while a woman's highest gamble is social or psychological. But the core idea is the same: "I have enough value that someone is willing to put themselves at risk for me. They are willing to gamble for my sake." And that's a very powerful desire for any human. There are very few people who it won't resonate on some level with.

Please, if a coping mechanism works, it works. One isn't always better than another. It varies from person to person and situation to situation.

edited 24th Jun '14 8:44:39 AM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Indeed, the manic pixie dream girl works in pretty much the same way as the modern "prince charming", in that she accepts and cares for the guy for who he is, addressing his pent up and stifled emotions, and ultimately providing love and comfort. If he was merely bored, rather than repressed, the gal would be a side character at best. And, rather than being enslaved, the emotional imbalance for the guy comes with being overburdened with professional and social responsibilities - in a word, trapped. Same situation, slightly different metaphor.

edited 24th Jun '14 8:48:23 AM by indiana404

The difference are the degrees of "helpless" and the degrees of "rescued", as I mentioned before.

In the Prince Charming trope, "helpless" means actually helpless. Captured, enslaved, abused, bewitched, or all of the above. Rescuing means forcefully removing the person from that.

In the MPDG trope, "helpless" means "really bored". Rescuing means teaching him to lead his own, more fulfilling, life.

Hardly. Because for female characters, there is no "metaphor". They are STILL literally captured or abused. You can't compare "my life is boring" to "I'm literally in the worst position a human being can be put in".

Again, if you want to argue that there's no sexism here, find a better comparison.

edited 24th Jun '14 8:49:18 AM by KingZeal

Let's get something straight: Does "sexism" in this conversation about fiction mean "fiction meant for one gender (written by members of the same) intentionally objectifies the other" , or has it really come down to "fiction meant for one gender (written by members of the same) turns out slightly different that that meant for the other"? Splitting hairs in order to cry foul isn't really my thing.

In turn, the manic pixie dream girl can be viewed as a female fantasy, since it's basically about being free from social restrictions, and with the power to completely turn a guy's life around. Or being a god, natch.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Can you please reword that question?

Simply put, should we cry sexism whenever characters written by women for women don't turn out exactly like characters written by men for men?

The thesis here is that "flawed coping mechanisms" are a perfectly fine way to spend one's leisure time, with idealized and unrealistic characters serving an emotional purpose for the viewpoint character, and in turn for the reader. As long as both men and women can freely write and read such fiction, I'd think twice before chalking up any resulting characterization disparities to outright sexism.

Yes, we should.

We cry sexism for the same reason that characters written by men for men often show signs of both misandry and misogyny. And we cry racism when characters written by any race for people of their own race can show signs of racism and xenophobia.

When talking about coping mechanisms, we can't apply the same standards on an individual level (what helps an individual cope is their own business) to a macro level (encompassing an entire group or gender), because social trends do not exist in an independent vacuum.

Of course we should call attention to unhealthy stereotypes whenever and wherever they occur. Doesn't matter who has done the writing or who the fantasising.

"Oh, come on: it's just a bit of harmless fun!" is all well and good. Until somebody gets hurt.

edited 24th Jun '14 9:31:00 AM by Euodiachloris

For an example of an actual male MPDG I suggest The Fault In Our Stars. All in all, despite the twist in the end, it is a fairly straight example.

I would argue that there is a significant difference between calling "sexism" on [fiction written by men for men that displays misogynist characteristics or that objectifies women] and saying that [fiction written by men for men] is sexist on the bare basis that it doesn't handle situations the same way as [fiction written by women for women] does.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

From where I'm standing, complaints about sexism in this context basically amount to stating "people shouldn't like what I don't want them to like". I mean, that was the thesis on the previous page - that supposed sexist portrayals of both male and female characters, actually serve emotional purposes for both male and female readers. You can cry sexism when a man writes about a defenseless girl being rescued by a charming prince; but when both the writer and the main audience of such a story are female, it gets somewhat grating, rather like claiming that real women don't wear dresses, and scolding any girl who does. Now, why they would want to read such stories, I really wouldn't judge. To each her own. But fact is, demand is demand, and supply comes with it, usually by writers from the same group as the audience.

edited 24th Jun '14 9:39:25 AM by indiana404

Evaluating a work differently based on the sex of the writer is sexist.

edited 24th Jun '14 9:42:28 AM by Antiteilchen

So as a conceptual distillation, the classic Prince Charming rescues the heroine from physical bondage while both the MPDG and the Cullenbot-5000 rescues the hero/heroine from more of an existential, either emotional or psychological, sort of bondage. Is this more or less not correct? That and it seems the CB 5 K will often do the classic physical rescuing as well, but other than Scott Pilgrim where the MPDG trope is more or less skewered, I'm having a hard time coming up with examples where the MPDG does any physical rescuing.

x4 I liked it better when they went down in a hail of bullets. That would have been truly unexpected.

edited 24th Jun '14 9:43:05 AM by chi_mangetsu

"I'd like to be a tree." - Fluttershy

Two fallacies in that statement:

First, Offending the Creator's Own is a thing, as is "internalized categorism". There are plenty of cases of people of a particular group creating works that perpetuate bigoted stereotypes of that group. That doesn't make them any less stereotypical or bigoted. It is very possible to assist in your own oppression.

Second, "supply and demand" is a falsehood. Demand can be manipulated, or even created. And, as I've said before, social justice not only takes the world as it is, but as it should be.

But now we're repeating arguments that have been made before.

Bakemonogatari has a good example (that is, if you mean "physical rescue" to mean getting the person out of danger and not just winning a fight). Senjougahara Hitagi is not only a MPDG, but the Protagonist is a Failure Hero. More often than not, his attempts to physically fight a problem ends with him getting a No-Holds-Barred Beatdown. Cue Senjougahara showing up and either Talking the Monster to Death or manipulating events so that she wins. She doesn't do any actual fighting, but most of the antagonists are terrified of her.

edited 24th Jun '14 9:48:25 AM by KingZeal

Very much agreed.

And apart from MPDG types doing non-physical rescuing... they generally show the object of their attentions how to cope on their own. How to dream, get out of their rut, that sort of thing. Which isn't necessarily so much a flawed coping mechanism as a regular old coping mechanism.

(Also, can we call the White Rabbit and/or Cheshire Cat MPD As (Manic Pixie Dream Animals) for Alice? Just popped into mind, LOL.)

edited 24th Jun '14 9:52:06 AM by PointMaid

...Very, very Manic Pixie Wonderland, actually. And, psychotic. And, sociopathic. And, really, really high.

Yes, you basically keep saying people should only write and read what you want them to write and read. Again. While I still have some surprisingly fond memories of back when fiction in my homeland was dictated by the social and political agenda of all sorts of moral guardians, I'm not exactly convinced that's the way to go in the future.

Actually need to go back and watch that series, though after the whole toothbrush incident, I'm slightly afeared to do so.

Sure, especially if you follow the American Mc Gee school of thought.

Just as long as there are jetpacks.

edited 24th Jun '14 10:01:25 AM by chi_mangetsu

"I'd like to be a tree." - Fluttershy

Please don't try to make this about me or my presumed motives. I'm pretty sure that's thump-worthy.

As a writer, I know damn well how hard it is to avoid stereotypes while still writing stuff people can enjoy and understand. Shit, I wrote porn for a living at one point and still write it as a side gig. I triple dare anyone to write an erotic story that doesn't abuse at least one stereotype.

But the point is that you work at doing better. You may not ever get it perfect, but you keep trying.