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

But the trope's just an exaggerated version of what happens in real life all the time. We note all the times it goes wrong as creepy, but if it goes right it's just romance.

It's this sort of dissonance between reality and fiction that things get weird. Society hammers in the idea that being in a relationship is the end all be all, fiction exaggerates the process of romance while simplifying it down to a formula, and so when people attempt to use the formula as a means to an end to gain a goal (romance), but reality doesn't align with them, cue frustration and annoyance and all those bickering moments of drama, and from time to time stalkerish habits and further escalation.

It's a clusterfuck of issues that isn't as simple as "television tells people this" or "people are just bad" or "women lead men on" or "society is hurting people". And as interesting as looking the issue from one personal perspective is, it's just one slice of a bigger world.

I think that the "she said no but I kept asking and eventually she gave in and gave me a try" thing is starting to be seen as else romantic as time goes on. The actually romantic ones generally don't have any kind of pre planning to them "we were friends who fell in love" is romantic because there's no pre planning, there's no resentment if it doesn't happen, there's no manipulation. Part of the romance is the organicness, once you try and create such a scenario it looses all romance.

I think a big part of the problem is that people have trouble differentiating between lust and love. Writers especially.

"I just met her and she's cute and funny and nice and I'm completely in loooooooooooove."

Nope. That's attraction, not love.

It's because the "we fell in love naturally" thing isn't immediately applicable to plot, while "character y tries to achieve x, but fails repeatedly and needs to keep trying" is easier to plot, and it makes for a protagonist that, from their perspective at least, is easier to relate to. The problem is that "x" in this situation is actually character "xx", aka a person with their own thoughts and desires, and making them out to be the reward for trying really hard sends the wrong message to people.

Let me state it with less algebra.

Society tells people (I'll try to leave gender out of this) that they need to be in a romantic relationship with someone of the opposite sex. If they don't they're a hopeless creepy loser at best, and at worst gay. And that's a clear no-go.

Media proclaims the narrative of the person who, with determination, could achieve romance. It's a nice, uplifting message. Of course you can achieve anything if you try really hard, it's the fundamentals of American society. It also proclaims the story of "friends that fall in love" as a real thing that happens, and what's more, as something that by the earlier story is very much achievable.

Person tries to achieve romance. Unfortunately for Person, Love Interest is their own person with their own thoughts and desires. Person tries very hard, but they come off as desperate and creepy. Person is frustrated by this. Society gave them a goal and methods to reach the goal, but they failed anyways? Are they just not trying hard enough? Or was the goal always set against them, or are other people keeping them from achieving the goal? Is the game unfair, or are the players unfair?

And neither scenario is pretty. In one scenario you wind up accumulating a deep hatred of an entire group of people, and can get dragged down into some very dark places that can really hurt yourself and the people around you. But in the second scenario you have to confront a lot of other possibilities. Maybe you've fucked up because you were never meant to beat the "game", cue long spiral of self-loathing and hate. Or maybe everything you've known about the game is wrong and your entire identity and sense of self is built upon bullshit, and now other people are telling you that the solution to your problems is to ignore the people that are telling you the wrong secret to society (which can only be achieved by doing what they say) and follow the people that say they have the right secret to society (which can only be achieved by doing what they say).

edited 9th May '16 4:28:47 PM by InAnOdderWay

Your point about homophobia made me think, do we get the same standards in same sex romances? Is there the same silly "he kept asking until eventually I said yes" thing for same sex couples?

While it isn't shown in media as much straight up, I've seen some deconstruction types (Homestuck is one hell of a drug) where one partner in a gay relationship is being extremely pushy and dominating in the relationship to the point where they come off as controlling and creepy.

That being said, it certainly doesn't have that same gender singed tint. As much as I tried to roll over that part in my mini-essay, gender roles are certainly a large part of things (though it doesn't mean that the reverse can't and doesn't often happen).

Ouch. The intended message is "you can get any thing if you work hard enough". It works fairly well for, say, swimming competitions.

But in romance plots, the "thing" is your love interest, who is a human with their own personalities and lives and interests, not a trophy for you to earn.

However, society doesn't see that. Instead, it's combined with the expectations of having to find a partner, or else you're a loser.

So, stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Could this be combined by society's expectations of women to not be direct or forthcoming, lest they come off as aggressive and unattractive? There was an article on why women are seen as 'mysterious'...

edited 9th May '16 10:46:43 PM by hellomoto

It's shocking really! Recent studies found that they have their own desires, dreams, ambitions and everything!

It's almost as if

they're fully independent, rational thinking human beings!

Romantic objectification is as much a thing as sexual objectification. It's still the reduction of a three-dimensional human being to an object. A prize to be won, a trophy to be owned, a goal to hit or a task to complete. A thing, not a person.

edited 11th May '16 11:29:13 AM by TobiasDrake

Yeah, basically.

Even disregarding the harm that this could bring to other people, human beings are complicated and unpredictable. Expecting other people to be social links you can advance in by spending enough time/acting a certain way/etc is just going to leave you frustrated.

"How often does this style◊ of Dogged Nice Guy occur as a romance plot? "

more in anime and sometimes wester cartoon where the writer take time, sometimes the entire series(kim possible or avatar) and so own, granted is not so calculated and...sociopathic as it show, is just that one of the chararter have a crush and have the entire time.

Sometime this people dosent now how to said so they try to go safe: make the show how good you are and them having her to make the big step(which is not so bad consider how little we push women to actually be proactive) other just have so fear that already make her said no BEFORE she said anything and if said no them whatever fear he have end justified.

Also I think there is a rather crude truth that people dont tell: sometime a reject is just a reject, sometime is truth that "you are not my type" people try to find gulity party when something goes wrong and....it just happen

Granted I cant said much, my brother try to invited her girlfriend six time before she said yes...and now they are married and with a daughter, so I dont know what to said about it

So somebody at Cracked actually wrote a ballences and well thought out criticism of the way that both genders and pigeonholed in films, I figured I'd share.[1]

While the article as a whole is pretty nice, I don't understand the part where it talks about female superheroes as "betrayers and line-crossers". I'm supposed to be shocked by the information that Mystique, the right-hand woman for a supervillain, is participating in the attempt to kill all humans? Or that Catwoman, another supervillain, is working for the bad guys in both of her on-screen appearances?

Like... what?

Not a fan of Cracked, but I took a crack at it (insert clever remark here).

First off, the implication that Star Wars only started to become gender progressive is setting off so many red flags that I'm not sure if I even want to continue the article from here, and immediately makes me regret giving the site hits.

Secondly, the idea that only female heroes are morally ambiguous, and the implication that that's a bad thing, is fucking stupid. So what, are female heroes supposed to be incorruptible moral paragons? Or would that just be fulfilling the other side of the fucking ridiculous Madonna-Whore Complex that this article is implying?

I just remembered why I hate Cracked so, so much. And the thing is, the article's main points aren't even that bad. Yeah, pigeonholing does force everyone into situations that stifle creativity and reinforce shitty ideas. But this article spends so much fucking time trying to intentionally "troll" the reader and egg on criticism, while at the same time waving around the ever frustrating "I'm defending gender, so anyone who disagrees with me is sexist" card like it's some sort of invincible flame shield, that it winds up pissing off literally everyone involved, and no one can give a shit about what the article is actually trying to say.

I believe it's saying that the evilness of female supers are emphasized, while for male supers their goodness are emphasized instead? Yeah, I can see why that could be a double standard.

Now that I've re-read it, the article does say many supers, male or female, are getting the greyness treatment. What it's saying is that the treatment is lopsided on the gender lines:

Male: Look he's so good! All the good things he does! Okay he did a few bad things but that's for the greater good right?

Female: Look she's so evil! All the evil things she does! Okay she did a few good things but in the end she still committed evil right?

edited 12th May '16 6:33:50 AM by hellomoto

I didn't get the section where the article said that female superheroes are usually the ones who end up morally ambiguous, mostly because I've never really seen that. There really aren't that many morally ambiguous female superheroes, anyway, in fact, I've always seen the opposite problem. They're usually The Heart of the team, aren't they? They're usually the most moral, they're the moral center and stuff. Closer to Earth and all that. At least, that's what I've seen. And even female supervillains tend to be the more easily redeemable, so.... :/

Really? I thought there were plenty of films about "true brothers"!

Several of those female superheroes should be compared to likes of the Joker, Lex Luthor, Kingpin, and others, rather than heroes. But then, in superhero comics, how often does a male villain turn into a hero, and how often does a female villain? Magneto would probably be a somewhat more accurate comparison, as he sometimes strays into the general direction of the heroes.

As for age differences, I find what's acceptable is fairly narrow below 18, but once past that, especially above 25 or so, the range opens up rather quickly. Might still be weird, but not creepy. I'm a bit age blind, though, so I often can't determine how old someone is by looks.

Also, generally adult-age actors are preferred over teenage ones, due to reasons such as child labour laws and how demanding a role may be for a younger actor.

edited 12th May '16 6:52:49 AM by hellomoto

I'm not sure what exactly your point on that is in a universe where Jennifer Lawrence is playing Mystique, the de facto protagonist of the hit blockbuster X-Men film.

Female villains are arguably more easily redeemable. Or, to be more specific, as it usually is with characters, younger, more attractive characters are considered more easily redeemable.

Jessica is harder on herself than any other character, including the audience. Everyone else wants to easily forgive her, but she refuses to forgive herself.

edited 12th May '16 6:56:09 AM by InAnOdderWay

A female supervillain turning into a hero is a point about how women are more redeemable than men, rather than how women are more corrupt than men.

Oh god yes! That article!

I can relate because both my exes hated that playing games is one of my favorite pastimes though and I totally despise how some things related to men in rom-coms also translate to real life, because I'd be damned if didn't say that I have a few close male friends I really care about and wasn't called gay for it.

@2 is something that always pisses me off in movies, not just romantic comedies but in movies in general. It is a huge contrast about that double standard in abouse when you reverse the genders and instead of a comedy you get a horror movie.

edited 12th May '16 6:59:24 AM by AngelusNox

X6 Outside of war movies not so so much

As for the superhero criticism, I can see the point, female characters are still seen as special in the genre, which means they've always got more depth, doubts and moral greyness, we don't get them simply being paragons of virtue because that's see as to normal for a female character, though I'd say we're getting a lot better recently.

I want a rom-com where the gamer/silly guy goes for the standard strait and narrow girl and then after 10 minutes goes "yeah I think she's not for me" and finds a girl who likes sitting around in her underwear and playing games the same as he does, they then get up to a ton of wacky shit together.

edited 12th May '16 7:06:41 AM by Silasw

But I don't get the criticism here. Is it that female characters aren't paragons of virtue? Because wouldn't that just turn them into pure innocent characters which would then get criticism for playing into some other stereotype of female characters?

I really don't think this critique was well thought out. It's not a bad thing that we can have evil female characters, it's actually a fucking great thing. Because it says that we don't have to hold female characters to any standard that we don't also hold male characters to. They can be anything, so some are not good. And in a lot of ways, they use these morally ambiguous characters to further prove a point that female characters don't have to be moral paragons, which ironically leads to a lack of them and thus criticisms like this.

EDIT: To specify, I see this argument as saying "gender roles pigeonhole women into being forced to be well thought out, three dimensional characters!", which is as stupid as saying "I've trapped you, Captain Hero! Now you're forced into a situation where you can take any or no option, giving you the burden of free will! How will you be able to choose when you can take literally any of the innumerable potential methods to defeating my easily exposed and overpowered frame!".

edited 12th May '16 7:46:43 AM by InAnOdderWay

It's that female characters are pigeonholed, the fact that one genre has managed to pigeonhole them differently from others doesn't mean it's not pigeonholing, female characters shouldn't be one or the other, we should have an equal mix of them being both.