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

Why only women though?

Interesting note: Her name is only Miang in the English localization. The actual name is Myyah. This is a Meaningful Name when compared to the full name of the female lead Elly, Elehayym. "El" means "God" in Hebrew, while Myyah is the reverse of Hayym. So Myyah is thus the godless opposite of Elly.

Myyah's last name Hawwa btw is Arabic for "Eve".

It all makes a little more sense if you're familiar with Gnosticism.

edited 24th Jan '18 12:46:32 AM by M84

So a recent issue of Wonder Woman I wanted to talk about.

In James Robinson's run, we are re-introduced to Vanessa Kapatelis. Vanessa was a supporting character in George Perez's reboot in the 1980s. She was the daughter of archaeologist Julia Kapatelis and was close friends with Diana. At some point later on in the 2000s, Vanessa was kidnapped and transformed against her will into a cyborg known as the Silver Swan. She was eventually cured by Diana.

In Robinson's run, however, things are changed. Vanessa is a teenage girl who was injured in a supervillain attack and rescued by Diana. She was left paralyzed due to a spinal injury. Diana would occasionally visit her which led to the traumatized Julia thinking that she was "Wonder Woman's best friend". Eventually Diana stopped visiting her all together due to other commitments and Vanessa's mom died leaving her bitter and angry. She eventually undergoes an experiment that transformed her into Silver Swan using nanotechnology because of course.

Now, putting aside this seems to be rushing into things the same way Amazing Spider-Man 2 rushed the Harry Goblin story, this story has gotten criticism for continuing the trend of Diana's female supporting cast members being villains or antagonists for cheap drama and in really poorly done ways since Amazons Attack or having her relationships with them downplayed or ignored . In addition to the aforemnetioned, we have the Amazons as lavers and rapists in the New 52 (and no that isn't the only version of the Amazon story plus the book also ignored Zeus being a rapist), Donna being recreated as a villain, Cassie having one meeting with Diana in Teen Titans and then vanishing.

This is in contrast to say how we have Bruce interacting with several of his Robins and their relationships are always reinforced. But these are male relationships which superhero comics have always been more comfortable showing (unless it's a homosexual one). By contrast female relationships are rarely ever focused on and in WW's case much of them have been broken.

edited 24th Jan '18 9:47:44 PM by windleopard

I don't think I'd criticize this specific storyline for making Vanessa a villain, because the original comics did it too. Diana eventually cured her there, but that was after years and years—two writers worked on the book before she got fixed. It's quite possible Rebirth means to do the same thing and bring her back to being a good person—it's if it doesn't that I'll have an issue.

Yeah but in the original comics, Vanessa had been an established friend of Diana's for years while hear, her relationship with her is told in a few pages. There's also yet more of the Insane Equals Violent and Evil Cripple tropes at play with her.

That's what happens when you try to condense an already somewhat problematic in hindsight character's arc after a reboot. The writers want to pay homage to past writers by basically redoing the story arc of "Vanessa becomes Silver Swan", but don't have the luxury of spending a lot of issues developing her or her friendship with Diana before her inevitable transformation.

edited 24th Jan '18 11:32:00 PM by M84

That whole story was an issue from the start. If this is worse it's worse only because of the compression issues. Not saying it's not bad, just that that storyline has always been bad—especially once you remember that it's not like there was a plan to turn Vanessa into Silver Swan II that was executed over the course of years and years. She was created by Perez and turned into Silver Swan by Jiminez, very suddenly, with no actual build up, and at the hands of Jiminez's new pet villain, Cheetah III.

Admittedly, Jiminez's story wasn't perfect but it was handled better due to a better established relationship and history between the two characters.

And like I said, this continues the trend of DC wrecking Diana's relationships with her female supporting cast members which started with Amazons Attack and has only seemed to worsen after the New 52. Hell, they went out of their way to bring back the Steve/Diana romance when a new continuity gave them some freedom to put Diana in a same-sex relationship and made Ares into her mentor and erased Philipus til Rucka brought her back in rebirth. Not to mention this Jason guy who's taken Donna and Cassie's spot as Diana's sidekick/sibling.

And there is the abliesm. Not just Vanessa being an evil cripple but her going babbling about how much she hates Diana even before the nanites are injected into her.

edited 25th Jan '18 12:25:56 AM by windleopard

Yeah, I can see how making Vanessa into a deluded entitled Loony Fan might be problematic. It does mean that she's not "forced" into evil but becomes Diana's enemy out of her own free will.

edited 25th Jan '18 12:33:38 AM by M84

...isn't Cheetah a villain because she was turned into an anthropomorphic cat lady somehow? Is...is this a common occurrence in the DCU?

Then again, given the rash of spider-people and Hulks running around Marvel, I might not have room to talk.

Actually the Cheetah that turned Vanessa into Silver Swan was the fourth and only male Cheetah. Sebastian Ballesteros convinced the plant god Urzkartaga that a male Cheetah could succeed where the female ones failed. Yeah.

It's probably for the best this was quietly reversed when Cheetah III reclaimed the Cheetah power by killing Sebastian off-panel.

After the reboot in 2011, he and every other Cheetah but Barbara Ann Minerva, the third Cheetah.

Also, Barbara and Sebastian were the only Cheetahs who were supernatural cat people. The first two were more or less normal women in cheetah costumes with issues.

edited 25th Jan '18 9:47:13 AM by M84

I know people have been clamoring for an unapologetic villainess and Rose Armitage really has been confirmed that she isn't brainwashed by her family, but she is just as bad as them.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Characters/GetOut2017

The "issue" (mind you, I terms of gender issues, not writing issues) is that she is a manipulator seductive girl, AKA The Vamp , a archetype based in associating female sexuality with evilness. Her evilness had a sexual component, of course, you would find a lot of Handsome male villains that do similar things, but still.

Dont get me wrong, I am not saying that Rose is badly written or anything, just that she continues a annoying trend. There lots of villains that continue annoying trends, and I like a lot of them.

edited 25th Jan '18 10:25:30 AM by KazuyaProta

I say regardless of the vamp type, she really isn't shown as being designated as slutty. She still leads black people to their doom, and is gleeful about it.

So, a sociopathic woman fakes herself as a Nice Girl and lead men to their deaths while she feel cheeful satisfaction about it and uses the Wounded Gazelle Gambit to accuse a innocent man of being a murder.

I mean, is not like that type of persons dont exist, is just that it sounds so close to a MRA idea of "bad wymen!" (which they believe that is every woman that is not a pure servicial waifu, and even when they are one).

edited 25th Jan '18 10:41:42 AM by KazuyaProta

If she was innocent, then people would then argue that it's perpetuating the stereotype of Females Are More Innocent.

It's not that she isn't innocent but that her evilness is partnered with sexiness and manipulation.

This, The Vamp is the only villainous female archetype that gets played without any sympathy and is constantly tied with sexuality. (well, the Evil Matriarch also gets No Sympathy).

Keep in mind, this dont means that you should not create or enjoy villains that are The Vamp, Tropes Are Tools after all.

edited 25th Jan '18 11:13:35 AM by KazuyaProta

I found it mostly to be manipulation than sexiness. However, I would bring up in this kind of story if she wasn't manipulating the protagonist, then the plot wouldn't have happened. She's been luring all these people into her family's clutches, and it wouldn't make sense if she wasn't the The Vamp.

edited 25th Jan '18 11:15:01 AM by firewriter

And this is the thing, the premise itself is a bit problematic. "Sociopathic woman fakes a Nice Girl persona so she can lead mens to their doom" is pretty problematic.

A movie can be problematic by its premise alone, If I did a story where Only black people can get infected for a Hate Plague that turns them into cannibal rapists , the premise would be already problematic, the execution could save it (something like, telling the story from a non infected black person and showing that some non-black persons are a BIT too happy with that)

edited 25th Jan '18 11:33:08 AM by KazuyaProta

And I don't. Mostly because in the end Rose watchers of the movie were making excuses for her because false archetype she was upholding. She's not a vamp because she's sexy, she's one because she is willing to hurt anyone to further her parent's plans.

I also do say that with the racial component woven in. She presents a woman who pretends to be all liberal minded, but underneath is just as bigoted of African Americans like open racists.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/YMMV/GetOut2017

I do think this is being overtly hypersensitive towards archetypes, especially when it's a movie that need that character to work for the twist.

edited 25th Jan '18 11:41:32 AM by firewriter

That the audience was still using the annoying Females Are More Innocent trope is annoying and, trust me, I am willing to discuse it. But that dont change that the basic element of "Sociopathic Woman use a Nice Girl persona to lure innocent men to their dooms" is a bit, well, sexist.

There still a element of sexuality in it, the difference of she and the regular The Vamp is that Rose target to the emotions of her victims instead of their dicks.

Well, the goal here is to call out the sexism of all works, good or bad, and honestly, I prefer doing this with good works instead of going for bad works that gets shit for everything anyway, because targeting bad works while giving good works a pass keeps the annoying idea that a work cant be bigoted if is written well. Which is pure bulshit.

I know that the movie needed Rose, I am not complaining about HER, I am complaing about the archetype,

edited 25th Jan '18 11:50:05 AM by KazuyaProta

I'm going to say the movie isn't sexist for using that archetype in the context of the movie. While the archetype itself can be problematic in many other scenarios, here it's actually utilized good.

You know, a work can have bigoted elements and STILL being good.

I think it's ironic to call that part of Get Out bigoted.