"Men With Boobs" Effect in Fiction

" Perhaps she's the type to be instantly accepted as "one of the guys" (with all the useful but, again, sexist implications of that). "

(at the quote) I hope you realize the hypocrisy that such a statement implies. Claiming that being accepted by men is sexist or that the very label "one of the guys" is sexist suggests that male acceptance of a woman is itself a bad thing, which is a sexist attitude to hold. That is, if being called "one of the guys" belittles a woman or puts them down, then it can only be because you have a worldview where being akin to a man is a bad thing, which is sexist against men.

Anyways, im of the opinion that if it exists in reality, you dont need to excuse its use in fiction. The only thing you need to make excuses for are the ficitonal parts. Reality has masculine women. Using Samus as an example, the problem I see is A: Reality doesnt have super suits and (more to the point) B: Reality tends to have very few hyper-competant mutes with no personality. I think in that regard Other M, for all its issues, is a vast improvment ont he character because...well...she is a character rather than a terminator with squishy bits inside.

edited 14th Jul '12 3:30:19 PM by Stormthorn

Why do people keep posting in months-dead threads all of a sudden?

Because they stumble across them and find them interesting? There's nothing wrong with that.

@ Aprilla:

And that's what's important.

Gender is something I personally find very easy to accept at face value. I don't think I've ever thought "That doesn't seem like something a man would say!" or "She's too masculine for me to believe she's a woman." I just take it as it's presented - Samus is a girl? Okay, cool. Zoe's awesome and badass? Cool.

That doesn't mean I think writing should be gender-neutral. Someone's gender is a part of who they are, whether it defines them a lot or just a little. There's nothing sexist about that, it's just true. But on the other hand, I don't think one should write a character by thinking, "She would react this way because she's a girl." It makes a lot more sense to think "She/he would react this way because she's afraid of snakes/he's shy and insecure/she's incredibly self-confident/he's traumatized by..."

Basically, there's nothing wrong with a character's gender affecting their actions, but it doesn't normally make sense for it to be the only factor. You can't justify a certain action - for example, crying when something sad happens - by saying "She did it just because she's a woman" anymore than you can say "He did it only because he's male. There's a lot more to it, and like Aprilla said, it's important that the character feels like a person.

I've always been slightly baffled by people calling "man with boobs" on characters. I never really consider gender when writing characters. Being female, I never really saw any huge differences between the way that men and women did things- different people act in different ways, but it's not like gender is a huge driving force in every person's lives. Besides that, maybe it's just my Butch Lesbian tendencies, but I always found 'masculine' female characters believable and sympathetic.

Yeah, people rarely get out of bed in the morning and think, "I'm going to do X because I'm a man/woman!" So while you shouldn't ignore a character's gender completely, going out of your way to give them masculine or feminine tendencies is a foolish way to write. Of course, picking and choosing any kind of character qualities rather than allowing a character to grow "organically" can be bad writing regardless of what kind of character qualities they are.

People have probably said this already, but I think one of the problems people have with this... thing is that it exalts masculinity over femininity. If people's idea of a 'good, strong character' is always masculine, regardless of their actual sex, I can see how that is sexist. If the only good woman is one who acts like a man... then aren't we saying acting like a woman is a bad thing, and hence that womanhood is a bad thing?

Maybe what we need is more characters who can be strong in a traditionally 'feminine' way, either male or female.

edited 14th Jul '12 6:06:01 PM by LoniJay

Honestly, I don't think so. I don't grant this concept much credence in the first place, but even if I did I'd say the same thing, because the question of what it actually means to "act like a woman" (or "act like a man", for that matter) - as opposed to acting like a woman as traditionally defined by society - is still very much an open one.

It's why I generally ignore gender roles altogether, when not working in a setting where they're an established thing: although there are definitely actual differences between men and women, we still aren't really at the point where we can distinguish between those and the "differences" that are just a product of society - and when trying to decide which side to err on when writing, I'm always going to come down in favor of the concept that hasn't been traditionally used as a means of supporting male-dominated society.

edited 14th Jul '12 7:28:19 PM by nrjxll

Firstly, this. Just this. Sorry I have nothing to add, but you've summed it up well.

I do, however, have something to add to this. Off the top of my head, I would honestly argue that the Doctor is a character who has many strengths — such as diplomacy, guile, and an ability to inspire — that are traditionally considered feminine. I find myself wondering if a female character who operated in a generally non-violent, diplomatic manner very similar to the Doctor would suffer accusations of being The Chick.

edited 14th Jul '12 8:29:39 PM by KillerClowns

If you are considering those, I think you've already lost the plot. They are societal constructs rather than literal truths. They are flexible to the needs of the society and the individual, and that flexibility should tell you all you need to know about how much they're rooted in real physical things.

If you're still determined to treat them as realities after that, well, there's no further point in having a discussion with you on the subject.

edited 15th Jul '12 12:23:48 AM by Night

No, of course I realise that they aren't iron-clad truths or even rules. But that doesn't mean that they're meaningless and have no impact on society. Or have boys and men suddenly stopped dismissing some activities, media and skills as being 'for girls' (and therefore something no self respecting man would do or watch) when I wasn't looking? Do we no longer have such a thing as a 'chick flick'? Do we no longer market barbies and My Little Ponies to girls and Transformers and Lego to boys?

When we've abolished gender roles completely and the very concepts of 'masculinity' and 'femininity' are totally meaningless, then we can stop talking about them and discussing their impacts on people's behaviour and views. Not before.

Funny you should mention that... (Or I could point to Lyrical Nanoha, which took the usual multi-demographic setup of Magical Girl Warrior shows and turned it on its head by specifically targeting the male teen-to-twenties demographic.)

But more seriously, these things matter exactly as much as we pretend they matter. In writing them into one's work, one perpetuates them. Even acknowledging them as a thing helps sustain them.

The only reason MLP:FIM is even an issue is because it's so unusual for a show aimed at little girls to get a following among adult men. If gender roles were meaningless there would be no such thing as a 'brony' because it would be a totally normal occurrence for young men to like shows like MLP.

I'm not saying that we should try to write to gender roles. Of course I'm not. But you seem to be claiming that we can't ever discuss gender roles or critique how gender roles might contribute to a trope's existence or people's objection to the trope. That's silly. How are they ever going to go away if we can't take a good long look at them? Social patterns don't just disappear on their own. It takes work to get rid of them. Talking about gender roles is the only way we're going to get away from them.

I don't personally think that a 'man with boobs' female character is a bad thing or a sexist thing, taken individually. But surely we can rationally discuss why they are appealing, whether or not they outnumber female action heroes with more feminine traits, and why that might be, as well as how 'realistic' or '3 dimensional' they are.

I hate the term "man with boobs", as well as most uses of the words "masculine" and "feminine" that aren't preceded by the words "stereotypically" or "traditionally".

If someone talks smack about traditionally feminine traits, and you view that as an attack on womanhood, that makes you the sexist, not them. They're not the ones suggesting that certain personality traits are inherently associated with a particular gender.

Quoted from Bask on the previous page, because I'm lazy and they said it better than I ever could.

I would have no problems reading/watching a female character whose only claim to womanhood is her name and genitals, as long as she were a well-rounded and interesting character, obviously. What I dislike is when a writer creates a more or less well-rounded female character, then decides that she's somehow not believably feminine, and randomly sticks on a bunch of stereotypical traits ("likes shopping for shoes", "worries about getting fat", "spends her evenings drinking fancy drinks and talking about boys") whether or not those traits fit the character. Note that I'm not saying that a well-written female character can't worry about her weight or enjoy the occasional cocktail, but I have seen instances where these things are added as if the writer were ticking off some Femininity Checklist.

Well, like it or not, they are associated with certain genders. They have been for a very long time, and past gender roles affect the way we live our lives today. Insisting that they aren't is basically saying that feminism/gender egalitarianism is pointless because we've already fixed everything there is to be fixed. I don't believe that is so.

Personally, I think the fewer gender roles the better, yes, I think we agree on that much. I don't think anybody should be restricted from doing anything because of what's between their legs. But that's not really the point under discussion.

I'm not saying that if somebody dislikes traditionally feminine things that makes them a misogynist, or sexist, or anything like that. But I do think that some things from those traditional gender roles are hanging on today in ways that aren't always obvious.

To explain what I mean. There is nothing wrong with a traditionally masculine female character. Nothing at all. They're great, I like them. What would be a problem is if the only way for a female character to be 'good' or 'strong' or 'likeable' is to be traditionally masculine. I don't know if that's the state things are in at the moment, but I think it's an issue that would be valuable to discuss.

As an example of what I mean by characters who can be strong in a traditionally feminine way - this is something that I thought Brave did very well for an (admittedly simple) children's story. The Queen is feminine, but her femininity doesn't make her weak, and nor is it pointless. All the stuff about poise and grace, etcetera, is actually part of the important role that the Queen and the Princess are expected to play as stateswomen. That, rather than solely being physically strong and capable of combat, is the strength the Princess is expected to grow into.

As another example - My Little Pony was brought up before, so let's look at that. Rainbow Dash and Applejack are great role models and characters, yes, but Rarity and Fluttershy are as well. I suspect that the people complaining about 'men with boobs' think that there are too many Rainbow Dashes and not enough Rarities.

Yes, people often associate certain behaviors with certain genders. And if we want to stop people from doing that, the first step is to lead by example and not make those associations ourselves.

Actually, it might be be better to go the other way: recognise that gender is not just associated with stereotypes, it is a collection of stereotypes. More importantly, recognise that it is not synonymous with biological sex. Being male or female need not mean being a man or woman.

To be clear, characters with a gender identity should never be defined by it. It is only one part of them, and going against that identity in places is what makes personality. We have to see gender as a way our culture classifies people and groups them by interest, and not as an obligatory paradigm that everyone is part of just because of their biology. Plenty of people (with all sorts of sexuality) do not have gender identities: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13107237470A75500200&page=1

Even if you take that "feminine" strengths is offensive because you consider them feminine, the point is that they're undervalued because they're actually good traits to aspire to but aren't as flashy as "masculine" strengths.

And honestly the problem with so many female characters isn't that they're "men with boobs," it's things like they behave cattily with other female characters or do not have any relationship with other female characters at all. That women are not allowed to have meaningful relationships (romantic and otherwise, whatever) with each other, that their only meaningful relationships are with men.

[REDACTED]

Anyway, I will never understand people who claim to be feminist and then decry femininity as weak and girls should act like the guys. I find that there's nothing really wrong with doing girly things and it shouldn't mean that you are weak or incompetent.

THIS

edited 30th Jul '12 4:07:55 PM by JewelyJ

You have decided that methodology of acting out the end goal is separate from the end goal. This is...somewhat bizarre, I confess, because it essentially removes any possibility of ever getting there. I won't entirely blame you for biting that particular poisoned apple since it's one used by canny leaders of many movements, from labor unions to revolutionary politicians to feminist groups, to ensure that they will always have a job and a paycheck.

You have posited that a truly egalitarian person will have succeeded in eliminating sexism from their personal behavior. Yet when I propose behaving in a truly egalitarian manner, in essence winning their personal battle by your standards, your reaction is to claim such a person has lost that battle.

Do you see where the disconnect happened, here? You declared a way someone can achieve a goal and then when they carry it out decide it gains them nothing. Victory in social issues, as in most things, is not built on grand gestures and large scales. In the end, if you can't win at the one-to-one ground level, you're never going to win at any other scale. Your statements deny the possibility of such a personal level of victory, and in doing so deny the possibility of any victory.

edited 15th Jul '12 2:34:34 PM by Night

Really, traditional ideas of "masculine" and "feminine" behavior are both equally flawed when considered essential/inherent to a person of that sex. And that's why I dismiss this entire "men with boobs" concept, because it's proceeding from the assumption that traditionally "feminine" traits are inherent to women.

A couple of other things I saw that I really agree with:

And one thing that really bothered me:

This is the sort of thing that shows why continuing traditional gender roles is equally bad for both sexes.

Wow. Those comments on Deviant Art... just... wow. That's pretty sexist in itself, holding women to impossible standards like that. I agree with her that children should be exposed to a mix of different activities regardless of their gender so that they can choose what they prefer to do, but to say that a woman must never, ever do anything that could be seen as "girly" is a bit much. Especially as she says that strong men cry, but strong women don't.

A feminine character is not inherently sexist. It's just that they're often written as weaklings who can't do anything except get kidnapped. I like characters who are both feminine and badass.

Then again, I get that even those archetypes can be problematic. Done badly, they give the message "It's okay for a girl to be strong and proactive - as long as she's still a Proper Lady", putting twice the amount of pressure on women. The solution, it seems, would be to have several well-rounded and positively-presented female characters, some with feminine traits (so long as they're not tacked on), some without. It would also make for more opportunities to pass The Bechdel Test.

edited 15th Jul '12 2:44:45 PM by Xandriel

Isn't this essentially the reason for MLP:FIM's existence?

@Night: I don't think you understand where I'm coming from. I do, indeed, believe that we should try to eliminate the influence that gender roles have on our characters. We should act as if they didn't exist as far as that goes, yes.

But you seem to be claiming that nobody can ever discuss gender roles. But, you see, discussing them is the only way we can fight them effectively. If nothing else it brings the issues up to people who might otherwise not realise that what they are doing is sexist.

Women didn't gain the right to vote and the right to have careers by saying 'If we never acknowledge the issue it will go away'. And you don't see gay rights activists sitting around saying "Well, the best way to get equal treatment in the media is just to never, ever talk about negative stereotypes and how they affect us. If we pretend it doesn't exist, eventually the homophobia will go away".

Social change doesn't work like that. You have to work for it. And you can't work for it if you're never allowed to acknowledge the problem you're facing.

But we're not talking about not discussing gender stereotypes ever - this whole conversation is about writing and/or discussing fiction. And in that arena, I honestly do believe that to make use of gender stereotypes when they aren't required is to perpetuate the idea that they exist independently of society.

I'm not saying that we can't look at a character and ask questions about s/he relates to gender stereotypes. But applying mindsets and ideas like that of "men with boobs" to fiction just keeps the problem going.