Discussion History Main / FeministFantasy

I don\'t think \"Blondes Are Evil\" is a real trope. The opposite is what I usually see: Blonde People Are Sweet and Innocent, and Dark-Haired People are Villains. Betty is the Good Girl and Veronica is the Bad Girl. The writer cites Helen Grayle in \"Murder, My Sweet\" as an example, but Helen Grayle isn\'t \"blonde, therefore evil.\" She\'s \"blonde, therefore desirable.\" Take a look at Claire Trevor sometime - she\'s not that beautiful, she has a thick waist, a flat backside, and her face is kind of haggard, but she has a big pile of blonde hair, which people see and automatically think \"Hottie!\" She\'s actually a likeable character, aside from all the murdering, which feels tacked on - it\'s like she had to be the murderer, because she\'s a tough, sexually active woman with a libido, and someone like that couldn\'t be a sympathetic character in those days.

I don\'t think \"Blondes Are Evil\" is a real trope. The opposite is what I usually see: Blonde People Are Sweet and Innocent, and Dark-Haired People are Villains. Betty is the Good Girl and Veronica is the Bad Girl. The writer cites Helen Grayle in \"Murder, My Sweet\" as an example, but Helen Grayle isn\'t \"blonde, therefore evil.\" She\'s \"blonde, therefore desirable.\" Take a look at Claire Trevor sometime - she\'s not that beautiful, she has a thick waist, a flat backside, and her face is kind of haggard, but she has a big pile of blonde hair, which people see and automatically think \"Hottie!\" She\'s actually a likeable character, aside from all the murdering, which feels tacked on - it\'s like she had to be the murderer, because she\'s a tough, sexually active woman with a libido, and we can\'t have someone like that be a sympathetic character.

Right, but is \\\"half the population is female\\\" the important bit, or is it \\\"there are disproportionately fewer female fictional protagonists than there are females who want to read about them\\\"?

The core of the trope seems to be, \\\"For a long time, there were almost no female main characters, and that sucked. Then there were some, and that was pretty good. Now there are more, and that\\\'s even better. Maybe tomorrow there will be even more than there are today, and that\\\'s pretty great, right?\\\" You don\\\'t need statistics to say that, so why get hung up on them?

Right, but is \\\"half the population is female\\\" the important bit, or is it \\\"there are disproportionately fewer female fictional protagonists than there are females who want to read about them\\\"?

The core of the trope seems to be, \\\"For a long time, there were almost no female main characters, and that sucked. Then there were some, and that was pretty good. Now there are more, and that\\\'s even better. Maybe tomorrow there will be even more than there are today, and that\\\'s pretty great, right?\\\" You don\\\'t need statistics to say that.

Right, but is \\\"half the population is female\\\" the important bit, or is it \\\"there are a lot fewer female fictional protagonists than there are females who want to read about them\\\"?

The core of the trope seems to be, \\\"For a long time, there were almost no female main characters, and that sucked. Then there were some, and that was pretty good. Now there are more, and that\\\'s even better. Maybe tomorrow there will be even more than there are today, and that\\\'s pretty great, right?\\\" You don\\\'t need statistics to say that.

Right, but is \\\"half the population is female\\\" the important bit, or is it \\\"there are a lot fewer female fictional protagonists than there are females who want to read about them\\\"?

The core of the trope seems to be, \\\"For a long time, there were almost no female main characters. Then there were some. Now there are more. Maybe tomorrow there will be even more than there are today. That\\\'s pretty great, right?\\\" You don\\\'t need statistics to say that.