Hero vs. Heroine

[jeno]

A GiGS female warrior would charge blindly at a foe way bigger than she was and, because she's the heroine, manage to defeat said warrior without getting her ass kicked.  A true female warrior would be way more wary of a bigger foe because she knows she can't take him on in brute strength - she has to use her head and any other resources.

Isn't this a bit of a double standard? (and by 'a bit,' I mean huge.)

Male action heroes routinely charge foes who are taller, more muscled, and just plan bigger than they are. Then the male hero wins and the audience goes along with it every time, despite the fact that said foe is always taller, bigger, stronger, etc. On a very base level, the audience expects the hero to bash through all obstacles, no matter how over matched he is.

But when a female hero charges a foe who is equally stronger than her as the male hero's opponent was to him... then it's completely unbelievable because she's not acting like a female. What?

You say the female warrior should step back and evaluate the situation and use it to her advantage. Sure, of course. But so should the male warrior. As a rule, heroes don't take on people who are smaller and weaker than they are - they take on people who are bigger and stronger, no matter their sex. The smarter ones win through resourcefulness, but there are countless male heroes who do it just by charging the larger opponent and winning anyway.



To break it down:

Male Warrior + Charge + Much Larger Opponent = A Win = Standard Procedure

versus

Female Warrior + Charge + Much Larger Opponent = A Win = Unbelievable Because There's No Way A Charge Against A Much Larger Opponent Could Work, And Anyway, She's Not Acting Like A Girl.



Brashness is not an exclusively male trait. Neither is the urge to fight. Trust me on this.

[Paynesgrey]

I'm reminded of a wretched pirate movie in which Gina Davis was a Touch Chick Pirate Princess Sort.  I recall watching her run up to a big muscley tough pirate guy, grab his head between her hands and just snap his neck using only the strength of her chicken wing arms.  That would be a movie example of Girl In A Guy Suit.  (Not so much in the mental/psychological areas, rather the physical.)  But it still turned the movie from "Bad Enough As It Is" to "Lord, They Just Made It Worse."  On the average, men are larger and stronger.  Sure, there's odd exception, like the nice Samoan girl in college who used giggle as she tossed my 6 foot 2 self around like a raggedy andy doll on the judo mat, but most women I outmass and outmuscle, and most couldn't take or deliver the hits I can.  Physics is just generally unkind to the Smaller Object, unless that smaller object is smarter and gets the hell out of the wya.  It's a tangible difference between the sexes.  One of the things I love about Murphy is that she's written in a way that she doesn't try to be Gina Davis Neck Snapping Girl.  She trains like hell, and in martial arts which don't  try match her weaknesses against an enemy's strength.  It's believable to read about her bending some thug in unnatural and amusing directions with akido, jiu-jistu and judo, rather than seeing her muscle up to a toe to to slugging match with Mike Tyson a la muay thai.

[Snowleopard]

^
What he said.  Thanks PG.  I never saw the Gina Davis movie so didn't know about that scene.  But oh so unbelievable.

[jeno]

I'm reminded of a wretched pirate movie in which Gina Davis was a Touch Chick Pirate Princess Sort.  I recall watching her run up to a big muscley tough pirate guy, grab his head between her hands and just snap his neck using only the strength of her chicken wing arms.  That would be a movie example of Girl In A Guy Suit.  (Not so much in the mental/psychological areas, rather the physical.)  But it still turned the movie from "Bad Enough As It Is" to "Lord, They Just Made It Worse." 

Uh huh. And it's not unbelievable when James Bond/Indiana Jones/whatever action hero you care to name takes on a mook twice as large as he is and wins? The point isn't that the smaller person easily taking down the larger person is unbelievable. The point is that it's a double standard.

Physics is just generally unkind to the Smaller Object, unless that smaller object is smarter and gets the hell out of the wya.

See above about Double Standards with larger opponents. It's never realistic, but male characters constantly get a free pass while female characters get "they're not acting like women."

[Snowleopard]

Uh huh. And it's not unbelievable when James Bond/Indiana Jones/whatever action hero you care to name takes on a mook twice as large as he is and wins? The point isn't that the smaller person easily taking down the larger person is unbelievable. The point is that it's a double standard.




See above about Double Standards with larger opponents. It's never realistic, but male characters constantly get a free pass while female characters get "they're not acting like women."

No it's not particularly believable when a male hero takes on a ginormous opponent and beats them.  However the audience is usually rooting so much for the good guy that they don't care.
Unfortunately the double standard exists in movies too.

[Paynesgrey]

For one thing, the physical difference usually isn't as great, between average guy and average mook as it is between average girl and average mook.  Indy usually cheated, btw, by hitting the mook with things like an airplane propeller.  And James Bond didn't fair to well either going toe to toe with Oddjob or Jaws.  He always had to fight smarter too.

For another, in the real world against an average sized guy or gal, the mook is usually gonna win.  Excepting those cases where the smaller object is smarter and is skilled enough to not match weakness against the enemy's strength.

[jeno]

For one thing, the physical difference usually isn't as great, between average guy and average mook as it is between average girl and average mook. 

To this I would say -

For another, in the real world against an average sized guy or gal, the mook is usually gonna win. 

-oh look, you already said it for me. 


The original argument was that some female characters (none actually specified, but moving on) were written in a way that made them read as not-female. The one example put forward for this not-femaleness was a situation where a female would charge a larger opponent and win, when in reality she should have gotten her head bashed in or some such.

I'm trying to figure out exactly what part of this scenario is not-female. Is it the part where she charges the opponent against all odds? Hm, I don't think so. Like I said above, brashness is not an exclusively male trait. Neither is foolhardiness, or desperation, or bravery, or sheer determination - all of which would be perfect motivators for such a charge.

Is it the winning part of the scenario? Again, I don't think so. Winning, in this case, doesn't depend on maleness or femaleness, or even strength - it depends on being unrealistic and on the needs of the story. If the fight happened in the real world with an average person against an average mook, then the average person would get their ass handed to them on a platter, no matter what their sex was.

You can't say that a woman taking down a larger mook is 'male' when a guy taking down a larger mook is equally unrealistic.

Which brings me back to the point. Just what actions make a female character read as not-female?

[Lord Rae]

See I don't see the Gena Davis thing as an example of a badly written female but more an example of bad action in general. Is it worse that its a girl? Maybe a bit... but if a guy character had done the same it would have seemed equally as cheesy in my eyes.

There are other movies with awesome badass women like Resident Evil that don't come off as being that bad or cheesy. Not great cinema maybe... but it didn't strike me as being a "guy in a girl suit".

The pass I give to the Resident Evil movies (2-current) is that the main character had turned into a super hero(heroine)  essentially so all the wall flips and awesome kicks to zombie heads didn't seem as unbelievable as they would have had she still been an ordinary human like she was in the first movie. But even then when she had to fight something bigger and stronger she did lots of evading and strategy rather than going straight brawler with it. And for the first half of the movie she just ran whenever she saw it. That was less about being a "girl" though and more about being a smart action hero.

[Snowleopard]

To this I would say -

-oh look, you already said it for me. 


The original argument was that some female characters (none actually specified, but moving on) were written in a way that made them read as not-female. The one example put forward for this not-femaleness was a situation where a female would charge a larger opponent and win, when in reality she should have gotten her head bashed in or some such.

I'm trying to figure out exactly what part of this scenario is not-female. Is it the part where she charges the opponent against all odds? Hm, I don't think so. Like I said above, brashness is not an exclusively male trait. Neither is foolhardiness, or desperation, or bravery, or sheer determination - all of which would be perfect motivators for such a charge.

Is it the winning part of the scenario? Again, I don't think so. Winning, in this case, doesn't depend on maleness or femaleness, or even strength - it depends on being unrealistic and on the needs of the story. If the fight happened in the real world with an average person against an average mook, then the average person would get their ass handed to them on a platter, no matter what their sex was.

You can't say that a woman taking down a larger mook is 'male' when a guy taking down a larger mook is equally unrealistic.

Which brings me back to the point. Just what actions make a female character read as not-female?

I'm about to get slightly uncouth here so pardon.
If I read of a female character standing around scratching her (pardon) cr*tch, belching, and farting - and there was no realistic reason for her to be doing that.  I'd think someone had just transfered a male character into a female skin.
Yes, a woman can be crass but usually in a different way than a guy.  Men and women are the same but they also are very different.  It's a paradox.  It's on a case by case basis, Jeno.  Some female warriors don't read any righter than the male ones, others read very true.  Maybe it's not so much about what the character is written like as how I read the character.  It could be a personal thing on my part.

[jeno]

If I read of a female character standing around scratching her (pardon) cr*tch, belching, and farting - and there was no realistic reason for her to be doing that. 

Clearly you haven't spent a lot of time around drunk sorority girls or in a girls' dorm. 

Men and women are the same but they also are very different. 

And those differences are largely based on the gender roles of a society. A female in a business suit and running a company was extremely unwomanly - in 1950's America. Today? Not so much. The differences you're talking about aren't nearly as hard wired as you seem to think.

[Paynesgrey]

People in a dorm or barracks of either gender generally don't act the same way out on the street as they do in an enclosed environment.  It's the difference between being at home in your living room and in the mall food court.  Most everybody behaves differently in public, or at least puts on pants and (hopefully) doesn't keep sticking their hands down them for no good reason.   

Whether the emotional and intellectual differences between genders result from genetic hardware, cultural software, or a bit of both... they do still exist.  As do the basic concepts of masculinity and femininity, again taking culture and setting into account.  A good writer can make a strong, female character like Murphy, or Zoe from Firefly, and depict that strength of will and martial prowess without having to rely upon masculine mannerisms to do so, like some sort of surface decal to show "Toughness."  Just as a male can be depicted as being sensitive and thoughtful without making him effeminate (Captain Jack Harkness or Ethen from Ethan of Athos.)  Outside  a book where the culture's gender roles and mannerisms are intentionally different, or the author is actually intending to address gender traits and roles, I personally regard reliance on swapping out gender mannerisms as a cliche.  The old "I'll make her pick her nose, swear and grab her crotch to show that she can kick ass" is for people who can't write a character like Cordelia Vorkosigan.

[Nickeris86]

I'm about to get slightly uncouth here so pardon.
If I read of a female character standing around scratching her (pardon) cr*tch, belching, and farting - and there was no realistic reason for her to be doing that.  I'd think someone had just transfered a male character into a female skin.
Yes, a woman can be crass but usually in a different way than a guy.  Men and women are the same but they also are very different.  It's a paradox.  It's on a case by case basis, Jeno.  Some female warriors don't read any righter than the male ones, others read very true.  Maybe it's not so much about what the character is written like as how I read the character.  It could be a personal thing on my part.

i have to disagree with this statement because i know several girls who are more crude than a lot of the guys i know doing all the a fore mentioned actions regularity and with great gusto. the odd thing is that they still maintained a feminine attitude for the most part as well. the pot tom line is that people are gross no matter their gender. lol

I really need to read all the posts before i reply

Paynesgrey: I could not have said it better myself. there are key differences between men and women that are rooted into their genetics. yest a women can be stronger than a man, i know several that are, but on average a women will have less muscle mass than men, that's just biology. Women also store calories more efficiently than men, they need those calories for mothering healthy babies, and thus loose weight at a slower rate.
yes there are lots of social concepts that are imposed on women, and men for that matter, that predetermine their roles in society and yes it sucks but they do exist and do influence how your audience is going view your characters. if your characters aren't relate able to your readers then they just aren't going to want to read your book.

[Snowleopard]

i have to disagree with this statement because i know several girls who are more crude than a lot of the guys i know doing all the a fore mentioned actions regularity and with great gusto. the odd thing is that they still maintained a feminine attitude for the most part as well. the pot tom line is that people are gross no matter their gender. lol

Note I said - if there was no realistic reason for her to be.  Yes, I know girls can be just as crude as guys - it depends on the time and place.  As PG said, if the writer just defaults to that to make the character seem like one of the guys then it doesn't read right.
Murphy doesn't do that and none of the cops she works with think any the less of her.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

I'm about to get slightly uncouth here so pardon.
If I read of a female character standing around scratching her (pardon) cr*tch, belching, and farting - and there was no realistic reason for her to be doing that.  I'd think someone had just transfered a male character into a female skin.

Being polite and civilised is female-specific ?

I don't, myself, find either polite male characters or crude female ones to read as poorly constructed for their gender.  I can easily envision contexts in which characters of either sex could plausibly come out pretty much anywhere on that continuum, particularly given the way expectations of politeness vary in different strata of society, different parts of the world etc. 

[Snowleopard]

Being polite and civilised is female-specific ?

I don't, myself, find either polite male characters or crude female ones to read as poorly constructed for their gender.  I can easily envision contexts in which characters of either sex could plausibly come out pretty much anywhere on that continuum, particularly given the way expectations of politeness vary in different strata of society, different parts of the world etc. 

No, being polite and civilized is not female-specific.  And as I said - again - if there's no specific reason for a female to be crude - it's lazy writing on the part of the author.