Interesting article about Sexism in Geek Communities

[Pattern Ghost]

I think this sidesteps the actual issue ... it's not entirely about "women who can fight" or "tough women who fight for something" it's about Agency, they have full control of their persons, their stories, and their directions. And they'll fight for it.

 

Right. And Bella has lots of agency. She bends Edward to her will, gets the guy, gets the sparkly vampire superpowers and gets the sparkly vampire superbaby. What she doesn't get is any character growth, maturity or morals. She's the worse kind of wish fulfillment character.

[Burrito Boy]

I think this sidesteps the actual issue ... it's not entirely about "women who can fight" or "tough women who fight for something" it's about Agency, they have full control of their persons, their stories, and their directions. And they'll fight for it.

Seems to fit Red Sonya and especially Dark Agnes if you ask me.

 

But if they don't work for you, how about Jirel of Joiry?

[ghost-angel]

Seems to fit Red Sonya and especially Dark Agnes if you ask me.

 

But if they don't work for you, how about Jirel of Joiry?

I didn't say they didn't work... merely pointing out that it's not just "women who fight" that's being discussed as an idea.

[ghost-angel]

Right. And Bella has lots of agency. She bends Edward to her will, gets the guy, gets the sparkly vampire superpowers and gets the sparkly vampire superbaby. What she doesn't get is any character growth, maturity or morals. She's the worse kind of wish fulfillment character.

 

On this I disagree, you could probably replace Bella with a Fleshlight with a Post-It stuck on it for most of the series and change nothing.

[Burrito Boy]

I didn't say they didn't work... merely pointing out that it's not just "women who fight" that's being discussed as an idea.

I understand that. My point is that I think both Sonya and Agnes have "agency". As for "if they don't work for you", it's just an expression.

[Pattern Ghost]

Adding quote from Ghost Angel since BB slid in a post while I was rambling incoherently:

 

 

On this I disagree, you could probably replace Bella with a Fleshlight with a Post-It stuck on it for most of the series and change nothing.

 

If you're referring to her extended periods of moping, I see those as more of a pacing issue. It might help to define terms. (And I was hoping not to go down the rabbit hole of applying any level of  analysis to freakin' Twilight, but here I go anyway . . .)

 

This is from Wikipedia's definition of the philosophical concept of agency (in other words the first definition that popped up on Google):

 

 

 

In sociology and philosophy, agency is the capacity of an entity (a person or other entity, human or any living being in general, or soul-consciousness in religion) to act in any given environment.

 

So, the question of whether Bella has agency becomes does Bella have the capacity to act in her environment.

 

I'm going to note that this is a separate question of whether she's a good protagonist, though there is bound to be some convergence, since a protagonist needs to have agency. I'm going to discuss the two concepts together, since they're sort of related and since the qualities of a protagonist frame things in a literary POV vs the usually feminist point of view taken by people talking about a character's agency. Maybe doing this will shed some light. Or it may all be more bull pucky. I dunno. Here's what Google spits up as a definition for protagonist:

 

 

 

The protagonist (from Ancient Greek πρωταγωνιστής (protagonistes), meaning "player of the first part, chief actor") or main character is a narrative's central or primary personal figure, who comes into conflict with an opposing major character or force (called the antagonist).

 

So, a protagonist comes into conflict with an opposing major character or force. That's a pretty bare-bones definition. It doesn't really have enough meat on it to describe a good protagonist, and since I'm too lazy to dig out a lit book or a writing book, I'll go back to Google, and find some traits of a good protagonist:

 

From Writer's Write, The Six Defining Characteristics of Strong Female Protagonists:

 

Note, I'm only copying the line items, the article linked has examples of strong female protagonists; Bella didn't make the list. I'm going to add my observations about Bella in red. Because vampires.

 

A couple of caveats to my analysis: First, I have read the books, but years ago, so I may be forgetting some details. Second, I don't care enough to look up said details.

 

 

 

1. She has a story goal that defines the narrative arc. She has to get possession of something, or relief from something. There have to be important consequences if she does not achieve her story goal. This is true for Bela. Her story goal is --- apparently highly-debated. But at the core, it's a romance and the story goal of a romance is to get the guy or girl, and to live happily ever-after.
2. She is flawed. She is not perfect, and her flaws could change the course of the story. She has to make choices, and she has to deal with the consequences of her choices. There is nothing more frustrating than reading a story where the protagonist fails to make choices. Even if this is how we behave in real life, we want our fictional heroes to be a better version of ourselves. We want them to take action. We want to them to go after what they want. Reactive characters are annoying and we perceive them as weak. We'll count this box as ticked, because Bella has plenty of flaws. However, she does spend quite a bit of the book as reactive. For example, when Edward leaves town, she has an extended period of moping, hallucinations, leading on and using Jacob, and doesn't act until she gets the incredibly bright idea to drive a motorcycle off of a cliff. This is where I see a pacing issue.
3. She captures our attention. She has that special ‘something’ that captivates us as readers. A strong character has a personality trait that mesmerises readers. Readers want to believe they could be that character if they were put in that situation. They may even want to be that character. She could be brave, loyal, self-confident, intelligent, focused, charming, or compassionate. She should be able to engage our minds, win our hearts and get us to root for her until the end. Here's where we start running into trouble, big time. Meyer has gone overboard in trying to make a character that a mopey teen girl can identify with, but she is sorely lacking in the positive traits. Rather than having good personality traits, she's simply given a good outcome.
4. She changes over the course of the story. She discovers her strengths and weaknesses. She surprises herself and she surprises us as she grows and learns. There should not be a sudden epiphany at the end of the story. We are not watching a Disney movie. Her change should be gradual and believable. Complete failure here. She only changes in the most minimal sense that she eventually stops moping a little and eventually plots to get Edward. She shows no emotional growth or any other form of personal growth.
5. She does not exist as a support for another character. Other characters exist to support her. Her supporting cast are there to help her achieve her story goal and complete the narrative arc of her story. The antagonist is there to thwart her, and to show her how strong or weak she is. Her love interest is there to distract her from her story goal, and to show us her insecurities and vulnerabilities. (Remember that a love interest is not necessarily a romantic interest.) Her friends are there to support her, and to show us who she really is, how strong she can be – even if she can’t see it. She does pretty much get this one. However, keep in mind that in this case, her love interest is her story goal.
6. She has the ability to stand up to the antagonist. She is a strong character who is made stronger by her interaction with the antagonist. She has to have the intelligence, bravery, charisma, and will-power to make the story her own and come out on top at the end of the book. Bella actually succeeds in getting Edward to change his mind about keeping away from her for her own good (what a lot of people see as robbing her of agency, rather than the story goal setback it actually is . . . more on that in a bit), and she gains the ability to fight back against the monstery guys who want to hurt her and her family by becoming a vampire. She does all this by hatching various plots and schemes. However she doesn't do it through any combination of intelligence, bravery or charisma. Mostly animal cunning, really.

 

 

OK, so by at least those standards (which I think are fair and a good bit of writing advice), Bella's not a good protagonist. But does she lack agency?

 

Let's look at the issue of agency:

 

Here's a bit of a blog post discussing the movies, and a part that seemingly can be argued to demonstrate agency and a lack of agency. I think it fails to realize that agency does not mean being in control. It means being able to act within one's environment:

 

 

In the beginning of the movie Breaking Dawn, Bella is set to marry the love of her life Edward. After they are married they jet off for a nice tropical honeymoon, during which Bella finds out that she had become pregnant with a half vampire, half human child. Although generally becoming pregnant would be cause for celebration, this pregnancy was not received as joyous news, mainly due to the fact that soon after becoming pregnant it was found that the child was growing too fast and would eventually end up killing Bella.

 

OK, so if she has the baby, she is likely to die. So, Edward and all of her vampire friends argue against it.

 

 

This scene provides us an interesting look at agency, because depending on how you look at it, it could be both an example of a heroin demonstrating agency, and showing a lack thereof at the same time.  On one hand, Bella could not have been more authoritative, exercising absolute and complete authority over the decision as to whether or not she would keep the baby full term.  She is aware that there is a very high likelihood of severe complications resulting in death, and through the onslaught of pleas from loved ones to save herself and give up the baby, she is still able to muster the strength to be able to risk sacrificing herself in order for her child to survive.   This shows her strength on two different levels. First of which is that she refuses to give up and believes the entire time that she will be strong enough to make it through. Secondly, she is willing to face almost certain suicide in the name of procreation, bringing up the idea that maybe this scene is an example of complete lack of agency. While Bella can chose to have the baby and be in complete control of the outcome of that situation, she does not actually have any control of what ends up happening to her. She may die, and Carlisle is uncertain as to whether or not he can change her in time, so she may actually be gone forever. Obviously she has faith and hope that everything will work out, as it does, but in this aspect, Bella could not have had less control of the situation, showing a complete lack of agency.

 

I added the italics above. That's a silly argument. She has agency in making a decision She decides to take on risk. By definition, risk is something you can't have control over. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a risk. So, that argument for "ooh, maybe there's a lack of agency here after all!" lacks merit.

 

Of course, this is from near the end of the series, and even those who think she lacks agency tend to agree that she picks up some agency by this point.

 

This is a quote from a critique that's quoted in this Atlantic article which has more silly analysis of Twilight in it:

 

 

[Edward's] behavior toward Bella for the first three books is frightening in many ways. Over the course of the series, he watches her sleep, constantly tells her she is absurd, and tries to control who she sees and who her friends are. This abusive behavior is rooted in his inability to recognize Bella's agency, his inability to acknowledge that she can decide for herself what she needs. His refusal to allow her to become a vampire is further evidence of that paternalism. The three later novels focus both on Bella's becoming a vampire and Edward's dawning recognition of Bella's status as an agent. ... Edward's controlling behavior continues in Eclipse, but he is able to make some meaningful compromises. At the end of Eclipse, he finally says, "I've clung with idiotic obstinacy to my idea of what's best for you, though it's only hurt you... I don't trust myself anymore. You can have happiness your way. My way is always wrong."

 

Again, italics added. This is the story of an immature, suicidal, depressed seventeen year old girl being told by a hundred and seven year old man that maybe she doesn't want to be in a relationship with an older guy who may accidentally kill her and whose friends may accidentally kill her, and maybe -- just maybe -- you don't really want to be killed. Also, having actually experienced being a vampire he has an aversion to afflicting someone else with his supernatural curse. How dare he resist putting her life at risk and damning her soul, putting her eternal salvation at risk? (Which is a belief he holds in the novels.)

 

Of course, Bella later makes him flip on these positions, thus robbing him of his agency.

 

And,  ultimately what this feminist take on Edward fails to take into account is that this is a romance, and that Edward is the story goal. He's supposed to be difficult for Bella to attain. In genre, it's considered good form for some of the hurdles to the story goal to come from a difference in world views between the protagonist and her love interest. That gives them a valid reason not to get together and provides opportunity for character growth on both sides. The latter doesn't exist in Twilight. Bella simply gets her way, robbing Edward of his agency and setting up an unequal power dynamic in the relationship, in Bella's favor.

 

From the Atlantic article, this time the author commenting on the quote above:

 

 

 

Later on, though, Jeffers asserts that Bella might be a somewhat feminist figure after all, in that she "rejects the violence inherent in a patriarchal system" because she "refuses to allow Edward and Jacob to remain rivals, and she engineers circumstances that require them to put their differences aside and work together."

 

So, basically the person who thought that Edward was robbing Bella of her agency flips and admits that Bella has agency.

 

The problem isn't that Bella ever lacked agency in the first place. The fact of the matter is that getting to that point was her major story goal, and that the critics keep losing site of the fact that Twilight, at its core, is a very by the numbers category romance.

 

So, to summarize:

 

• Bella is a bad protagonist.
• The books have pacing problems.
• The feminist critics understand neither agency nor story structure.
• And, yes, the romance genre has lots of issues, and the supernatural teen romance subgenre is especially bad in this regard.
• Bella is a bad protagonist.

[Pattern Ghost]

One' sense of self-worth shouldn't come from another person. Glamorizing "I can't live without him/her" is probably the greatest sin of romance novels. That's an entirely negative attitude that only leads to poor relationships, depression and other negative outcomes and one that needs to be outgrown before one can enter into a fruitful relationship between equals.

 

Bella's suicidal motorcycle escapades embody this. The fact that she doesn't grow at all and gets a very unrealistic happy outcome should be the greatest concern about the series, and about the genre.

 

But that isn't the same thing as agency. Agency is about the ability to act. If one acts, they have agency. If they act stupidly, don't learn from their mistakes, don't grow as a person or mature, and the author still gives them a happy ending, that's a problem, but it's not one of agency.

[Cygnia]

 

How gender-targeted marketing is hurting toy retail

[Vondy]

I didn't say they didn't work... merely pointing out that it's not just "women who fight" that's being discussed as an idea.

 

I think agency = violence is shortsighted and, frankly, Hollywood stupidity rubbing off on hack social theorists. Yes, the ability to use force is a kind of agency, but it is a limited and narrow agency with real drawbacks in all but the most desperate circumstances. In our modern society, force is the agency of last resort. Can some women be warriors? Yes. But, that is hardly the be all and end all of personal agency. What is more, not all men are capable of exercising that kind of agency, and as time marches on, fewer and fewer can do so as age grinds us down. War-fighting (using force) is best left to younger, fitter men.

 

No one argues a seventy year old man lacks agency because he is no longer capable of being the quintessential action-hero. So, why would we argue that the average woman, who is not likely to possess the desire or athleticism necessary to be a warrior, is somehow lacking agency? Must one "punch Cuthulu out" to have agency? I know I'm going to get flack for being impolitic, but injury and efficiency reports for integrated combat units (and women in selection courses for combat units) underscores that far fewer women have the necessary athleticism to compete for infantry slots. Some certainly do. That hardly establishes a norm.

 

There are a lot of ways to assert yourself, stand up for yourself, and exercise agency in this world. "Women who fight," while popular for bucking norms, playing with the boys, and an exercising an unusual form of agency for most women are far from being the only women who exercise agency. It is the agency of last resort, and defining it as "agency" as opposed to "a form of agency" does everyone who isn't a youthful warrior in fighting trim and injustice. Focusing exclusively on the most extreme forms of traditionally masculine agency gives people a very warped view of agency to begin with.

[Clonus]

 

 

No one argues a seventy year old man lacks agency because he is no longer capable of being the quintessential action-hero. 

 

You know, you really don't see a lot of 70 year old protagonists.  

[Pattern Ghost]

Well, there's Septuagenarian Man. He can do anything a Septuagenarian can!

[Enforcer84]

One' sense of self-worth shouldn't come from another person. Glamorizing "I can't live without him/her" is probably the greatest sin of romance novels. That's an entirely negative attitude that only leads to poor relationships, depression and other negative outcomes and one that needs to be outgrown before one can enter into a fruitful relationship between equals.

 

Bella's suicidal motorcycle escapades embody this. The fact that she doesn't grow at all and gets a very unrealistic happy outcome should be the greatest concern about the series, and about the genre.

 

But that isn't the same thing as agency. Agency is about the ability to act. If one acts, they have agency. If they act stupidly, don't learn from their mistakes, don't grow as a person or mature, and the author still gives them a happy ending, that's a problem, but it's not one of agency.

Pathfinder has a patron goddess of romantic suicide. It's kind of funny. 

[Clonus]

Pathfinder has a patron goddess of romantic suicide. It's kind of funny. 

 

What kind of spells would that cleric have?

[Cygnia]

What kind of spells would that cleric have?

"Bestow Wangst"

[Cancer]

"Unending PMS", "Bulemia and Anorexia", and "All The Good Ones Are Taken"

[Enforcer84]

The Deity is interesting. Her apotheosis was unintentional. She had been a servant of the goddess of love who watched over lovers who had to meet in secret. She appeared before a couple and told them to be strong, that their love could endure even beyond death. They jumped off a cliff and sang prayers to her as the plummeted. 

 

So now she's a goddess. And freaked out. And her patron goddess keeps trying to reconcile but she's too horrified at what she feels as a betrayal. 

 

Darker Gods are now sniffing around and she's slid from good to neutrality. 

 

Her church finds the Love/Beauty goddess fickle and without meaning

The Goddess of Love's church find the flock of this new goddess to be simpering and too attached to romantic travesty. 

 

it's surprisingly well crafted but really it's like "Goths vs Theater/art Clique"

[IndianaJoe3]

You know, you really don't see a lot of 70 year old protagonists.  

 

How old are Granny Weatherwax and Nanny Ogg?

[Cygnia]

Technically, 76 yr old Ian McKellen played a 93yr old Sherlock in "Mr Holmes"...

[Cygnia]

The Soft Sexism Of Hating On The New GHOSTBUSTERS

 

 

As we get very close to the release of the movie we have to deal with two things: it doesn’t look entirely promising (although Paul Feig's last film, Spy, looked like an abomination in marketing and was actually great when you saw it) and that most of the outrage surrounding the movie comes from conscious or unconscious sexism.

[Cygnia]

Men Are Sabotaging The Online Reviews Of TV Shows Aimed At Women

 

We can quibble about where it stands in the TV canon, but “Sex and the City” has seven Emmys and a suite of Golden Globes and Screen Actors Guild awards. It ran 94 episodes through six seasons on a premium cable network. Any reasonable person should concede that “Sex and the City” was an above-average television program (at minimum). You don’t need to think it was a perfect show, or even an outstanding one, but I think most people would agree it was better than average.

 

At least, that’s what I thought until I saw the program’s remarkably poor score according to IMDb’s user ratings when I analyzed the data history of HBO. “Sex and the City” has an overall rating of 7.0 on a scale from 1 to 10 — the average score of an English-language television series with 1,000 or more ratings is 7.3. So why did a show roundly considered seminal in the now ubiquitous genre of driven-New York-women-make-a-go-of-it programming score so low?

 

Yeah, it’s men.

[Outsider]

Your linked article says, 70% of IMDB show ratings are made by men, and these shows weren't designed to appeal to men.  Why is a low rating for a show that isn't designed to appeal to 70% of the raters such a travesty?

 

What do you propose?   A gender test before being allowed to vote?  Or perhaps counting male votes at 3/7ths the value of female ones to create "equity" in the ratings?  

[Pattern Ghost]

I always viewed a 70% rating on IMDB as fairly decent. I'll usually take a chance on anything over 60% if it had an interesting premise, because I know how hard it is to get large groups of anonymous people to agree on anything. I figure if you get 60-70% of raters agreeing something's good, it has a fair chance of actually being good.

 

ETA: What does the article have to do with geek communities?

[Outsider]

This thread has become more about how men are evil in general, it seems.

[Enforcer84]

There's a fairly deep divide between "institutionalized sexism exists" and "men are evil in general." 

But since we're all big heroic buffs, the main message to these is that the best way to allow dirtbags to fester is for the rest of us to do nothing. 

This of course gets into the sticky wicket of what is considered dirtbaggery, and that like anything else is in the eye of the beholder, as is what is doing "something."

 

The thread can trend towards link carpetbombing but that doesn't mean there can't be a or hasn't been a discussion. 

 

In fact, there are thousands of threads where people vent and blow off steam on a certain subject this one isn't that much different. 

[Cygnia]

You telling me geeks don't watch TV?  Or spend time on IMDB?