Are Male Characters More Relatable? (YOUR THOUGHTS)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.ย. 2024
- Reading and discussing some of your comments from this video: • Tell me what you think...
I love this format for videos. It means we get to interact a bit. Hopefully I'll make some more videos which ask for your responses and then I can do more like this.
So sorry if I didn't read out your comment! I answered a lot more than this but the video was VERY long so I had to cut several out. I did read them all, though, and they were so interesting! Thanks so much for your input everyone!
xxx
My tumblr: / claudiaboleyn
My music channel: / @claudiaboleynmusic1890
My music tumblr: / claudiaboleynmusic
My website:claudiaboleyn.com
My instagram: / boleynclaudia
My snapchat: clarashildr
My PayPal (for donations): www.paypal.me/...
xxx
![ตีสิบเดย์ [FULL] | นางเอกหมอลำเงินล้าน "อุ๋งอิ๋ง เพชรบ้านแพง" & ไฮโซสาวสุดฮอต "ลิลลี่ เหงียน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/jPxQS_EgrJ4/mqdefault.jpg)
![[UNCUT] The Loyal Pin ปิ่นภักดิ์ EP.6 (1/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/m05kZ2GDKXg/mqdefault.jpg)
I have noticed in a lot of comedy TV shows where a lot of female characters are written to be hated. I will call it the 'ex-wife' trope. I have been noticing it more lately. There are female characters created solely for the male characters to hate, make jokes about and see as an antagonist for the plot. The are usually the ex-wife, the woman who 'friendzones the male protagonist', the angry or annoying plus-sized woman etc. I think that plays a huge role. Women in comedy are created to be the butt of a male protagonist 's joke. That I believe has contributed to people hating female characters because you have been asked to do so.
Sort of the analog to the "idiot husband" which goes back to the Honeymooners, they're both tired character types.
I think the difference is that men often play the lovable idiot. At least in the occurrence where you see men play stupid characters. I do honestly like the lovable idiot trope though....
What do you call the male version of a Mary Sue? The Protagonist.
'Gary Stu' seems to be the consensus.
I think you missed the joke...
I see...
Nice original joke. Got that from tumblr didn't ya
lol, never said it was my own joke :P
I think the show Jessica Jones really succeeds in creating a kick-ass female lead, who still has vulnarbility and struggles and a three dimensional personality that make her believable, or at least more relatable. She is, as many other superheroes, fighting "the bad guy", as well as her inner demons, but... I don't know, her "inner demons", being the mental illness and her traumatic past, and her not being just a victim but a hero, despite her past... it makes me really appreciate that character and makes her even more of a superhero to look up to and cherish. And she feels as an even stronger character because of her trauma and her unstable mental health, because she has to fight a lot more than just the bad guy. I don't know if I've made my point crossed... Anyways, I love that show and Jessica as the protagonist and I'm really looking forward to season 2!
Oh yes! Jessica is a great example of a complex female lead. She's so realistically flawed. xxx
Jessica Jones was freaking amazing. And perfect example of a character that can be well-rounded. Jessica is rude, mean, and bitter, and we learn what made her this way. We begin to see the world through her eyes, and we empathize with her trauma.
"It's un-feminist not to treat your female characters like people" YES!!!! This topic is so interesting and I often think about this. When I started watching The handmaid's tale and the cast/writers were like "oh no it's not a feminist story it's a story about people men and women" and other stuff like that I couldn't stop asking myself then what does a "feminist story" or "feminist character" mean??? I totally agree with what you said that I quoted at the beginning, it's silly that because of the fear of the words feminist/sm, what we mean and want for female characters is misunderstood, when it's quite simple actually! :)
I think there are two ways to understand "feminist character" :
1/ a character written in a "feminist way" so as you said, basically a character treated like a person, with flaws, depth, nuances..
2/ a character who is a feminist.
And maybe writers think that by feminist character we mean we want characters to be feminist themselves. But if you don't understand what feminism means you can't do that properly and the character becomes a mess!
I think that's the distinction we need to make clearer when we say we want more feminist characters. Because even me, as a feminist, I was/am confused was to what people mean when they talk about "feminist characters" so it's understandable that ppl afraid of the word don't get it either 😁
But then what would you call or how would you describe a feminist story? Story about feminism? Story that treats all its characters like people, gives them depth?
(I recommend you to watch the show Sense8 bc I think in that the writers did amazing. The main cast is made of 4 men+4 women and the women are very well written imo.)
I just wanna say I've been LOVING your content lately (and always tbh.) As a fan of Breaking Bad, completely agree with the reading of the Skyler hate as sexist. Walter does absolutely atrocious things and isn't meant to be the hero of the show. But because a lot of people rooted for him as the protagonist, Skyler got a lot of hate for "standing in his way" and for being rightfully suspicious and bitchy toward him. Also, agree about Black Widow. The insert romantic plot line in Avengers 2 was so cringeworthy. Her personality did a complete 180 in order to add in the awkward tension between her and Hulk.
The romantic plotline in Avengers 2 was cringeworthy af. I know they had to give Natasha less action because Scarlett Johansson was pregnant during filming of Avengers 2, but there's so many other plotlines they could give her that don't involve action. She's good with computer hacking, and in Captain America: The Winter Soldier, she even compares her own skills to a literal living computer. Or we could have spent more time learning about her backstory? Maybe they could've spent time having Nat empathize with Wanda being brainwashed and recruited to Hydra the way Nat was recruited into the KGB, instead of having the only time these two superheroines interact when one messes with the other's brain, and a deleted scene where Nat is upset at seeing Wanda in her jacket as if they're high schoolers.
marinashutup Honestly, the romantic subplot, along with a couple of other things, ruined that movie for me. There were some really great things (ultron and vision), but I came out of the movie wishing the entire thing had never happened. The romance was so cringey and made no sense for either character. If they had to pit a romance in, it would've made more sense to give her one with Hawkeye, or even Captain America. She'd already been shown to be close to and have chemistry with both of them.
Crazy Ex Girlfriend is one of the best shows I have seen for complex female characters - there are so many women both in front of and behind the camera, and it deconstructs female character tropes like the titular crazy ex, the beautiful new gf, the cool friend, the BFF etc. beautifully, with complexity, sensitivity and compassion whilst also using humour in a risky and also tactful way. It is wonderfully diverse, inventive and innovative, not afraid to shy away from the flaws of its characters whilst still making them realistic and likeable, and there are so many female friendships. There's positive bi representation, sex positive, different body types, and insightful messages about relationships and self worth. It also I'd really recommend checking it out.
One thing I've noticed is that a lot of the time female characters don't seem to have been created as characters in their own right; they seem to have been created in the process of the creator fleshing out the male characters.
Male characters usually get to be just a character -- the author needs a protagonist, a villain, a side character, etc, so they create a male character and start to build on that (passions, motives, background, story arc, etc.). But female characters are created based on the male characters -- the male protag needs a girlfriend, a wife, a love interest, a sister, a mother, etc. so that the male protag can evolve, grow and have reasons to do stuff -- thus a female character is born. This creates flat, stereotypical female characters whose story arcs revolve entirely around the male characters, because instead of having their own backgrounds, motives and story arcs, they're just parts of the male characters' backgrounds and story arcs.
Context is I'm a straight woman and my whole life I've had almost entirely female friends/related more to women in general in my life (not that there is no men in my life I care about, there is). I've not really thought about the gender of my favourite characters before but thinking on it I can see that now I've mostly always been drawn to female characters. For example, my whole family loves Lord of the Rings and as a kid we had a Lord of the Rings Monopoly where you play as different characters. I remember there was only one female you could play as, the elf Galadriel, and I always had to be her. I love elves in general, but I was drawn to play her rather than Legolas. Also, Buffy the Vampire Slayer is one of my favourite shows of all time and a lot of that has to do with the female characters. Thinking back to my days on tumblr I mostly blogged about female characters I liked. When I blogged about male characters it was usually because I found them attractive or because I liked them in relation to female characters (like in ships). I've even given up on certain shows because they lacked interesting female characters. I have watched and enjoyed shows/films that focus on men (I just finished watching Narcos on Netflix and loved it) but often times those have to be really good to impress me. I think it's perfectly okay to relate more to male characters, but I find it interesting to think back on my favourite characters in relation to this.
Honestly I don't relate to many characters, if I do it's usually the protagonist, and usually the protagonist is male. However the character I relate to most is Sana Bakkoush, from the Norwegian tv show called 'Skam', who is a Muslim WOC who wears a hijab.
It's probably the first time I've seen this sort of character that is realistic and not just a stereotypical depiction of a Muslim female character. Because of this I really relate to her, not just because we share the same experiences but because of her other personality traits that don't even link to her being Muslim.
I relate to other male characters in Skam too, like Isak for his introvertedness and struggle with his sexuality and Even for his portrayal of mental illness and low self esteem.
For me it's to do with how natural the dialogue of these characters are and the way they are acted (subtle and realistic), so it's easy to see the personality traits we have in common, or sometimes skin colour, sexuality, mental illness (but the skin colour thing is really rare for me, someone who is South Asian).
I think there is more to a relatable character than just their gender, I would not relate to a character just because they are female.
Yes! Skam is amazing at portraying realistic, flawed and relatable characters. I think the characterisation and dialogue are far and above most other shows I've seen in terms of realism and I don't think the show ever loses any drama or impact despite this.
ALSO FUCKING YES ABOUT CERSEI AND DAENERYS. Daenerys at times falls into the "strong female character" trope in my opinion and falls quite flat for me. Cersei is genuinely unlikeable and does evil horrible things, but she's vastly more interesting because she's *allowed* to be unlikeable. So much of her decisions are in direct response to the misogynistic society she was raised in and its such a fascinating journey to watch. (Side note: I have a vision for her and Jaime in season 7 and I'd love to talk to you about it lol)
I hate how fandom claims that they like the morally grey characters because they're 'more interesting' yet this is only for white male characters, anyone else is absolutely condemned for it.
Not necessarily contradicting you, but Haruhi in "The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya" anime is sort of a morally grey female protagonist. And while she is a... polarizing main character, it certainly makes her quite interesting as a character.
Cardboard Box yeah, well written morally grey female characters absolutely exist, I do think like Claudia says that fans are more quick to condemn then, but there are exceptions. On the other hand, sometimes, like with Joffrey, he's a white male character universally disliked for good reason when a lot of villains get more respect from the fandom
My favorite morally grey female character is Kagura from Inuyasha. She does a lot of shitty things and still manages to garner sympathy from the audience due to her situation
What about rick Sanchez. He's in a morally gray area and his skin is as grey as a corpse and his hair is blue.
I was recently thinking the same thing with Game of thrones characters. Martin has writen all his characters to be morally complex and grey yet the female characters get ripped to shreds by fans for their character flaws while the male characters are praised and loved for their moral complexity. For instant people write of Catelyn as a irredeemable bitch because she hated Jon Snow yet love a character like Jamie who pushed a kid out of a window and fucks his sister. Idk i guess people are not used to female characters being fleshed out to the degree male characters are.
One of the male writers you are talking about is Moffat, isn't it?
The one that shan't be named
*shudders*
I'd really like for you to talk about wonder woman, Claudia, when you've seen the movie (which I assume you're going to), like about how men feel like women are trespassing on their area (of superhero movies 'n stuff), how some think Wonder Woman is a feminist icon while others call it bs. Also how she's portrayed in relation to Steve whatshisname
Loved this video and I believe you took up very relevant points!
I have not seen one person say that women are trespassing. Please link. Everyone seems to love the movie.
Tbh I'm very critical of calling the show Game of Thrones feminist, for the simple reason that all complexity comes from George RR Martin's writing and not from David and Dan (the executive producers). Think about the quality of character development ever since D&D ran out of book content to adapt. We had the awful Dorne plot where Ellaria was made into a vengeful female character (the opposite of her book character) because D&D wanted to show off Indira Varma's acting abilities. Daenerys is an absolute joke of a character; she is supposed to be perceived as empowering but she burns people alive for not agreeing with her and plans to bring a raping, pillaging Dothraki horde to an already war-torn Westeros. Her book character was far more fascinating as she only ever wanted to have a proper childhood (she is a teenager) but feels like she has a duty to rule because of Viserys. But the show gets rid of her internal conflict because they want a "strong female character".
I could go on about every character in detail, but I think the biggest reason I wouldn't call GoT feminist (at least after season 3/4) is because of the season 6 finale. All of the female characters that are still alive are violent war-mongerers: Cersei, Dany, Arya, Sansa (after the whole Ramsay plot), Ellaria, the Sand Snakes, Yara/Asha, etc. They have lost so much complexity in favour of being perceived as "badass" (Sansa was a very pro-peace character who valued love over fear, Ellaria was a pacifist, Arya was shown as more tragic than "badass", Dany was a conflicted person who isn't entirely certain about whether she should be queen). And think about this: which female characters have died on the show recently? The ones who were not violent. Myrcella, Shireen, and Margaery spring to mind (esp. when Margaery was just trying to survive at that point in the story rather than wage war). The only non-violent female character alive on the show that I can think of is Missandei but she is given so little characterisation, and exists only to support Dany and Tyrion and to have a weird romance with Grey Worm, so I wouldn't be surprised if she died next season thanks to Euron. What irritates me though is that this is not very historically accurate from a medieval perspective. In a war-like situation, most of the people who survive are women because they are involved only in politics and not battle. And before anyone says that it's fantasy and doesn't need to be historically accurate, the show uses the historically accurate excuse to justify certain plotlines which make no sense character-wise (like the Sansa rape).
The thing is, they had plenty of time to develop their characters (both male and female). Why not use the countless scenes we had of Tyrion telling jokes to Missandei and Grey Work or part of 10-20 minutes of footage of Arya sweeping? Not to mention there were scenes where characters should have had a lot to say to each other, but they were silent for no apparent reason (like when Sansa and Brienne are eating with Jon and the night's watch after they arrive). There were so many opportunities where there could have been character development but D&D chose to replace those opportunities with dialogue-less scenes or Tyrion telling dick jokes.
Also, they could have had more than 14 episodes if they wanted to. GoT makes so much money for HBO that they have no reason to restrict the producers. But D&D have been wanting to wrap up the show since the red wedding so I doubt the writers care about characterisation.
Tbh I really don't understand why D&D "had to" do the Sansa/Jeyne swap. It makes no sense for littlefinger to marry Sansa to Ramsay, especially after he spent a year or so plotting to kidnap her. So for him to just throw away makes no sense for someone so ambitious. Plus him claiming that he knew nothing about Ramsay is bullshit. In the books Ramsay married Lady Hornwood, raped her and locked her in a tower to starve to death. Ramsay is the opposite of subtle, so for littlefinger to not know about him is ridiculous and does not fit his character. Not to mention, the Northern lords did plot to save Jeyne Poole because of Stark loyalty, and they knew she wasn't even a real Stark. So the idea that they would sit back and do nothing while a rightful Stark was brutalised by a person they consider a usurper is laughable. Not to mention that Sansa was already becoming "a player". So for them to chuck her back into the role of the victim and force her to grow again seems pointless for her arc.
Also the writers never gave a solid justification for why they did it. All they ever mention is Sophie Turner's acting abilities and "it made sense to us creatively so we did it". Ultimately I think they did it because they enjoy seeing Sophie acting as the victim, and since Joffrey was dead they needed someone else to do it to her. Because the decision doesn't make any sense when you consider the characters' motivations.
Aha that is true, the way GRRM writes women can be weird at times. Though at least they have proper motivations compared to the show. When you have actors saying that they don't know why their character did something (Sophie about Sansa not telling Jon, Stephen Dillaine about Stannis' decision to burn Shireen, etc) then you know you have a characterisation problem. Which is disappointing because I love everything else about the show.
@thehalfbloodserb I totally agree with everything you've said about why GoT can't really be called a feminist show and how the women are only able to survive and thrive once they adopt a more typically masculine approach of violence and destruction. I also feel that while the books aren't always the most feminist either, all of the women in ASOIAF at least feel very diverse and realistic, with understandable motivations and I feel a lot of their complexity has been lost in the show in favour of fitting them into archetypes.
Also it feels like in the show women only ever seem to solve problems by using either sex or violence (or both), rather than using intelligence or other skills. For example ideas that came from women in the books are given to male characters in the show (e.g. how all of Catelyn's political savvy is given to Robb and she's reduced to an irrational worrying mother) and what about the disaster that was the Dorne storyline? Not only is Arianne's entire character erased in favour of making Trystane the Dornish heir, but he and Doran are given the roles of the rational, wise men while Ellaria and the Sand Snakes are turned into irrationally violent emotional women whose common sense is so lacking that their initial strategy for assassinating Myrcella consists of just charging at her in broad daylight surrounded by guards and other witnesses.
Whereas in the books the Sand Snakes are seen as wise, intelligent and trustworthy enough that they are asked to join the small council in King's Landing, in the show this honour is of course given to Trystane instead and so on. Honestly there's just so much blatant sexism in how they've chosen to adapt characters from the books to the show that I could go on and on but there's only so much room in the comments and time in the day.
Oh god yes, I was so disappointed with Catelyn's portrayal in Season 3; I loved her so much in the books. Not to mention how they changed Jeyne Westerling so much that GRRM told them to just rename her because D&D were so adamant about having a romantic subplot for Robb.
And Arianne is one of my favourite book characters. I love how she's slowly becoming more like Doran, and how she's learning how to play the bigger game (rather than going down dangerous pathways like crowing Myrcella). Not to mention how the entire Dornish culture is a more feminist one than westeros (even though it's still a monarchy, women are equally able to inherit, and they give greater social support to the smallfolk than Westeros). I also can't wait to see what the Dornish achieve from having sand snakes in the small council, the grand sept of baelor and in the citadel. I guess D&D just couldn't handle having so many interesting women in one location (I mean, the show sand snakes themselves are basically just 3 versions of the same character but with different weapons).
One thing that also annoys me about the show are the small, pointless additions/changes which make it slightly less feminist. The big stuff I get in the sense that D&D want to make the show more shocking/exciting (which still pisses me off ofc) but some of the small things baffle me. Like giving Arya the line "most girls are stupid" which she says to Tywin, even though in the books she says "the women as important too" (or something like that) to Jon about heraldry. And how Brienne criticises Jaime for whining about losing his hand by saying "you sound like a bloody woman".... or even just Oberyn saying how he visited Casterly Rock with his sister and his dad, even though in the books it's his mum because she inherited Dorne and was the ruler (which D&D probably forgot lbr). Like these lines are so easily avoidable and don't change the plot that much, but the fact that the writers felt like they had to make these changes is just confusing.
"Certain male writers" it's okay, you can say Joss Whedon :P
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 TRUTH
There are also female writers who are terrible at writing female characters. Likewise male writers who are terrible at writing male characters. Sometimes the writing comes down to experience or number of editors and how freely the editors felt to voice their opinion and how willing the writer was to adjust their work accordingly.
Breaking Bad is one of those examples where Walt is written to be sympathetic initially. Skyler being written as a mom character was the wet blanket, she was too much like our real mothers. We see Walt initially as a man struggling to provide for his family in a world that stands against him. He turns to making meth because he saw no other options towards providing for his family, especially when he was diagnosed with cancer and believed he was going to die. Many of his early antics were a result of accidents and inexperience rather than Walt being a psychopath. Walt's penis is almost a metaphor for his measure of success at providing for Skyler and his son. When he makes money for his family he is horny and screws Skyler, when he fails miserably he is very standoffish with Skyler. It is only about the halfway point that he becomes horny from making money but Skyler isn't receptive and Walt tries to rape her. That's the point where Walt turns from provider to psychopath and is no longer sympathetic whereas Skyler becomes more sympathetic but still fails to be a likeable character because she is still a wet blanket due to her refusal to accept Walt's new career with the same gusto he does. Although that is perfectly understandable all things considered. However there would be no Breaking Bad if Walt wasn't cooking meth. Skyler is seen as standing in the way of the show itself.
When people write a male character, they don't think of it as "writing a male character", they simply think of it as writing a person. Whereas when they write a female character, their gender takes canter stage in their mind during the whole process. Since men are seen as the default, it's seen as pointless to write a female character unless their character centres around their femaleness in some way. If a character doesn't need to be female, they're simply written as male. This probably also explains the lower representation of women in media on top of them being more poorly written.
Hello, big fan here! You talk so eloquently, I love your videos. I'm a gay cis gendered male and I thought I'd just say that I have the opposite experience, in that pretty much every single piece of media I've ever consumed, be it literature, film, television and even music, the female characters or perspective are what I love the most. Female characters in TV always end up being my favourites, and I even find myself bored and not relating to the male characters a lot of the time because they're portrayed in ways that I don't relate to. I've always looked up to and admired the female characters, even ones who perhaps aren't completely fleshed out or written particularly well, and even if the male characters comparatively are. I don't know why, but it's always been the case, I will instinctively be drawn to the female characters no matter how small their roles. Funny how it's almost the exact opposite of your experience with female characters, I wonder what factors play into our preferences. Anyway, have a great day! Can't wait for your next videos :)
Part of a different comment I left on that video that is much more relevant:
"I think [male characters are] simply easier to write, so most writers use them. Including female writers. There's simply so much less baggage using a male character. There's so many people out there waiting to pick apart a female character for every potential angle and aspect to criticize, on every possible basis. Is she a good role model? Is she acting "strong" enough, or too much to relate to? Is she acting "too much like a man"? Etc. etc. etc. The very audience that wants strong female characters is the biggest obstacle to getting them, because you make it so much safer to just say "f*** it" and write a man instead."
Another issue I've picked up about female characters, particularly in action movies: female characters are much less likely to be seriously physically harmed. To use Star Wars: at no point during the movie did I think that Rey was in any significant danger. She might get beat up a bit, but she's never going to lose a hand the way Luke did. Harry Potter is the same way; female characters can be killed but they don't suffer permanent harm or dismemberment the way the male characters did. George lost an ear, Bill gets mauled, Dumbledore's hand gets cursed, Moody loses half his body parts, etc. The only lasting physical harm I can remember on a female character is the scar on Hermione's arm.
While that's certainly not universal, it's very common and it makes it much harder to create any sort of tension for a female character.
To be honest, I think a lot of writers tend to write poor/unrealistic female characters because they are afraid that their vision for the female character in question will be perceived as offensive to pop-culture critics who tend to view media through the lens of social justice. The result of this is often female characters who all but scream: "I AM A WOMAN AND I AM STRONG, I CAN DO ANYTHING THAT ANY MAN CAN DO" or 'Mary Sue' type characters who are non-distinct and lack any strongly defining characteristics or flaws. The irony is that these characters rarely satisfy anyone, feminist or otherwise because they are fundamentally uninteresting. I personally find a lot of video game writers create FANTASTIC female characters whereas a lot of female characters in TV and Film have me groaning and rolling my eyes.
In my opinion writers should treat simply male and female characters the same, as human beings. Creative media which is considered offensive or controversial isn't even a bad thing, it gets a conversation going.
I think one trap that writers fall into especially with regards to female villains is that they ultimately attempt to humanise and redeem them, it's quite rare to have a completely unrepentant, remorseless female villain. I really hope Cersei doesn't have a sudden radical change of heart in the upcoming Season of GoT.
"I'm thinking of two in particular who are male writers" (~looking at you Stephen Moffat and Joss Whedon~)
I am saying nothing...
Horror has always been my favorite genre, so female protagonists were the norm for me growing up. Relatability for me depends entirely on the specific character themselves. My favorite is Alice in Nightmare on Elm Street 4 and 5. Her character is wonderfully written and very complex
Thoughts on Ripley from Alien?
Absolutely love her as well
As long as the story villain is complex and relatable, I don't care whether they are male or female. They are doing what they do for good reasons, not for narcissism, sociopathy, or psychopathic reasons (which tend to be 1 dimensional).
I identify as female, however a lot of my personality traits are more stereotypically masculine. Because of this, more often than not there are a lot more male than female characters that are written with traits that I can personally identify with/relate to. That isn't to say that there aren't female characters written with more masculine traits in TV but usually I find them to be the type of quote on quote "feminist" characters that were discussed in this video. The female characters that are written as "oh look at me, I carry a gun and know how to fight! I'm so sexy and badass!" and have no real depth beyond that. However I would also argue that you don't have to relate to characters to like them. There are plenty of female characters I absolutely adore even though I don't exactly identify with them because they are fleshed out and are written as real people and that makes me sympathetic toward them. Ultimately I think if we wanna improve the way female characters are perceived I think both the writers and the audience have to play a part in it. Writers have to write their women as people and audiences need to start perceiving them as CHARACTERS rather than FEMALE characters.
I'm a trans woman and honestly can't identify with male characters very well at all. When I come across a good female character and female led narratives I just become obsessed and fully involved in them, but no matter how good male characters are I really don't connect to them strongly.
A thought occurred to me at 26 minutes or so - regarding the flaws of men - due to men typically presenting their strengths and being very guarded about vulnerability, perhaps there is some sense that male flaws are more interesting in fiction because they are harder to explore outside of fiction.
I suppose this would have multiple vectors of influence: audience being receptive, writers finding it more obvious that they should include flaws with the men especially if they need to balance out with some heroic attributes, etc. I wonder how much the imagery of the world wars and the multitude of tragic fictional characters meant to humanize the soldiers has actually influenced this. I don't know, maybe those archetypes just tick more boxes for the executives.
Then again, it may have something to do with sexual preferences: I'm a mathematician, so please excuse my nonsense on other topics. It seems to me that since sexual preference, albeit "mate preferences" let's say, clearly have variations. That is easy enough. Then if you consider that there are two predominant variations, or patterns of preferences, regardless of how varied the individual may be, or the details, etc. I don't know of any particular reason to think that "androphilia" and "gynophilia" are simply mirror images of each other. So in that case, perhaps "androphiles" are more attentive to the personality flaws in men than "gynophiles" are to those in women. This could also imply the bias that may lead to objectification of women, i think.
Oh well, as I said, I'm a mathematician so this is hardly my field. Even so, I think I will be thinking about this far longer than I can justify. Thank you.
I really enjoyed this Claudia. I intern at a pretty major animation company and was listening to this whilst editing. From an inside perspective, there is definitely the element of pushing the "strong female" because that's what everyone else is doing. It seems that often times for children the lessons of, for example, being able to be both feminine and enjoy traditionally boy things, or the other way around, are pushed in an almost lecture-like commentary where the only thing missing is the character looking at the screen to address the viewer directly...
2/2 In turn, many animated shows become very gender oriented and certain gender targeted and I believe it turns away the audience that isn't the "target" audience. And that completely bombs the idea of "be however", especially be however you want to be as a girl and that's ok. I wish instead they would show through actions and writing that it's alright to be whoever you are and kids would pick up the subtlety. But alas, I'm just an intern.
I find that often female protagonists in "true stories" have the most diverse and fully fleshed out personalities even if the stories they're in aren't capital F Feminist (I'm thinking The Queen, The Iron Lady and even The Sound of Music) because the scriptwriters have to commit to being as accurate and realistic as possible while also being interesting.
Having said that, historical women aren't always well-portrayed (looking at you, Philippa Gregory and Jane Parker) generally speaking the more that is known about the real women the better their characterisation so the pattern tends to be truer for 19th-20th century women.
I really think the only thing to do if you (the general you, not Claudia specifically) want to connect with female characters more is inundate yourself with media that has female main characters, that's written/directed by women, and/or that has more women characters than men in it. Obviously we should put pressure on all media to represent women better, but I see this viewpoint of not relating to women on Tumblr a lot, and it's like, if all you watch is supernatural, Sherlock and Star Wars, with almost all male characters and one or two token side women, I don't know what you expect. Move away from majority-male casts in your media. Force yourself to try something new. It's the only solution.
I am curious what you would have to say about the ladies of How to Get Away With Murder - you mentioned that feminist characters can also be bad, and, well, it doesn't get much more bad than constantly being involved in murders. All the main cast are constantly dealing with the people they've killed or that have been killed around them. I mention this because last night was the season..........five? midseason finale. I'm not a super fan, I watch it with my roommate, but the main main lady's life story came full circle in that episode, but when you were discussing what a good feminist character was, I couldn't stop thinking about her and everything she's done and gone through and everything she's trying to be. She's definitely a fully realized semi-villain semi-hero.
Claudia, I fricking love you. You have demolished many stigmas and stereotypes regarding feminism and that's not hard to do. Of course, many still stand but, you're making the process go a lot smoother and faster with your good outlook and wisdom. You've inspired me and I'm sure many others to speak up about feminism and just harder topics in general. Keep being the amazing person that you are.
Ray isn't any more a Mary Sue than Luke was. Both characters suffer from the same problem. Strength, skill and growth are supposed to come from suffering, it is something that must be earned. Mary Sues however derive strength out of thin air, they don't earn what they have, they are simply created with natural talent surpassing any logic. Both Ray and Luke are nearly equivalent to the most powerful evil whatever they are in Star Wars. This is despite the fact that the most powerful evil baddies only became the most powerful evil baddies because of their own suffering and quest for power. Ray and Luke are both simply handed everything on a silver platter as a result of their existence and the necessity of the plot rather than by earning it through suffering. Batman is quite different as his skills come from harsh training and suffering. He is sometimes reviled by society. Ray and Luke are both loved by everybody who want to do everything they can to help them out, even at the cost of their own lives. Bruce Wayne takes on the guise of the crime fighter Batman as a way of atoning for the wealth he was born into. We see Batman failing, we see him reach low points in his life. We even see Luke failing. We may see Ray failing in later movies, but we didn't in her first movie, nor did we with Luke. I think without another two movies to flesh out her character and show her failing it will be much harder to accept her as a normal character and not as a Mary Sue. But with at least two more movies to go I am sure that she will be improved.
The difference however between Ray and Luke is that Luke's tale is the tale of the Hero with a Thousand Faces whereas Ray's tale is a paint by numbers box office popcorn flick. Being a farm kid thrust into the world of the supernatural IS the classic Hero's Journey. "A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man." -Joseph Campbell
There was simply too much going on in that movie and the writing, storyboarding and really every element were simply too poor. Had the movie been much tighter and solely focused on Ray's journey, cutting out every single scene with Fynn and every single cameo from episodes 4-6, replacing those cut scenes with more story to flesh out Ray and her journey, the movie would have been better and Ray would have been better developed.
thank you for replying to my comment!! such an interesting discussion. i agree with you about bad writing and honing in on it when it's about women. the thing is badly-written women emphasise the idea some people have that women are much more simple than men, always fitting into stereotypes and never having complex lives that are interesting enough to be shown on screen... whereas a badly-written man is unlikely to influence the way people see men in real life because of what you discussed before - men are represented in so many different ways because of how many characters are male :-(
also, you touched on it, but there are much higher standards expected of male characters than female characters because, like you said, if a female character is seen as 'strong' she is generally considered to be a good character, whereas male characters must be complex, resulting in female characters being very simplistic and stereotypical
This whole topic makes me worry about the new female doctor that we will see in a bit. I don't think it is necessarily a bad idea but I'm worried that it won't be done very well and will feel like she is "trying" to be like the other doctors or just not feeling like the doctor at all. But this would be the fault of the writers, not the Jodie Whitaker herself.
I also really admire the doctor (9 and 10) because he is aware of his privilege and uses his power for good and sets an example. That's so refreshing for me and I love watching men act in an honourable manner like this. ❤️.
I loved Desperate Housewives, the lead characters were all female and I think the show writers portrayed them as very real and relatable. To me it's one of the best shows.
Sally Donovan was okay but people are more likely to forgive the main character (male or female) and they root for him / her. I guess? At least I hope it wasn't because he was a dude and she was a woman.
But at the end of the day, if there isn't a real childlike true passion there, anything written and films will all be about who can make the most at the box office.
Off topic but there are some shows you may like. They are either ending their current season or off season atm but you can still find them if you look.
Dark Matter - charming Blake's 5/Cowboy Bebop/Firefly like show about seven people (an android, a stowaway, and five terrible criminals) waking up on a ship with no memories and lots of enemies. The first season is all about keeping their heads above water while they try and figure out what happened. Then it becomes about corporate struggles and whether or not the "better" versions of themselves can still cut it. As far as women go, the initial crew had two women and the android was designed feminine. It's also very character oriented and has a great balance of serious and campy that I haven't seen this side of the 90s.
Into the Badlands - Basically it's a post apocalyptic kung fu tv show. Great choreography, the characters (male and female) are rounded too. The first season drags a bit but the second season really picks up.
The Expanse - Political sci fi. Not as good as the books they are based on but great. Naomi is awesome and after the first few episodes of awkwardness so is Avasarala. Second season has Bobbie Draper who is a bit of racist against earthers and outer planets types but slowly starts to trust the grumpy old bureaucrat Chrisjen Aversarala.
American Gods - You just kind of have to see it. Based on the Neil Gaiman book.
I thought I had more but the only other thing I've been watching is the new Twin Peaks episodes. They are good but they aren't exactly something I can just recommend.
Have you watched Glow at all? I can really relate to Ruth (the protagonist) maybe because she's so deeply flawed and her life is so screwed up.
This is why I can't stand when people talking about female characters as being 'unlikeable', I don't feel anywhere near as successful or sorted as most of the 'likeable' female characters in fiction. I just want to see people who are realistically screwed up, but maybe trying to be better; or in darker comedy, just interestingly self-sabotaging.
(Not that every female character should have to be like that either.)
Also what you are saying about game of thrones is so true. Love that point!
Graham Linehan does a tremendous job of writing multidimensional and loved female characters who aren't sexualised or objectified, Mrs Doyle from Father Ted is greatly flawed (as are all the characters, the show is a satire of the irish catholic church) yet still loved by audiences. The same is true of Jen from the IT crowd, she is flawed just like her male peers yet she is still loved and forgiven for her flaws.
Graham Linehan also is very talented at making fun of characters (and audiences) who try to objectify and sexualise women in his shows, in Father Ted the main character: Father Ted is judging a beauty pageant, none of the jokes in the episode were at the expense of the contestants and were often at the expense of male characters for objectifying and sexualising the female pageant contestants. In the IT crowd there are quite a few scenes where the idea of Jen (the female protagonist) dating one of her coworkers (the two male protagonists Moss and Roy) is toyed with and then completely shut down as a possibility in a comedic way (such as when Roy slams the cab door shut on Jen after there is a brief romantic seeming moment)
sorry if this is a bit all over the place I was writing it when my youtube app f*cked up anf had to restart :(
Thank you so much for quoting me. That made me so happy. Thanks Claudia Boleyn.
I won't bring in names...cough MOFFAT cough cough
I see men, in general, as being somewhat comfortable to embrace as imperfect as it's a trope that we're messy and incomplete. It seems this "ugly" underbelly lends to a more relatable narrative.
Contrasting this, I think both men and women, in general, tend to have a discomfort with a less charitable representations of the female archetype. I think Amy Poehler and Tina Fey have played incredibly relatable protagonists because they where so iconoclastic in this regard.
I really liked Selena from 28 days later. For one of the only female characters she was very well rounded, and sure it's debatable she was "saved" by Jim at the end but she saved him at the start and in the original cut Jim dies alongside every other male character so take that how you will from a feminist perspective.
Yes! I'm happy someone mentions 28 Days Later. Such an underrated female character.
Jolien I do feel her character arch was a bit too fast paced from "staying alive is as good as it gets" tough cookie to helplessly running about in a dress to saving/attempting to save Jim's life and attracting the army in the cottage but hey its an under 90 minute film so what the heck.
I know this video talks about female characters, but I want to bring up a point in regards to male characters in movies also fall into the stereotypes society pushes onto men. The typically handsome/brooding/muscular male lead. I think men have to be the "bodyguard" or achieve their objectives using strength. Now one main character I noticed that got a lot of hate was Newt Scamander from Fantastic Beasts. But I find him to be one of the most interesting characters I've ever seen. He's not strong, and it's his intelligence and nurturing interactions with the beasts that make him so interesting. And the fact that the end of it is seen more sad than "defeating the evil", is incredible.
Well, writing cliches is easier than writing real people, I suppose.
One must only turn to anime to find actual billions of distinct and interesting female characters. Now admittedly, they're often written with a male audience in mind. But I maintain that with that kind of sheer quantity you will occasionally strike gold.
Digibro made a video talking about female characters across anime in 1991... I think it was 1991. A few people speculated that we've seen a slight decline in that, or more pandering to boys, as anime has gone mainstream in the intervening years...
I suppose only ever seeing anime and never watching western TV would colour my perception of women in fiction :P
Yeah, a consequence of going mainstream is the lowest common denominator. It makes it harder for artists with unique creative vision to stay competitive. Fortunately (in a sense) anime is still a smaller industry than many people think.
On a side note, I get the impression that Japanese people really dig girls. Like they just think girls are fun and cool in general.
I really love Rick Riordan's characters in the Heroes of Olympus/Percy Jackson series, both male and female. They are all pretty well developed and well-made in my opinion, especially Annabeth. She's a badass for sure, and really smart. She's the love interest for Percy, but that definitely isn't what defines her. As for when they do get in a relationship, they rely on each other when they're together, especially in the fourth book of Heroes of Olympus. In the third however, Annabeth has her own solo quest, which she handles very well considering she has a broken ankle for half of it. Overall, I like Heroes of Olympus. It's good.
The whole Mary Sue thing with Rey is more to do with the fact that she is a new character being inserted into a pre-established universe and thus reads like a self insert fan-fiction character. All of the old guard characters like her and she knows more about the falcon than Han does for some unexplained reason. It's not just about how OP she is.
I love these videos a lot, and how they are very discussion based :) keep up the great work 💚
@claudia Boleyn have you read Radio Silence by Alice Oseman? I feel like this is a wonderful example of the development of female characters and how they are written not just for media but in literature too.
Hey Claudia. I know I am a bit late to the party, but I would like to give my two cents so to speak. First off, I would like to say I am a long-time fan of your channel and your work. I always appreciate the high quality content you put out. Please keep persisting with this channel, as I think you are doing great work for promoting leftist ideas.
On to the matter at hand, I think that I have a somewhat unique perspective on this subject (at least I hope). While I am a cisgendered male who is also straight, I also identify as a femboy. Basically, I am a man who has feminine interests, such as wearing dresses and makeup. I enjoy cooking and doing housework, and I also like to be open with my emotions (when appropriate). As such, even though I am a male, I also find it really hard to relate to most male characters. A whole lot of male characters (both classic and contemporary) embody toxic masculinity to a tee and promote problematic behaviors, attitudes and qualities for men to subsequently adopt.
I find it appalling that even male characters who meet the really low standard of being emotionally sensitive still get rejected by mainstream society. Pop Culture Detective has an excellent video on Newt Scamander (th-cam.com/video/C4kuR1gyOeQ/w-d-xo.html), where he points out how he embodies a non-toxic form of masculinity. He is emotionally sensitive, empathetic to others, kind-hearted and nurturing. To me, as a feminine guy, this is still a low bar to meet, but even he was considered controversial by Warner Bros. executives and by most audiences who went to see Fantastic Beasts.
While I think that Newt is a leap forward for male characters, the sad truth is I find even characters like him hard to relate to. As a feminine guy, I find most masculine male characters simply unrelatable, as I don't relate to masculinity as being a core part of my identity. I would like to see more representation of feminine men in media, and feminine male characters who embrace their femininity, rather than be ashamed by it (as is quite often the case). I hope you would agree with me here (though it is fine if you do not).
I would really like to hear your thoughts on this, though I completely understand if you don't have the time or inclination to respond. Anyways, take care, and keep up the great content.
This video is a wonderfully nuanced critique by the brilliant young Claudia Boleyn - from the left - of Structuralism (which argues for 'hermaneutic reading' of 'text') without even using the term or indeed any other word from PostModernist jargon. Every literature student - and, in fact, anyone engaged with the real world - sooner or later has to tackle PoMo junk to at least some degree - and this video is a important contribution to being prepared to handle PoMo noise.
On the topic of the male writer writing female characters, I've noticed that more and more male writers are thinking on that level, particularly in sci-fi/fantasy (at least in witing forums I'm involved in) which is interesting because they are traditionally very male focused genres.
I didnt even think about this but now that you mention it it is SO TRUE!
Root and Shaw have beautiful character arcs, even side stories are well written in Person of Interest, each of the character feels like a real person and was given a chance to tell a story, now that’s feminism.
I find this a very interesting topic. I am a female writer and I've been noticing lately that I love writing male characters particularly more so than female. I try to balance it out and make the ratio of male and female somewhat equal but I always make my main protagonist a man. I've been trying to figure out why this is and I think it's just that since I'm not a man they just seem more interesting to me. I like to understand how people think and men on average think different than women. I guess this just makes men more mysterious to me and I like figuring them out. I also like to challenge myself and see if I can write a believable male character. This is a bit off topic though.
As to what this video is actually about I think there are a lot of movies that don't portray women well but there are also a lot of movies that do. I think you need to take into consideration the genre of the movie, action movies tend to have more men because generally those movies are designed for a mostly male audience while genres like rom coms are mainly designed for a female audience thus they tend to have better portrayals of women. Of course there are always exceptions like the Hunger Games for instance, that's an action movie with a good female lead btw Katniss is the character I relate to most. And you can't count superhero movies in these statistics because they are based off of comics that already have male leads and if you want to stay true to the source material than there isn't much that can be done about the lack of females there.
Movies have gotten a lot better in recent years at portraying good and relatable female characters but like I said genre has a lot to do with that. Since action movies are more popular than ever I expect there will be a lot more female leads in the future.
Also one last thing (I know I've gone off on a tangent here but just hear me out) the sexualization of female characters more than male characters just isn't true. Have you seen any superhero movies lately, every man is incredibly ripped and incredibly hot and they all walk around the set without their shirts at one time or another. Women have been more sexualized in the past but in these modern times because of body positvity and everyone being more aware of the sexualization of women and trying not to degrade them anymore men and women are equally as sexualized. If you look at all of history it's clear to see that right now in the western world is the best time to be a woman, we have access to everything men have access too and maybe there is still sexism out there but it is the lowest it's ever been in the history of the world and it just keeps getting better. Women will be a lot more represented in movies in the coming years, just you wait.
I tend to make more male characters that are feminine and relate and get attached to more male characters since I just feel very in touch with being more androgynous. I feel more comfortable being thinking of myself as a pretty boy in appearance and demeanor, thinking of "pretty boy" as my character archetype, if you will, but I identify as and was born as a woman. I've found it really hard to relate to female characters that are like me though, because usually their entire existence revolves around them being a "tomboy" or stronger because they posess what's seen as male characteristics. It's almost at the point where as a game developer who has to write characters, I write feminine men with ease but I seem to not be able to even wrap my head around writing a female character I would find realistic and become particularly fond of without making her a self-insert type. Which is terrible, because there ARE female characters I love so dearly,and I really want the things I put out to contribute to a serious lacking of realistic female characters in video games!
I've always tended to write from the perspective of women and girls, and whether or not I meant to, I sought out stories with female protagonists (Harry Potter being the one big exception). So I don't think I relate to male protagonists more or less than female ones; I can relate to either. And I've not read a book with a nonbinary protagonist, but I could probably relate to them too.
I have, though, tended to find male side characters more interesting than female side characters -- with exceptions, I'm sure, but I think on the whole they're better fleshed out. Kelsier from the Mistborn series and Haymitch from the Hunger Games books jump out at me immediately, because I'm looking at my bookshelf... I think of all the characters in their respective series, they're the ones I would read and have read more about, because I think their stories are worth telling more in depth.
Even as I've been typing that, though, I've been thinking of female side characters whose lives I'd love to delve into... so it's hard to say whether I can fully relate to this discussion, lol. If nothing else, I think this is very much worth talking about, I'm not here to devalue anyone else's experience with fictional media just because I think I've had a comparatively gender-neutral one, and (unrelated to everything else I've said here) I definitely think the point of collectively being harder on female characters than male characters is true and important to call attention to. Because that's absolutely been my experience as I've gotten older.
tbh how u write characters of any gender is give them a personality and a role within the story and then give them a gender and a name, or at least that's how I make my characters
These videos are brilliant. "Relatable" is such a vague term as all women and men are different. The portrayal of females has been let own for a long time. I've always hated "hero" male characters who must be have something unique or special. I want to see a loyal, hardworking mediocre hero I can relate to
All very interesting! I feel lucky that during A Level literature we explored feminist creations/characters my exploring Chaucer's The Wife of Bath and The Colour Purple, such an important debate and topic to explore! Jack Howard's video 'Women in film' is definitely worth checking out, as well as ChewingSand's video response!
First I'll say that I didn't watch your video about how we shouldn't hate on Sally Donovan, so I'm only replying to what you said here.
I immediately read Sherlock as autistic and connected to him because I'm autistic as well. So when Sally called him a freak, was surprised that he had friends, and said that he's a psychopath, I wrote her off as ableist and therefore someone I don't like.
Yes I agree with your point about Daenerys!! I talked about Sansa in my comment, a much more interesting character, and a stronger female I would argue, than Daenerys. Cersei too, I love her.
I find that really weird. I've always been more drawn to female characters! since i was little I've always picked books and shows with good female leads like Glee and Once upon a time were my favorite shows in middle school which feature, in my opinion, well developed female characters with diverse personalities.
Have you ever read any books by Derek Landy? He's pretty good at writing female characters. Also Nancy and Peggy in 'Swallows and Amazons' were my heroes growing up.
The part about black widow is so true
I'd love to get your opinion on the show Elementary (Sherlock Holmes show) I love it because Watson is a woman in this version and she is so intelligent and isn't treated like a sidekick - like I feel was the case in Sherlock- and I finally felt I could imagine myself in this iconic story that I felt distanced from before
Also the character development and relationships are so dynamic and human it's awesome
I swear, all someone needs to do is write a complex male character, then switch the gender of that character.
Harleen Quinzel Its not really working out well for Hollywood doing exactly that is it? Though I guess you could argue that you said complex male character and Hollywood is only trying out these gender flip movies with the low hanging fruit.
Fingers crossed for doctor who.
To be honest I feel like any character who’s written based on a stereotype seems to automatically be quite flat. I’m not sure whether it’s even stereotypes specifically or if it’s just any assumption. For example the assumption that female characters have to adhere to this new dichotomy of feminine or “badass”, or the assumption that male characters have some inherent deep inner need to prove their masculinity. I think it’s just stifling to creativity to not question certain concepts, bc it just ends up missing great opportunities for depth and originality.
So... I tried to think of an answer to that video for days after you posted it, and I couldn't come up with a simple answer. Reason might just be that I am far, far less familiar with movies or western TV than you or most others here :P (Says the guy with the Yuki Nagato avatar...)
I'm not really sure who I relate with more in The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya. Of the five people on the main cast, I so-so relate to three of them... the three who get more screen time. A couple of reviewers have described the cast as all being cliche, but all building those cliches in interesting directions. Kyon (narrator) is, well, the run of the mill average guy, audience surrogate, and lo and behold I see myself in him. He's like me when I'm being annoying or pedantic. Which makes it both really easy to sit there and root for him, and really difficult to put up with him at times... Because he has so many of my own personal flaws it gets a bit uncomfortable. Haruhi... Well either you love her or you hate the entire show, because the plot centers around her. And she's a complete jerk who's mind is just detached from everything that goes on around her. But the show not only gives you seemingly endless opportunities to try to relate to her, it kind of demands that you relate to her. At least I felt like I only understood the story as I figured out what she was thinking. I'm not entirely sure if I relate to Yuki or not; She can be almost simultaneously relatable and alienating. For context, she's the... emotionless girl of the group. Rei Ayanami Expy. Sounds a bit like Spock. TVTropes entry on the Emotionless Girl points out that part of what's jarring about such a character is that people tend to expect girls to be more in tune with their emotion, more expressive than men, where we only really value something like stoicism in men. So to see... almost past stoicism, but sheer emotional numbness in a girl makes her a difficult character to grasp. And that's part of what's alienating about Yuki, her complete non-reaction to some things just becomes a concrete wall to my ability to relate to her. But she sometimes vaguely reacts to things, she sometimes acts like she cares about something, and just can't express it. And there she turns extremely empathetic... The endless eight episodes have been described as having no purpose other than making you empathetic to her. And apparently the movie has some of that itself... A couple of people talking about (a movie I haven't watched...) it have admitted they wanted to punch Kyon and give Yuki a hug themselves a couple of times. And relating to her? I think Rei Ayanani's creator said that she was the part of his mind he could never fully express or articulate. Maybe Yuki sounds like the inside of my mind... or maybe just like me in person. Always strangely serious, uncomfortably quiet and unreative. The main cast has two other characters, Mikuru and Itsuki (The second guy in the cast). Mikuru is enough of a distress-ball that I just can't relate to her much, and Itsuki... comes off as really fake and a bit creepy.
I am... way less sure how to approach this with every other show (anime or not) I can think of. In Cardcaptor Sakura... It's pretty easy to relate to Sakura; Beyond just being the center of the story and getting the most screen time, she kinda gets to be her own person, she shows a pretty broad range of reactions and thoughts to things. I can relate to Syaoran (the main guy) too, tho he gets way less screen time. He's balanced out enough to be believable. Tho he starts out as basically the antagonist, and toward the end of the show winds up being mostly a love interest for Sakura.
Also, a metacomment, this comment was about 2 hours to think through and write. My avatar is Yuki Nagato. I also had one of Yuki's character songs playing on repeat in the background while I was typing. I feel like this means something...
Claudia can you do a video all about why you are no longer a Sherlock fan? I left the fandom quite some time ago as well and I'm interested to hear your thoughts :)
First of all, I just want to point out that I find your videos interesting at times despite often disagreeing with your views. I don't watch every video but I recall a bit of passive aggression in the past which was obviously very off-putting so it's good to see you coming across as more open to conversation (sorry if that sounded patronising).
Something certain filmmakers and audiences don't seem to understand is that the "strong" in "strong female character" doesn't refer to actual strength (physically or otherwise). It means there is strength to the character in the way they are written (i.e. they're are three-dimensional and developed).
You pointed out with the Marvel Cinematic Universe heroes that the men can be different to each other; Iron Man, Thor, Star-Lord, Ant-Man, Doctor Strange = Rude, quick-witted, selfish guy who learns to care about others.
I'm the same as DentonXV. You didn't read my comment but I said that I really only relate to female characters and as a writer, I feel the same when it comes to writing scripts.
I don't think 'Twilight' is a good example of the average story. Everyone criticises those books/films for their awful messages.
Also, you brought up being harsher towards female characters. I've commented this before on your channel but I think 'Doctor Who' is a good example of that. Amy, Rory, Clara and Danny are all weak characters, it's not just the females.
Luke isn't at all a Mary Sue whereas Rey is the biggest I've seen aside from Clara (Doctor Who).
Luke spends the entirety of the first film struggling and being saved by everyone else until the end when he does something successful that he learnt about earlier in the film with the help of Obi Wan.
Rey spends the entirety of 'The Force Awakens' saving everyone else and being successful at everything she tries. It's the perfect example of what you were talking about earlier (someone thinking "strong female character" = someone who is inexplicably awesome at everything).
Luke was given the one skill of piloting and he learns about the force as he progresses through the films.
Rey was given the skills of expert piloting (of a massive vehicle she's never driven), lightsaber combat, engineering, translator and the force (she thinks "hm, I'll try this" and on her second attempt she just gets it). The only thing she's presumably average at is shooting (Finn's apparently one skill as a trained solider) and there, the film feels the need to jam the spaceship gun controls so that Rey can prove herself yet again by aiming through piloting.
I just don't see there as being any hint of a possibility that she's not a Mary Sue. The best video I found that explains it is 'Is Rey REALLY a Mary Sue?' by BanditIncorporated.
Fair enough to any of you out there who like her (though I refer to your comment Claudia, "nobody wants that": 20:59 - 30:52). A part of me likes Clara who is the ultimate Mary Sue (of characters I've seen) but I do certainly acknowledge the poor writing there.
I prefer Skywalker to Rey because again it's just forcing this idea that this woman is good at absolutely everything and this extraordinary person which is just unrealistic. With Luke, he gradually became this good person which I prefer to being told to believe that Rey is this superhuman.
You should read Tamora Pierce's books. There's loads of them and they're all full of female characters who are all really different. It's great. They're also just really great books.
Quick question, because I just finished the Song of the Lioness books and was kind of disappointed by them... are her other books better? I've heard a lot of good things about the Protector of the Small series, and I've heard that they're good even for people who didn't like Song of the Lioness, but I'm wondering whether it's really worth it.
ramywiles yeah, her other ones are better. Like anyone, she got better with time and practice. Song of the Lioness was written about 30 years ago, and was the first thing she released. It makes sense it wouldn't be as good as stuff she wrote more recently
Ok. That seems to be the consensus, so I'll give her later books a shot :) Thanks!
omg thank you for this. your thoughts represent how i feel!
I don't care if a character is wimpy, dumb, or evil, as long as they're interesting or funny. So I don't usually find myself liking female characters. A few I do like are: Donna Noble, Princess Azula, Toph Beifong, Han Qing-Jao (Ender's Game series), Pearl (SU), Dr. Eva Rosalene (To the Moon), and Yukari Tanizaki (Azumanga Daioh).
In fact, I think I often prefer characters that are wimpy, dumb, or evil to some degree. I find characters like Hermione and Annabeth to be too generically clever, strong, and brave.
I'm curious as to your thoughts on Holly Bourne's books, specifically the Spinster Club series? (I know this sounds unrelated but I'm relating it to feminist writing as it's about feminism)
I am the opposite to you in that I am male however I usually relate to female characters a lot more 😊
Also another thing that bugs me is that a lot of women are having to train with personal trainers to be in a film such as Rey and they are suddenly this skinny and model type person instead of say a little chubby or plus size or just average body type.
People's hatred for Skylar in Breaking Bad gets so badly under my skin, honestly. She was just as horrified as anyone would be if they found out their husband was cooking meth and using the blood money to pay for the cancer treatment he was too proud to accept help for.
And while I'm on it, Dexter is a pretty good show with a variety of female characters to potentially relate to, but the number starts to dwindle as the show progresses (though thankfully the remaining ladies are established enough to not fall totally flat when others leave). But the reason I bring it up is because of the hate I've seen for one woman in particular for looking into the possibility that one of her employees is a fucking serial killer. Granted, she's not exactly likable from the get go (if I explain why it'll become too obvious who this is and I don't wanna spoil it for anyone), but she's not only acting like a real cop when she's doing this but she's showing she can be a damn good one too. Like, hate her for being shitty and throwing people under the bus in earlier seasons but don't hate her for investigating a POTENTIAL SERIAL KILLER. He KILLS PEOPLE.
I definitely agree that many female characters are disliked for (in my opinion) stupid reasons, especially when there's plenty of real reasons to dislike them. I'd also say it's a fair combination of what you discussed here, from female characters being more likely to be built on tropes than male ones, from the "look at me a female character!!!" subset, many people (as you've shown) can be harder on female characters, and I just feel like men come easier to many writers because of how male-centric our learning environments are. Hell, I know most of the enjoyable stories I had growing up starred boys and men and growing up surrounded by complex male characters may have just reinforced the idea that good male character = complex and good female character = Strong Woman. I'm trying to do a bit to contribute to complex ladies in my own writing, but I'm so tired of this trend because I see it everywhere and it just... isn't cool
Breaking Bad is a terrible example of unrelatable female characters! You don't ever necessarily like Skyler but she's a well developed female character who is relatable. She starts out as a basic "mum" character, playing I guess a very stereotypical nagging wife but you then see her evolve and grow as she learns about what Walt has been doing. You can see her initial very relatable opposition to Walts meth cooking. You can see her struggle morally as her situation becomes so much more complex, she's forced into knowingly using drug money to help her brother in-law, she has the weight of protecting Walt Jr from what his Dad is doing, she has to juggle her relationship with her sister. You watch as she has to make some very difficult moral choices to help Walt, which she clearly does to protect her family, at this point she is clearly no longer the dull "mum" character. You then see her evolve further, she gets a bit dark in places, almost suggesting Walt should kill Jesse, you can really see her struggling under the weight of trying to make the right decisions while feeling utterly trapped. I'd suggest that Skyler is more relatable as a character than Walt... Walt starts out as this pathetic bloke who never amounted to much and is likely to die of cancer, you can initially relate to him and initially feel very sorry for him but as his character progresses he descends into utter madness, he becomes less and less relatable...
The development of the Walt and Skyler characters generally follows the same pattern, they start out dull, then something pushes them into making some morally questionable decisions but I feel that Skyler is the more relatable character because you still kind of feel sorry for her throughout, Walt does "morally wrong" things beyond the basics to protect his family and even has his alter ego "Heisenberg" where as Skyler never really takes the moral leap, all the morally questionable things she does you can see the reason why and she never truly feels like a "bad person"...
I don't think they were necessarily using Skyler as an example of an unrelatable female character as such. I think they were more commenting on the disproportionate amount of hate that's directed at Skyler from fans in contrast to the popularity of Walt's character, giving an example of how fans tend to be harsher on female characters than on their male counterparts. Personally I never found Skyler particularly likeable and never found her quite as compelling as Walt but I agree with you that she's a well written and relatable character and she definitely got more interesting as the show went on.
12:22 Actually, it seems like a lot of these characters are written by men who know that women are complex and varied, but haven't completely lived the female experience.
Claudia I love when you don't name makes.
I feel like I'm living in a totally different world from you and the commenters you've read from.
I'm a woman, but I haven't called myself a feminist in years, but that is it's own conversation. I tend to look at male and female characters evenhandedly, and I don't find nearly as many 'problematic' female characters. The writing is usually pretty much evenly done across all characters in terms of how 'real' they feel, but I think we notice 'fake' feeling female characters more because there's so much pressure put on women TO be the representation of ALL WOMEN. When a female character is 'x', I often see that being equated as the author or other characters see WOMEN as 'x'. That's a load of horseshit. So much time is spent analyzing female characters that there will always be a problem with them.
You brought up Batman, and I had to hope my laughter didn't wake up the others in the house because I had just had an hour long conversation with my friend about Batman and how he's a total Mary Stu. Despite being a huge fan my friend openly admitted that yeah, he is, but there was still so much admirable about him. I think the problem people have with Mary Sue's is because a.) a few years ago they were almost universally self-inserts in shitty fanfiction and painful to read (to the point where I gave up on fanfics) and b.) they traditionally have all of the amazing skills without any of the personality traits that make them interesting or admirable. The name started to be tossed around way too loosely to encompass many characters that displayed some trope or trait seen in a Mary Sue, regardless of how complex the underlying layers of the character might be. If a single thing is wrong or feels a little off, then often the whole thing is tossed or seen as spoiled.
I think I'm usually still more drawn to female characters. I think this impression that men are portrayed more positively might be a result of the fact that in western media the majority of main characters are male, and in any story the main characters are usually the most likable. I personally watch a lot of Japanese anime and perhaps surprisingly seeing the bad rep it's got I actually think there's a lot more positive female representation there.
If BBCs "Sherlock" was a complete asshole (which he was), I'd love to hear your opinion on the lead character in "House". 😂
I'm kind of sick of the superhero fighter female characters because in day to day life, you don't see women sword fighting down the street. I'm not extraordinary, I can't sword fight, I'm not a bombshell, just normal.
Apart from this in particular and the fact that all the characters in films have to be these model type women which most people are not, I don't really pay that much attention to any of this, I just watch the films and if I like it, I like it, If I don't, I don't. Personally, I find it too stressful to consistently analyse things. That's what ruined any book I watched in school and also any films we watched.
Cersei Lannister is my favourite character in GoT 😭.
I'm male. Check. I'm a character. Check. And I'm relatable. Check. Yep, you'll like me! Is that fuzzy math? 😉
I think with characters both male and female extroversion is the biggest problem, nothing makes a character less relatable than being a bloody extrovert.
Would you be open to someone (me, cis man fwiw) sending you something I'd written (a novel) so you could read it and tell me how feminist or misogynistic my characters were and in what ways? Always worth an ask :)
I think one problem is that writers write female characters just to have female characters. Like the first characteristic about the character is that is a female, while with male ones there are more things that define them originally. So male characters will have deep storys and motives, while the females ones are just "strong". And people definetely judge females more than males. I have said here before, in the fandom of 13 Reasons Why people judge more Courtney, calling her horrible names, and defends the males: Zack, Alex, Justin. She did wrong, true, but not as wrong as them, believe me. So why is she the one being compared to a rapist?
not contributing to the discussion, but I was just watching it so I'm curious, have you seen The Long Kiss Goodnight?
Those two male writers are from the BeeBeeSea.. right?
Also the Supergirl writers at the CW have also done a poor job this last season (idk if you watch the show, but it's really well the first season is. the second season is also good, but there's this one male character that kinda ruins the show? idk how to put it, but the whole feminist theme? i really am not sure how to put it but the first season had well a bit more recurring characters than the last and that kinda made it a bit meh? it did introduce Katie McGrath as Lena Luthor which is an awesome character! And Floriana Lima as Maggie Sawyer whose character is a police detective who becomes friends with Supergirl's sister n then her love interest. fck sht i forgot my point.. uh oh well
I don't know why but I'm a gay guy and I've always for the characters on Game of Thrones for instance more relatable and entertaining
I only got to 2 minutes of 34min video.... before i continue further, did she mentioned anything about Harry Potter or Star Trek ?
Of all the comments you picked only one comment didn't share your feeling that male characters are more relatable (14:56) ... and that person doesn't even attempt to explain why they feel that way.
I enjoy longer videos.
LoL To me the media is still male, cauz women still aren't as empowered & represented as men.
I'm not a feminist or a male feminist.
I'm simply a realist / pragmatist.
So of the 3 examples given I'm most like Richard Pryor.
However my favourite female character in a movie is Ava from Ex Machina (2014).
Even as an AI.
Her robotic body doesn't turn me on at all, simply cauz it isn't flesh & bone.
"I want to know what love is" Foreigner.
I guess I have no choice but to show y'all what I think love is.
What is love?
To me God=love and love=god
I have been loved, so i know what love is.
And because of Art I'm able to recognise God/love everywhere.
Yvonne Elliman: I Don't Know How To Love Him emphasis on: i wouldn't want to know music: clear Classification: Female: looks b4 she leaps.
th-cam.com/video/G9S072UBKYs/w-d-xo.html He scares me so
I want him so
I love him....so
Depech Mode: I Feel You emphasis on: i feel you music: strong rythm Classification: Male: message is more a declaration, fight or flight.
th-cam.com/video/iTKJ_itifQg/w-d-xo.html your precious soul beginning scratch =
And i am whole like a scream
Richard Pryor on Love Female: beginning -> 1 Minute 53 seconds Male: 1 Minute 53 seconds-> end
th-cam.com/video/oJaDMfIBw5c/w-d-xo.html
4 fun click: th-cam.com/video/IHQr0HCIN2w/w-d-xo.html Source: How To Handle Being Ghosted and Why Guys Should Be More Upfront | Unhelpful Advice w/ TigerBelly