mrsronweasley | A Rant of My Own.

Current Mood: aggravated

A Rant of My Own.

So, okay. I read this today, and it kind of infuriated me. It went in tandem with this, which infuriated me MUCH less.

Let me explain.

See, okay. The second link talks all about a similar kind of character – a woman they dub "Manic Pixie Dream Girl", whose only lot in her character life, it seems, is to inspire and bring back to life romantic men who may have lost their way. We’re talking about Natalie Portman’s "Sam" in Garden State, working her magic on Zach Braff, or Kate Hudson’s "Penny Lane" in Almost Famous, or, apparently, any character played by Goldie Hawn in the 70’s. I don’t agree with every example used in this article, but I agree with the general premise: it’s annoying.

Because, here is the thing. The main annoyance of such a character is that she is not imbued with any life of her own. All she is mostly there for is to make the male protagonist happier/better/whole. Which, hi, hello, what? The best way I’ve heard it said actually comes from an unlikely source of intelligence – Jenny from "The L Word". (I KNOW, right?) In one of her (two or three) moments of absolute lucidity during Season 2, she tells her errant roommate Mark:

"It's not my job to make you a better man, and I don't give a shit if I've made you a better man. It's not a fucking woman's job to be consumed and invaded and spat out so that some fucking man can evolve."

In other words, it is not a woman’s job to make somebody a better man: it is that man’s job to make himself a better man, and a woman’s whole existence should not revolve around nurturing somebody else. Makes sense, right?

So far, so good, but the link with all the characters is just that: an article about characters and how women are portrayed in the media.

The rant that absolutely infuriated actually name-checked real, live women, and dismissing them as mindless, pretentious drones who have no real purpose in life.

I’m sorry. Come again? How is that anybody’s call to make, much less to generalize in such a hideous and ridiculous way?

How is it okay to completely dismiss a woman’s right to choose who she wants to be, how she wants to present herself, and who she chooses to be with, based on ONE SINGLE STEREOTYPE? I’m not saying all that women are created equal, just like not all men are, but this writer considers herself a feminist. Which is why I did not expect to see what I saw when I read her rant.

Isn’t the definition of a feminist somebody who sees that a woman can and is able and SHOULD be whoever she chooses to be, from career woman, to mother, to artist, to prostitute? And she should be able to define or not define who she is without thought to what somebody else who happens to be different wants her to be. How is that not clear? How is it okay to stomp all over girls who are – hey, in COLLEGE! YOUNG! – still seeing what and who they want to be in life? I DON’T UNDERSTAND.

Help me understand! Am I missing something, or is this rant just completely off-the-wall insane and ridiculous?

Why does she find only one kind of woman acceptable in her eyes, while so many others are dismissed as nemeses who must be put down?

How is this okay?

Her appeal was, I could see, elemental. It was horribly depressing. Once I started looking for them, I could see that Amazing Girls were everywhere.

Backpacking through South America, smoking hash with locals; reading Sylvia Plath in the park; earnestly worshipping Frida Kahlo in museums; dancing barefoot in the rain everywhere. While many are hippies, they are not all, by any means. They come in all nationalities, all shapes and sizes, from earth mother to ethereal. Some are insipid, others lively, some bisexual and others not, some vegan and some merely vegetarian.

Uhm, okay? And backpacking through South America is wrong – why? Or being bisexual? Or admiring Frida Kahlo’s work – what is so wrong with that? WHAT? WHAT?! I don’t UNDERSTAND! I understand being annoyed by pretentiousness, but this goes way beyond that: it negates a whole sector of women who just ARE the way they are. We dump on people who would rather watch reality TV than read a book a year, we dump on people who don’t know who the President is – fine, okay? I don’t agree with their choices, I wouldn’t want to interact with them more than I have to, but to just class everybody as a horrible human being? I just. I don’t GET it.

Hate on pretentiousness – that’s a choice I can understand. I don’t like pretentiousness either. But there are two sides to every story, and there are MANY sides to every person, and to tell a woman that she isn’t worth anything because she isn’t “sharp, mean, opinionated, decidedly lacking in mystery” is – wow. How do you KNOW she isn’t sharp? Or opinionated? Have you met all these people you say you can read?

Argh! I am CONFUSED!

While I completely agree that Hollywood’s one-sided portrayal of such women, even if I do like them some of the time, such as Mila Kunis in "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" (she was a total tool for the dude to get over his ex, but I enjoyed the movie and chose not to care) is ridiculous and the lack of depth imbued in many female characters is a problem, I do NOT see how it’s okay to dump on real, live, breathing women who I am CERTAIN have a lot more layers to them than they’re granted by this woman, and who, I am also certain, have many more things to do than sit and nitpick over a type of woman that they do not embody.

THE END.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

What the hell?! That's ridiculous. Her list of things is good, I mean, sure it maybe a "phase" or whatever but if someone wants to try something especially something that's good, why is that a bad thing? Agreed so much about characters vs. people. People can have so many layers and judging them on a stereotype is much more wrong to me.

THANK YOU. I am SO GLAD I'm not the only one who thought this was ridiculous. I just. WHAT?! Who thinks like this??

and to tell a woman that she isn't worth anything because she isn't "sharp, mean, opinionated, decidedly lacking in mystery" is – wow.

Oh my God, so much word. I followed the link to Sadie's blog and grew progressively "..." the farther I read, if you know what I mean. What the HELL. (Also, can I just say that I find touting "sharp and mean" as qualities that women - or people in general, really - should apparently be aspiring to problematic on a whole 'nother level.)

Okay! Yes. I was SHOCKED that this got a good kind of attention. I grew progressively O.O as I read it, and just. What.

(And yes, thank you - I find the "mean" especially problematic, on many levels, for men OR women. But ANYWAY.)

(Ahahaha, I love this comic! It is so apt! WRONG on the INTERNET!)

Urgh, yeah. I agree with what you said in the post originally, if she's ranting against pretentiousness, she's doing a really poor job making that clear.

Well, I think these articles are about two different things- the MPDG is (typically) a male's fantasy of a woman, rather than a real woman.

The author of the Amazing Girls piece seems to be enraged by the Amazing Girls because they embody something she's pretty sure she'll never be- and she seems to despair over that. The Amazing Girls she sees attract love and admiration effortlessly, while the author can't.

I think the author herself is struggling with that- as she says in the final paragraph, she meets her original Amazing Girl and has to admit that she's kind and sincere, and then immediately is angered by the admiration she sees others immediately exhibiting for her.

I think it's a poorly written rant- and the more judgmental stuff could be left out- there seems to be a weird dislike of pretension that's never really expressed clearly. To me, it's less about other women than it is about the author.

Okay. I agree with you, and I'm glad you brought that up. I actually meant to address that in my rant, but got side-tracked. (because SARAH. Somebody was WRONG on the INTERNET.)

To me, it's less about other women than it is about the author.

Okay. That makes it better for me to get it (it's all about MEEEEE!) because, hi, hello, WHAT. (This has, seriously, been my reaction to this since I read it. A few hours ago.)

I think her, hmm, jealousy? of women who may inspire more immediate admiration from men than she can really, really gets in the way of her better judgment. And I judge that. :D

hey, you've met me. I'm jealous and judgemental as hell. :D

Like I said, I think it's a poorly written rant- I don't think the author herself has realize why she dislikes this type of woman so much. She's mixing a natural dislike of pretension with jealousy and some self loathing, and then taking it all out on artsy chicks that wear scarves.

But I can kind of relate- I see that other women attract men- I do not; what is it about those other women that is so attractive? How am I different from them? Is it that they're less threatening?

There's an ambiguity about the author's feeling towards these women- she says she hates them, and is nasty about them, but she also calls them beautiful, artistic, sympathetic, etc.

Okay, I understand that, I COMPLETELY understand that, but I also think it's ridiculous for her to espouse an opinion - presented as fact, no less - that has more to do with her own issues than the women she is ranting against. I don't know. Taking your own issues out on women who have, you know, done her no harm kind of pisses me off.

I think it's a poorly written rant

Yes! She moved too easily between fictional people, women who may or may not have existed as muses for artists/writers of the past, and actual real named women.

I think what she thinks she's saying is different than what she's actually saying, but as I said above, I don't think the author has really examined all her reasons for disliking these women.

I'm with you completely on that.

You're right! And that also irritates me! :P

Thank you. I love the whole concept of feminism, but some feminist perspectives absolutely befuddle and enrage me. I'll always think of

_allecto_'s now-famous critique of Firefly, where -- in addition to dismissing various characters for a variety of flawed reasons -- she called Joss Whedon a rapist, his wife a gold-digger (because why else would she marry him?), and said that any woman in a heterosexual relationship was obviously only there because of society's pressure, because the only truly fulfilling relationship a woman can have is with another woman. That's an extreme example of the harm of this kind of breed of radical feminism, and I won't rant about it anymore (this was months ago and I already posted a huge, possibly slightly ranty reply in my journal), but I guess what I'm trying to say is that I totally get where you're coming from finding this so ridiculous and offensive.

Feminism is good. Analyzing stereotypes in media and real-life institutions is good. Questioning things is good. But skewing things so far in one direction without bothering to take into account the complexity of people, the different desires they may have and lives they may want to live, is wrong and makes me really wonder how anyone can possibly think that way.

(I gotta tell you, when you first started mention the critique of Firefly, I got all tense, because I was really afraid you were going to agree with it. YAY that you didn't. In fact, that "critique" is where my icon came from. Because, WHAT. Joss Whedon is a rapist has become a catch phrase among a few of my friends. It's absolutely absurd.)

That's an extreme example of the harm of this kind of breed of radical feminism, and I won't rant about it anymore (this was months ago and I already posted a huge, possibly slightly ranty reply in my journal), but I guess what I'm trying to say is that I totally get where you're coming from finding this so ridiculous and offensive.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Allecto's rant inspired a rant of my own, too, and it's absolutely unbelievable to me how QUICK some women - who consider themselves pro-women! FEMINISTS! - are to take away another woman's agency. WHAT. I just!

AHHH.

Oh my God,

_allecto_ in general and her Lesbian Feminist Sisterhood in particular are a thing of special... something. I read that thing months ago, and just you mentioning it was enough to immediately make me go, OMG I REMEMBER THAT! THE INSANITY!

It's one of those things I can just never forget, because it was just so absurd. I distinctly remember just staring at the computer just going WHAT. WAIT. WHAT? It still haunts me -- mostly, I think, because there were people who agreed with her. Which was just scary.

For fucking serious. Dude, she took Zoe calling Mal "Sir" as evidence of both sexism and racism, completely ignoring the part where they are IN THE MILITARY. Like - personally, I've never found Joss Whedon's work either sexist or racist; nonetheless I would argue that these things certainly merit discussion and discourse, which could be very interesting; HOWEVER,

_allecto_ just goes about it in such a narrow-minded, completely ass-backwards way that her entire point becomes moot. A rant that's based on Zoe being a character that's "bad for feminism" is pretty much not gonna work out whichever way you turn it.

(

_allecto_'s rant was crazycakes, but do I think there's a valid point about Joss Whedon and feminism. Not that he's sexist? But that maybe he's not the paragon of feminist writing that he's often held up to be.)

(No, I completely agree! An issue like that is certainly deserving of closer inspection! But hoooooly crap, was

_allecto_ the wrong person to do it.)

(Yes. She's NUTS.)

NUT. JOB. OMG.

I KNOW. I was just - what? How? WHAT?! Where did she even come UP with this stuff?!

I think some of the stuff that you were bothered by were thoughts that weren't expressed very clearly. I know the kind of women she's talking about and my read on it as that she's talking about women whose whole identity is wrapped up in being vegan or bisexual or backpacking through South America. There's nothing else to them. They're empty and boring and yet somehow people are drawn to them because they somehow translate that one-dimensional identity into something glamorous. She wants women to be people.

Some of the name dropping was annoying because I disagree about who those women are at their core, but at the same time I can see that the work that comes from some of them doesn't necessarily dispel the notion that they're pretty empty.

And I don't find them glamorous at all - I find them at best devoted to a cause, but at worst insincere and patronizing and frequently in need of a shower.

LOL. A shower, huh? Nice. *g*

Okay, I understand that, I completely understand that, and I, too, am bothered by women who define their identity by one aspect of it, such as "bisexual!" or "lesbian!" or "vegan!" That, I get. But - and it's probable that she just did not express herself well at ALL - I can't accept her presenting some women as "those types of women" with no back-up or evidence, and I am not going to take HER word for it that they are empty and not worth knowing. You know?

I understand, sweetie. I think Shay has really hit it in her comment below. She summed up what I wanted to say but couldn't put in words.

I actually disagree with your assessment of that first essay, though I also disagree with the writer, in that I do not find floaty, "peace and love" hippie-ish girls with diaphanous scarves "amazing" in any way, shape or form. But more of that anon.

The writer who annoyed you does generalize completely, and categorizes those types of child/girl-women shamelessly. But the point seems to me to be about how and why men choose to be with those types of women, rather than more challenging women, and that directly leads to the second "pixie" post, and to your comments above. I have no problem with the generalization, because 1)it's a comic post and 2)her point is well taken about the men.

But returning to my quibble with the general premise of "amazing girls," I say again that females who waft through life in an all-nurturing, non-judgmental cloud are not people I want to know. If in fact they do exist (and they do - I know a few) they are boring and bland and quite often sickening. Plus, I do not trust that it is not an act, in some cases. As a point of fact, a man who was constantly kind and non-judmental and nurturing would give me the same case of the heebie-jeebies.

I don't like what the whole idea says about gender roles, or how men cannot bear to be challenged, and must constantly be surrounded by non-threatening ethereal types. I doubt it's true, in any case. That's why I'm happy to accept the essay - both of them, as hyperbole, and written to amuse. But as for me, surround me with smartass, dark-humored, bawdy, judgmental, challenging, difficult, fully-rounded and imperfect people of both sexes and you'll find me a happy camper.

Yes. I think it was more of a question about how men find these child/women so appealing- (obviously not all men, but a good number, as shown by the film fantasy of these women) than a comment on the women themselves.

I think her greater point about these women in art is interesting- are these muses interesting to the artist simply BECAUSE they are so vague? And the artist can imprint whatever of himself that he wants to onto them?

What's interesting to me is how similar my response is to yours- although I don't think my dislike of the 'amazing girl' phenomenon is as vitriolic as the author's- but it does seem that the "Rosalind Russell" and the "Annie Hall" girls are diametrically opposed from one another. :D

I will disagree with Liz on this- I don't think that feminism means that we can't judge other women, although I do think she's right that sweeping generalizations are not necessarily a good thing.

I don't think that feminism means that we can't judge other women

I judge you. Just sayin'.
(I'd also bend over for ya, baby...oh wait...I already have.)

I think her greater point about these women in art is interesting- are these muses interesting to the artist simply BECAUSE they are so vague? And the artist can imprint whatever of himself that he wants to onto them?

See, the way YOU put it, it DOES sound interesting, but she managed to make it as offensive as she possibly could. Thus, my knee-jerk reaction.

I don't think that feminism means that we can't judge other women

Well, no - but she seemed to dismiss a whole class of women she had defined herself, and - again, the sweeping generalization. Ticked me off!

I totally and completely get not wanting to have anything to do with people you find empty and ridiculous - believe me! - but it's her TONE that infuriated me. It makes more sense, once you see it from the POV of her being insecure, like many have said, and god knows, I don't admire people who, as you said, "waft through life in an all-nurturing, non-judgmental cloud" (can you say "annoying" and "vapid"?) but just. I don't know. The sweeting generalizations NEVER sit well with me, no matter who's doing the sweeping, you know?

Yep, I get that. I do understand what you're saying.

....we dump on people who don’t know who the President is....

I just pretend I don't remember who the current President is,

mrsronweasley. It makes the days pass more easily..... :)

I echo

drlense's comment above, especially regarding the MPDG being a male fantasy and the "Amazing Girl" rant saying more about its author than its subjects. Also, your quote from "The L Word" is also absolutely dead on, and I only wish more men understood the truth in it. There would be a lot less craziness if that were the case. (Of course, I figured out that sentiment on my own a while back, given that I watch "The L Word" on mute, a la Greg House.)

Given the structure of the "Amazing Girl" rant, I am positive one can write variants depending on your sex chromosome pairing and preferences in romantic partners/lovers, at least one of which would make the AG rant author into the object of some poor, maligned ranter's envy. ("How I envied those sharp, witty, brilliant girls who could wrap those aloof, mysterious young logicians around their fingers with snappy conversations, almost as if they were inexorably drawn together even more to each other with every tempestuous debate and fiery comeback. Meanwhile, I was far too soft, too rounded at the edges, too unwilling to stand for such heated dialogue, and lamented that I would never be able to connect with the objects of my infatuation.")

I think it's a matter of being comfortable with one's self - there are certain things that either you can't change about yourself or simply don't wish to change about yourself. You have to take the positive and negative. I could complain about my romantic lot in life, but ultimately, at the end of the day, whoever would deign to tolerate me has to realize certain things about me and me about her (or them, ha!). I think writing a fanfic where I bring up axiomatic quantum field theory is both awesome and hilarious, and surprisingly appropriate. I am probably going to be that weird 87 year old guy who thinks spending a weekend doing tai chi competitions is awesome (since I will mellow out with age, I'm pretty sure of it). And, of course, the opposite will apply. Envy of others doesn't get you anywhere - understanding and accepting who you are is far more beneficial, IMO.

Well, there is willful ignorance, and then there is the ol' survival instinct. *g*

Given the structure of the "Amazing Girl" rant, I am positive one can write variants depending on your sex chromosome pairing and preferences in romantic partners/lovers, at least one of which would make the AG rant author into the object of some poor, maligned ranter's envy.

AbsoLUTEly, and your example was dead-on and awesome. You guys are all right - a lot of her issues seemed to be with her OWN self, which she didn't even realize, and which made it all the more CRAZY. (Can you tell I'm not letting this one go? Yeah.)

Envy of others doesn't get you anywhere - understanding and accepting who you are is far more beneficial, IMO.

Aaaaaabsolutely. I completely agree with you on that, and raise you an Amen! :D

I can completely understand and am on board with criticism about being annoyed/irritated with the vapid sort of folk who flit from cause to cause without ever really becoming involved at a deeper level, or who simply diffuse through the world without any sort of direction or impetus. But, to be honest (*prepares flame-retardant suit*), the rant dimly reminded me of one of those whiny and annoying "I'm a nice guy, why won't girls like me?" diatribes, except that here, the feisty girl wants the earnest young poet or composer instead of the shy guy wanting the (for instance) cute and outgoing theatre major. Now, of course, had the blogger written it without mention of the boys swooning over the "Amazing Girl" in high school, and the poets and composers in college falling all over themselves for the attention of the "Amazing Girls," it probably would have struck a slightly different chord. It would have been similar - we'd still be thinking that one needs to get over any youthful traumas - but not quite the same.

Because I'm snarky, I am vaguely compelled to note that most of the blogger's problems could have been avoided by simply not hanging out near the English department. A girl walks into the math/physics/chemistry/biology buildings on campus - every male between the age of 18 to 88 in that building will be inexorably drawn to her. Sad but true.

That entire rant read an awful lot like sour grapes to me. Like, some combination of jealousy (long, long past time to let go, I'm thinking!), a deep inferiority complex and a serious lack of profound introspection.

You know how mom's always say "think before you speak" when you're a kid? Some people need to remember to think before they blog. ugh.

The more I read it (because I hate myself, apparently) the more I see that, and it's kind of - ridiculous, isn't it? I mean, therapy is the answer; not dismissing a whole class of women simply because they, apparently, get what you don't. Uh.

Yeah. THANK YOU. Your mom is very smart. :D

I ♥ you, just so's you know. :)

And I think there is a huge difference between someone's personal issues with [whatever or whoever] and going around trying to, I dunno, turn them into a non-feminist non-statement of rantitude. And I think this woman (and whatsit who said Joss was a rapist) really mix those two things up.

I ♥ you, too, darling! *CLINGS*

And yes. Yes, yes yes. THANK YOU. Some people need to open a WINDOW, is all.

Thank you! This line: "Isn’t the definition of a feminist somebody who sees that a woman can and is able and SHOULD be whoever she chooses to be, from career woman, to mother, to artist, to prostitute?" is something I agree with so much. When my kids were small, I stayed home with them, and almost every self-proclaimed feminist I spoke to during that time immediately blanked me as soon as she found out I wasn't just like her. In their minds, it didn't matter that I was staying home because I chose to. They saw an insult to their own idea of what a woman should be, and went out of their way to be rude to me. And that's just as bad as a man who loudly proclaims that women should stay in the kitchen.

Feminism isn't about conforming to some arbitrary feminist ideal. Feminism is believing that only you have the right to decide how you live your life, and living it accordingly. Feminism is making your own choices, and taking responsibility for the choices you make. Feminism is not accepting, for one second, that you deserve less freedom/respect/education than the guy standing next to you.

The internet hurts my head sometimes. The real world hurts my head sometimes. And when one is brought to me by the other, OI. /o\

Gah, thank you for bringing this to our attention, and for your own insightful ranting (which was way more coherent than the original Amazing Girl "critique"). The whole thing felt like the author had a personal axe to grind against women who, for whatever reason, she felt she'd been compared to and didn't measure up. I expected her to question the Amazing Girl's manipulative aspects, or suggest that their appeal is rooted in some heteronormative ideal of nurturing, tender-hearted femininity. But...no. She seemed offended by the very existence of women who weren't "mean and opinionated." (Which seems like an inverse form of sexism. She doesn't like women who don't hold what are considered to be traditionally "male" qualities? WTF?)

The whole article gave me whiplash. She bounces between a veiled critique against maternal feminism (which is a valid one, I think) and then slips into this weird acknowledgment of her own shame and jealousy, which she seems to think is entirely internally-motivated. (Which just made me want to slap her and say, "Look, stop being an asshole, okay?")

Anyway, yes to what everyone else has said. The original rant was poorly written, the point was non-existent, and I still don't understand why, exactly, it's bad to be an Amazing Girl. (Not that I am. Scarves don't work on me. I look like a reject from a the fabric department at a second-rate home decor shop!)

It just made it into Salon via the Onion. Good grief.
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/08/07/manic_pixie/index.html?source=newsletter#

Another thing that both pieces failed to address is the trope of men who make women come alive; however, if women accomplish a similar feat, they're encouraged to seem nonthreatening. Think about Lawrence Selden in The House of Mirth or Henry Higgins in Pygmalion versus the Manic Pixie Dream Girls in the Onion article. Liberating someone is not necessarily a negative thing, and what irritates me is that both of those articles ignore the fact that these women have to portray themselves as Amazing Manic Pixies because otherwise everyone would be terrified of them.

Dazzle camouflage, baby. I'm the fucking master.

- YOU KNOW WHO THIS IS.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

A Rant of My Own.

no subject

no subject

no subject

your icon = genius! <3

Re: your icon = genius! <3

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

(hiiii, thread-jacking)

Re: (hiiii, thread-jacking)

Re: (hiiii, thread-jacking)

as an aside to the thread-jack

Re: as an aside to the thread-jack

Re: as an aside to the thread-jack

Re: as an aside to the thread-jack

Re: (hiiii, thread-jacking)

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

I'm so great at avoiding the internets