mrsronweasley (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
mrsronweasley) wrote2008-08-06 02:05 pm
mrsronweasley) wrote2008-08-06 02:05 pm
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.
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.
no subject
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.