For Men Writing Strong Women Characters...

[3113]

It seems that male writers have to defend themselves if they choose to create strong women characters. It seems obvious to readers that a woman would create strong female characters, but I guess that male writers are thought to be a little strange or unique if they do the same, especially if they create more than one such character.

So, for all male writers, here's a funny but poignant and very eloquent anwer (several answers) to the question: "Why do you write such strong women characters?" courtesy of the writer/creator whose name is synonymous with strong female characters, Joss Whedon: Equality Now Speech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYaczoJMRhs

 

[Selena_Kitt]

It seems that male writers have to defend themselves if they choose to create strong women characters. It seems obvious to readers that a woman would create strong female characters, but I guess that male writers are thought to be a little strange or unique if they do the same, especially if they create more than one such character.

So, for all male writers, here's a funny but poignant and very eloquent anwer (several answers) to the question: "Why do you write such strong women characters?" courtesy of the writer/creator whose name is synonymous with strong female characters, Joss Whedon: Equality Now Speech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYaczoJMRhs

it was a cute speech... he's amusing... and I do love Buffy, I admit it.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

It is all the more fun for me to have both the men and the women characters be strong in their own ways. The main characters should all be strong, no matter how flawed. It is particularly fun to make a strong, but also submissive female character or two in BDSM stories. The point that I try to subtly make by that is that it is a paradox, but not an oxymoron.

 

[S-Des]

In Hero's Reward, the female character had been the victim of a vicious assault years before and had isolated herself from the world. As I wrote the story, I tried my best to be as thoughtful to her as possible, wanting to make her someone that didn't just deserve sympathy, but also deserved happiness. It took a while to get her explained the way I wanted, making sure to incorporate the positive things she had accomplished in her life, despite her sorrow (in most ways, she had done more than the male character, who was the "hero" of the story, which was the whole point).

I feel that I was able to accomplish what I wanted, both because of the scores the story received and because of the comments and emails I got from female readers who identified with her in some respect. Every woman saying she felt something in common with Sarah told me that she appreciated the characterization. That was better than any critique or "You're wonderful" comment I could have received.

I would never apologize for writing a strong female character (at least strong in my estimation). That's exactly what I admire about a woman. Even if the strength is how she raises her children or helps others. To me, strength of character is about more than how much you make or how many people know your name.

 

[minsue]

Good speech. Thanks for posting the link.

 

[Liar]

Joss as journalist #5: "So, why yo you write these strong famale characters?"

Joss as Joss, seriously bored w the question: "Because they're hawt."



Good speech.

It's funny, I've never gotten that question. My stageplays are all full of strong, driven, level-headed and determined women, along with weak, waffling and borderline neuorotic men. (Some of my smut have similar tendencies, but not at all to the same extent.)

And the only gender related question I've gotten is "Surely, teenage girls don't swear that much...do they?" (Oh hell yes they do.)

 

[Sex and Death]

it was a cute speech... he's amusing... and I do love Buffy, I admit it.

His characters are imaginative, funny, sympathetic and engaging on some levels.

I'm willing to accept that his work serves the greater good because without it we would not have Cordelia. Perhaps the series should have been called, "Cordelia and her Friends."

But he doesn't write strong women characters. He writes men with female bodies (and vice versa). Masculine and feminine strength are not the same thing.

He tends to over-feminize his male characters and over-masculinize his female characters. Not surprising, though. The poor guy may never get out of the shadow of his mother's feminism.

I shudder to think what boys and young men (and women, for that matter) learn about the masculine heart, soul and spirit form his work.

I wouldn' trust him in a foxhole, but he is funny, and he writes funny dialogue.

S&D

 

[Selena_Kitt]

His characters are imaginative, funny, sympathetic and engaging on some levels.

I'm willing to accept that his work serves the greater good because without it we would not have Cordelia. Perhaps the series should have been called, "Cordelia and her Friends."

But he doesn't write strong women characters. He writes men with female bodies (and vice versa). Masculine and feminine strength are not the same thing.

He tends to over-feminize his male characters and over-masculinize his female characters. Not surprising, though. The poor guy may never get out of the shadow of his mother's feminism.

I shudder to think what boys and young men (and women, for that matter) learn about the masculine heart, soul and spirit form his work.

I wouldn' trust him in a foxhole, but he is funny, and he writes funny dialogue.

S&D

Yep.
But Buffy speaks to *something* in the collective psyche...
or maybe it's just the quippy dialogue

 

[Sex and Death]

Yep.
But Buffy speaks to *something* in the collective psyche...
or maybe it's just the quippy dialogue

I think Buffy mirrors our current adolescent cultural consciousness.

I appreciated Spike and Oz. Both of thos echaratcers threatened to get out of Whedon's control and he had to reign them in before they fully grew up. Whedon had to put a chip in Spike's head to keep him from becoming the mature man he finally became near the end when he sacrificed himself to save the world. Whedon had to make Oz run away and make Willow turn gay in order to keep Oz from representing a mature masculine presence.

Spike, Oz and Cordelia should have had their own spinoff. They could have formed a band with Spike as the front man, and they could have travelled around battling paranormal evil out of the back of Oz's van.

S&D

 

[Recidiva]

I love Joss's writing of women.

I despise how he castrates every guy somehow along the way.

I'm lucky enough that guys say I write good guys. (Just say no to castration!)

And I've got the woman thing covered.

Thanks for the link!

 

[Stella_Omega]

One of the strongest- and most realistically strong- characters ever written by a man;

Granny Weatherwax, by Terry Pratchett.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I think Buffy mirrors our current adolescent cultural consciousness.

I appreciated Spike and Oz. Both of thos echaratcers threatened to get out of Whedon's control and he had to reign them in before they fully grew up. Whedon had to put a chip in Spike's head to keep him from becoming the mature man he finally became near the end when he sacrificed himself to save the world. Whedon had to make Oz run away and make Willow turn gay in order to keep Oz from representing a mature masculine presence.

Spike, Oz and Cordelia should have had their own spinoff. They could have formed a band with Spike as the front man, and they could have travelled around battling paranormal evil out of the back of Oz's van.

S&D

interesting concept... except without the chip, Spike would have had them both for dinner...

and Spike was still love's bitch... but aren't we all?

Oz now... mmmm... I love the strong silent type...
and of course, the guitar thing...

 

[Liar]

One of the strongest- and most realistically strong- characters ever written by a man;

Granny Weatherwax, by Terry Pratchett.

Hell yeah.

 

[Matadore]

...defend themselves if they choose to create strong women characters.

Interesting. What are a few atributes that constitute strength in women (as opposed to strength in men)?

Is there any personality traits or behaviors that denote strength in women but do not show strength in men?

Or is this about denying that women are able to normaly exhibit thoes strengths?

Is there anything that shows weakness in men that would not also show weakness in women?

 

[Kain__Thornn]

I'm working on a sci-fi tale with a strong female lead. She's in charge of a cargo flight that gets hit with disaster. I know, what an original plot line, but hey, I'm not like fucking Scorsesse or Spielberg, cut us non professionals some slack, can ya spare a dime? My inkjet printer needs a cartridge...

 

[Recidiva]

Interesting. What are a few atributes that constitute strength in women (as opposed to strength in men)?

Is there any personality traits or behaviors that denote strength in women but do not show strength in men?

Or is this about denying that women are able to normaly exhibit thoes strengths?

Is there anything that shows weakness in men that would not also show weakness in women?

I think the strength I try to portray in men is being blunt without explanation or apology.

Being protective without question.

Being loyal as a matter of course.

And being frustrated as all hell with a lack of bluntness, urge toward protecting yourself, or lack of loyalty.

 

[Sex and Death]

interesting concept... except without the chip, Spike would have had them both for dinner...

and Spike was still love's bitch... but aren't we all?

Oz now... mmmm... I love the strong silent type...
and of course, the guitar thing...

If Spike ate 'em, they deserved to be et!

 

[3113]

I appreciated Spike and Oz. Both of thos echaratcers threatened to get out of Whedon's control and he had to reign them in before they fully grew up. Whedon had to put a chip in Spike's head to keep him from becoming the mature man he finally became near the end when he sacrificed himself to save the world. Whedon had to make Oz run away and make Willow turn gay in order to keep Oz from representing a mature masculine presence.

I don't believe Whedon had anything to do with either of those. Oz ran away because the actor wanted to go into movies. And I could be wrong on this, but I believe that Spike's chip came in a later season when Whedon was beginning to work of Firefly and control of the show was given more into the hands of his staff writers--and he had a good deal less to do with it.

So, sorry, I don't think you can't blame Whedon for "emasculating" your favorite characters.

Interesting how quick you are to blame him for that--and how little credit you're willing to give him for creating them in the first place.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I don't believe Whedon had anything to do with either of those. Oz ran away because the actor wanted to go into movies. And I could be wrong on this, but I believe that Spike's chip came in a later season when Whedon was beginning to work of Firefly and control of the show was given more into the hands of his staff writers--and he had a good deal less to do with it.

So, sorry, I don't think you can't blame Whedon for "emasculating" your favorite characters.

Interesting how quick you are to blame him for that--and how little credit you're willing to give him for creating them in the first place.

every script went through Whedon for approval, even until the end... he never let go of creative control of the show... in fact I've heard rumors (have yet to see it in print, although I'd like to) that he had the show pretty much planned, at least in skeletal form, from the beginning... dunno if that's true... but the creative control thing, THAT I have seen for myself and heard in interviews...

 

[Recidiva]

I don't believe Whedon had anything to do with either of those. Oz ran away because the actor wanted to go into movies. And I could be wrong on this, but I believe that Spike's chip came in a later season when Whedon was beginning to work of Firefly and control of the show was given more into the hands of his staff writers--and he had a good deal less to do with it.

So, sorry, I don't think you can't blame Whedon for "emasculating" your favorite characters.

Interesting how quick you are to blame him for that--and how little credit you're willing to give him for creating them in the first place.

Oh, I definitely blame him. He emasculated Angel, Spike, Oz and Riley, and started out with Xander being emasculated to begin with.

 

[caprine]

You had better believe they do!

Joss as journalist #5: "So, why yo you write these strong famale characters?"

Joss as Joss, seriously bored w the question: "Because they're hawt."



Good speech...

And the only gender related question I've gotten is "Surely, teenage girls don't swear that much...do they?" (Oh hell yes they do.)

I have also received criticism that teenaged girls and twenty somethings don't talk like and don't have thoughts like I give my characters. You had better believe they do! I was a high school teacher for thirty-two years, I have been there. Talk to PE teachers and coaches and your ears might turn read from the stories they could relate about the conversations of young women when they think they are secluded.
I have also worked as a midnight shift desk clerk for ten years since retirement from teaching. I have had students still in school and former students (couples) come in for a room as well as young strangers. The language and public behavior is a revelaltion to the uninformed! At least half the time, it is the female that is the initiator and aggressor in obtaining the room, paying for the room, and he PDA in the lobby and halls.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Oh, I definitely blame him. He emasculated Angel, Spike, Oz and Riley, and started out with Xander being emasculated to begin with.

I give him great credit for creating the characters in the first place... I DO enjoy them... that said, I think Diva's right in the quote above...

but I think Whedon would say, "so?" It was probably his point... that the girls had the power, and the guys thought, "Hey, that's cool... hawt, even"

at least, that's what comes across in this particular interview...

all he did was flip a power differential. He didn't create equality, as he claims. He just turned it on its head.

 

[Recidiva]

I give him great credit for creating the characters in the first place... I DO enjoy them... that said, I think Diva's right in the quote above...

but I think Whedon would say, "so?" It was probably his point... that the girls had the power, and the guys thought, "Hey, that's cool... hawt, even"

at least, that's what comes across in this particular interview...

all he did was flip a power differential. He didn't create equality, as he claims. He just turned it on its head.

Yup, that I might agree with.

He did a much better job with Mal on Firefly. But he did the same sense of "being weakened by a woman" instead of empowered by her with Inara.

Men, in my opinion, enjoy being together as much as women do. It's not a weakness to be in love. It's very Whedony to bleed out from it.

 

[3113]

But he doesn't write strong women characters. He writes men with female bodies (and vice versa). Masculine and feminine strength are not the same thing.

He tends to over-feminize his male characters and over-masculinize his female characters. Not surprising, though. The poor guy may never get out of the shadow of his mother's feminism.

I think you've just proven Whedon's point about strong women characters. I'd be willing to discuss Buffy's flaws as a character, even to her being "masculine" but your focus on gender issues, almost exclusively, ruins any chance for any real discussion of CHARACTER.

This is a cheat, an easy way to dismiss a writer's attempt--sucessful or not--to avoid thinking in terms of masculine and feminine and create just a character. It's also a way to maintain the status quo in popular literature and slap down anyone trying (successfully or not) to do something different.

In America, at least, the superhero genre has been a male power fantasy where all beloved heroes (for the most part) are male and do things Americans think male heroes should do. Like being independent, innovative, and using brute force to save others--i.e. getting into a fist fight with the enemy and proving prowess through physical strength. This means that when a female is given these same superhero qualities she is automatically considered too maculine. Not because such traits are inherently masculine, but because these qualities have been given (by males) in myth and story to males almost exclusively--probably because men want such traits all for themselves. Rather like they want their club houses to be for guys only as well.

The girls can have those yucky traits men don't want, like being nuturing (men want their moms that way), sacrificing, etc.

So the question becomes, how many women have to be independent, innovative and able to fight physically before these qualities become CHARACTER qualities and not masculine qualities?

 

[Recidiva]

I think you've just proven Whedon's point about strong women characters. I'd be willing to discuss Buffy's flaws as a character, even to her being "masculine" but your focus on gender issues, almost exclusively, ruins any chance for any real discussion of CHARACTER.

This is a cheat, an easy way to dismiss a writer's attempt--sucessful or not--to avoid thinking in terms of masculine and feminine and create just a character. It's also a way to maintain the status quo in popular literature and slap down anyone trying (successfully or not) to do something different.

In America, at least, the superhero genre has been a male power fantasy where all beloved heroes (for the most part) are male and do things Americans think male heroes should do. Like being independent, innovative, and using brute force to save others--i.e. getting into a fist fight with the enemy and proving prowess through physical strength. This means that when a female is given these same superhero qualities she is automatically considered too maculine. Not because such traits are inherently masculine, but because these qualities have been given (by males) in myth and story to males almost exclusively--probably because men want such traits all for themselves. Rather like they want their club houses to be for guys only as well.

The girls can have those yucky traits men don't want, like being nuturing (men want their moms that way), sacrificing, etc.

So the question becomes, how many women have to be independent, innovative and able to fight physically before these qualities become CHARACTER qualities and not masculine qualities?

I don't think it's about strength. I think it's about courage.

His characters were courageous about dying. Not about living.