Women’s roles in movies are getting more diverse and interesting. This is good news for men.
A.O. Scott has a lovely new piece up over at the New York Times magazine, in which he discusses the rise of a greater range of roles for women in modern Hollywood movies. It’s well worth a read, but there’s one line that stood out, that resonated all too well for me as a sometime screenwriter, a fallible feminist, and a full-time man:
The stated desire for more, better or different kinds of movie representation, like other forms of feminist advocacy, is often met with defensiveness, or heard as special pleading. Girls like action movies, too, so what’s the problem? Women talk about men all the time, don’t they? Lighten up! I promise I will, but not before noting a deep and ancient bias that underlies the way we talk about movies, and what we see in them — namely the assumption that stories about men are large, important and universal, while stories about women are particular, local and trivial.
That gets to the heart of the matter, the heart that’s never discussed. Being male is default, is normal. Being female is different, special, Other. To this day, you will see people in the entertainment industry say things like “It’s the universal fantasy: everyone wants to be the hero, save the day, get the girl.” and they don’t even see anything weird about that.
A quick word for those not yet persuaded of this thesis: how many entertainments did you see as a child that had a character whose entire narrative role could be described as The Girl? And how many did you see that had a character whose entire narrative role could be described as The Guy? Right, see, that’s what I’m talking about. Male characters, even corny ones, have traits, have personalities, at the very least they have gimmicks. He’s the smart one, he’s the tough one, he’s the funny one, he’s the leader, and her? She’s the girl, that’s her gimmick.
Feminists have quite rightly called bullshit on this habit vociferously over the years, and gradually won the fight against things like using “man” and “mankind” when you mean “humanity”. The fight in fiction has been tougher, but as Scott points out, progress is being made. More and more, female characters are as richly-written, complex, diverse, and interesting as male characters.
This is really, really good news for men.
I mean, on one level it’s good for everyone because it means we all get more diverse and interesting fiction. I will take that win. But when I say it’s good for men, I mean men as a gender. Because men as a gender isn’t something people talk about well, particularly in fiction.
Don’t believe me? Again, quick field test. Head to the Gender Studies section of your local library or bookshop and tally up how many books about women you see vs. books about men. Right, again, that’s what I’m talking about. Women have a gender, men just… are. Default. Normal.
The problem is that to be normal is to be unexamined. What’s normal is, almost by definition, taken for granted. Because being male is still subconsciously considered “universal”, we assume we all know what it means. That’s where we get those embarrassingly stereotypical images of men, the horny, half-civilized troglodytes that are the lazy shorthand for men as a gender. That’s what happens when things go unexamined.
So yes, let us have an end to the idea of men as the default normal gender. Let us instead discover male characters the way we’re now discovering female characters: via an emergence from outdated clichés and a rise of greater depth, diversity, and nuance. That’s a win for men, for women, and for moviegoers. You go save a seat, I’ll get the popcorn.
The problem is that to be normal is to be unexamined. What’s normal is, almost by definition, taken for granted. Because being male is still subconsciously considered “universal”, we assume we all know what it means. That’s where we get those embarrassingly stereotypical images of men, the horny, half-civilized troglodytes that are the lazy shorthand for men as a gender. That’s what happens when things go unexamined. So yes, let us have an end to the idea of men as the default normal gender. Let us instead discover male characters the way we’re now discovering female characters: via an emergence… Read more »
I agree with Danny in that gender relations are so strained that whenever one tries to discuss a men’s issue, the other side (which are NOT feminists, they are misandrists) engage in a battle over who has more privilege, who has it worse, and why one side should just shut up. I sincerely believe that society benefits from good men, but the most vocal corners of the internet seem to think that men only benefit, and we hoard our opportunity and riches like misers. On the contrary, Women will stand to benefit greatly if college opportunities for men improve, if… Read more »
I agree with Danny in that gender relations are so strained that whenever one tries to discuss a men’s issue, the other side (which are NOT feminists, they are misandrists) engage in a battle over who has more privilege, who has it worse, and why one side should just shut up. And I think this comes back to haunt us when there are posts where the subject is about women and some angry guys come along and redirect it and make it about men. Sure it would be nice to pretend that such anger was completely unprovoked (yes sometimes it… Read more »
“This is why when talking about the suffering of men there is a rush to pin the tail on some other, any other, characteristic other than gender”
I’ve witnessed it pinned on gender before, but not the man’s gender. I’ve heard people explain men’s disadvantages in terms of misogyny and that I think is much worse as women essentially try to co-opt male suffering. When only women are disadvantaged, discriminated against, or suffering, there is no need to address the plight of men.
Yes, good catch. That should have been. “This is why when talking about the suffering of men there is a rush to pin the tail on some other, any other, characteristic other than being of male gender” This would explain how I’ve seen homophobia towards men explained as being misogyny because it attacks men for engaging in something that is generally associated with being a woman (romantic/sexual attraction to men) while homophobia towards woman is misogyny because it attacks women for not engaging in something that is generally associated with being a woman (romantic/sexual attraction to men). Reducing the things… Read more »
Jyeah I’ll have to take a pass on this one. Hollywood has always been intrested in the financial power of women, it was up to female writes to create profitable escapist fantasies like twilight and the hunger games. It took just as long for comicbook adaptations to hit their stride. No one kowtowed to feminist. Hollywood executives just followed the free market.
…and I’m not even going to mention how much feminist hate the Twilight series or the up coming 5O Shades of gray movies.
Google books Ngram tells the story:
http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Women+%2C+Men&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=
Woah that’s a really cool graph
“And how many did you see that had a character whose entire narrative role could be described as The Guy?”
More than you’d think. I used to love the show Facts Of Life, and the role of George Clooney could definitely be described as Token Guy. And while there are many supporting male characters in most Disney princess movies, the various “guys” (ie romantic objects) were totally interchangeable.
I mean, sure, there are examples. After all, Hollywood has no compunction to strip away character development and reduce anyone to a “token”. But I hardly think this constitutes an overwhelming trend. For example, I assume you’re talking about the Disney “Princess” Movies (Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, etc.) where the guys were interchangeable. And, well, yeah, that’s certainly true. Of course, first of all it’s a childrens movie about the princess, so that kinda makes sense. Second, in almost every case, the woman are all still “rescued” by the admittedly one dimensional “hero”. They were still “the girl”. Third,… Read more »
Noah: You have created a HUGE Fallacy here by saying that since theren’t aren’t many books on gender in the bookstore that men are the default, the normal. Actually there is a more likely reason , No one gives a shit about men, not enough to write about them. They aren’t the normal, they simply don’t exist. If you doubt this, have a look at the work of NGO in the area of sexual exploitation, human trafficking etc. They don’t talk about boys/men, is this because men are the normal victims NO , it is because men are not a… Read more »
Interestingly, biologically, female is the default state. Unless the gene(s?) on the Y-chromosome express correctly at around the 7 week mark of gestation, you get a baby that is viewed as a female. Science doesn’t seem to have found genes for being female. Perhaps Adam was made from Eve’s DNA!
Erm, what about the X chromosome?
I think feminists try really hard to equate what is good for women as being necessarily good for men. What’s good for women is good for women. What’s good for men is good for men. What’s good for one gender is usually good for everyone, but not necessarily true. In this case, I’m wondering what changed. Just off the top of my head I remember, The Lucille Ball Show, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, That Girl, Lavern and Shirley, Golden Girls, Charlie’s Angels, Wonder Woman (who almost always had to save Steve Trevor), I dream of Genie, Bewitched, Who’s the… Read more »
Ok but that’s not the point that Noah’s making I think. It’s not that strong female leads NEVER existed, it’s that they’re shifting towards the norm. Like, instead of a show where the gimmick is a strong lead, we have shows with a strong female lead, and separately, a gimmick. Instead of fiction defined by an unconventional female character, the WHOLE convention of fiction is beginning (just beginning) to shift, so that those nuances that used to define a woman as “unconventional” (strong, deep, intelligent, talks about things other then men) now just make her par for the course. That… Read more »
On the other hand, not having to be excruciatingly self-conscious about one’s gender identity really is rather awesome. Most of us really don’t want to have to bother about our gender identities that much and would prefer to get on with our lives without constantly having to be reminded about our gender. We want it to blend into the background of our existence and not frequently to remind us of its presence. We want our gender to be like a shoe that just fits, where we don’t feel it biting into our ankles, slipping on surfaces, or fitting too loosely… Read more »
See, I think that gender (racial, sexual orientation, etc.) identities have never fitted many people that well. It’s just that historically, there wasn’t very much any individual could do about that. They wore the shoes they were given, even if they fitted horrendously, and either wore thicker socks, or grew calluses, or shut up and dealt with the pain. These days we’re learning that we can tailor the shoes we have. Don’t like this pair? That’s fine! There are many other options! In fact, why don’t you design your own pair? Does that fit better? Great! I don’t think a… Read more »