1. Only cute/sexy gals will be the hero's girlfriend, heroine, or villain. Not cute or sexy? Doomed to obscurity, pathetic sidekickhood, or psychotic vengeance on the cheerleaders (nonsympathetic villain).

2. Films with mainly male characters have lots of exciting stuff happening, and may not contain any named female characters (maybe some love interests). Films with mainly female characters will not be action-packed, mainly about emotional trauma about males or health issues *lifetime TV*, and pack hierarchy struggles over one's standing within the bitch pack and access to the prime males. This often convinces girl geeks not to like pink, purple, or to identify positively with mainstream girliness.

3. Actresses have to be way hotter than the average non-obese female, much more so than male actors compared to the average non-obese male. Also younger. All your ability to act in the world ends with age or loss of hotness.

4. An active woman will find being "tamed" part of falling in love, apparently. This is true in most SF and all bodice-rippers.

5. All girls the age of ~10 should receive the "Hero and the Crown" and "the Blue Sword" by Robin McKinley to counter most of the above. They truly saved me from lots of pressure to lose my personality at that age.

CF, ending rant. Now for dinner and embroidering supervillainess costume. No, really. That's what I'm doing tonight.

While I agree that the ideal the media present is in many ways screwed up, I have to comment on your no. 2.

There is a reason why most women like romantic movies and "Lifetime TV" as you call it, while most men like sports and action movies. We're just different - and saying it's all social conditioning is BS. Part of it is biology.

Having said that, of course there are plenty of girls (and guys) who don't conform to the stereotypes. For instance, I'm probably the only heterosexual man I know who likes musicals and watches the Eurovision Song Contest, and I know a few women (but they are very few) who like roleplaying, Star Trek etc.

Strong female rolemodels may be a rarity, but they do exist: Unfortunately the new Bionic Woman got cancelled (yes, I liked it), but if you want to watch a show with a strong heroine, watch Bones - if anything the good-looking guy is her sidekick. And it's not exactly a new phenomenon either: think of Charlie's Angels or go back even further and watch any Katherine Hepburn movie.

As for the focus on looks - well, tv is glamour, not reality. I guess the sad truth is nobody wants to see ugly people on tv, unless they're being funny or trying to lose weight on a reality show. I'm no Brad Pitt myself, but I have no need to watch average Joes succeed just out of spite.

Or, come to think of it, maybe I do. Maybe that's why I watch Rob Schneider movies...

ChrisFixedKitty Wrote:2. Films with mainly male characters have lots of exciting stuff happening, and may not contain any named female characters (maybe some love interests). Films with mainly female characters will not be action-packed, mainly about emotional trauma about males or health issues *lifetime TV*, and pack hierarchy struggles over one's standing within the bitch pack and access to the prime males. This often convinces girl geeks not to like pink, purple, or to identify positively with mainstream girliness.

Along these lines... here's an interesting thought: Name a few recent popular movies where the two top-billed stars are female.
Here's the answer

ChrisFixedKitty Wrote:1. Only cute/sexy gals will be the hero's girlfriend, heroine, or villain. Not cute or sexy? Doomed to obscurity, pathetic sidekickhood, or psychotic vengeance on the cheerleaders (nonsympathetic villain).

2. Films with mainly male characters have lots of exciting stuff happening, and may not contain any named female characters (maybe some love interests). Films with mainly female characters will not be action-packed, mainly about emotional trauma about males or health issues *lifetime TV*, and pack hierarchy struggles over one's standing within the bitch pack and access to the prime males. This often convinces girl geeks not to like pink, purple, or to identify positively with mainstream girliness.

3. Actresses have to be way hotter than the average non-obese female, much more so than male actors compared to the average non-obese male. Also younger. All your ability to act in the world ends with age or loss of hotness.

4. An active woman will find being "tamed" part of falling in love, apparently. This is true in most SF and all bodice-rippers.

5. All girls the age of ~10 should receive the "Hero and the Crown" and "the Blue Sword" by Robin McKinley to counter most of the above. They truly saved me from lots of pressure to lose my personality at that age.

CF, ending rant. Now for dinner and embroidering supervillainess costume. No, really. That's what I'm doing tonight.

And I will add:
#6. If you're a black woman? Forget about it.
I'll have to come back and discuss this further...

Michael Riber Wrote:While I agree that the ideal the media present is in many ways screwed up, I have to comment on your no. 2.

There is a reason why most women like romantic movies and "Lifetime TV" as you call it, while most men like sports and action movies. We're just different - and saying it's all social conditioning is BS. Part of it is biology.

Oh, that's what paranormal romance (aka "female adventure tales" quite aptly in the prolog of year's best), indie comic books, and the Whedon universe are for- the romance I do love, with some strong females and action to make a plot possible without wussy twitticism... what other counter-examples can people dig up?

Michael Riber Wrote:As for the focus on looks - well, tv is glamour, not reality. I guess the sad truth is nobody wants to see ugly people on tv, unless they're being funny or trying to lose weight on a reality show. I'm no Brad Pitt myself, but I have no need to watch average Joes succeed just out of spite.

Or, come to think of it, maybe I do. Maybe that's why I watch Rob Schneider movies...

I've been noting that the British TV that we've been watching suffers from glam-over-acting far less that Hollywood (Dr. Who, Jekyll, Jane Austen MPT, Shaun ot Dead and Hot Fuzz). Better acting, even when glam. And the "out of spite" part only comes in when the more average actors are victorious over glam. Average vs average (lookswise) with the occasional extra-pretty person becomes more believable, IMHO. As it is, every show follows a group of extra pretties.

I should admit, I consider myself in the upper-third of the attractive spectrum outside of plastic surgery. So it's not spite from me, exactly, but the irritation I feel at very average men dissing the not-as-hottie Hollywood women that fuels my ire here. Perhaps its feminist spite on my part, or perhaps a little "have you looked at yourself, O kettle?" that I don't know how to express to them individually without being rude.

I have so many things I want to say about this topic that I don't think I can coherently organize them. So I'll try to just focus on one or two things.

You know that media has always held up models for the average Joe and Jane to emulate. How many men could be Hector or Achilles or even one of the other unannointed Greek heroes? I doubt that many who sat around the campfires in the Bronze Age wanted to hear about Bruce the Skinny who could take sticks and rope and make a catapult.

If you think that media has a purpose beyond entertainment, then one possible purpose is to hold up to the populace role models for us to internalize. I don't think your complaint is with the fact that media holds up role models so much as it is about the roles themselves.

I am not going to try to argue that roles like "strong white male overcomes evil dark-skinned males to rescue the lily-white princess" are good ones. I have my opinions about such stories that are not relevant to this discussion. But such stories were often directed toward young males to encourage them toward a certain way of thinking and acting. The American Girl series encourages its target audience toward a certain way of thinking and acting. I think media presents role models who model goals toward which the target audience is intended to strive. So the trick is to find the right role models.

The role models are out there. Yes, you have to search a bit to find good ones for girls, but you also have to search to find good ones for boys. If you're a boy or a girl interested in more nerdish pursuits, you'll look far and wide to find good role models. Mine were Tom Swift and the Hardy Boys, but they are not popular these days. That's very important.

So, I think the upshot of my comments is that you can't blame the media for not promoting role models that *you* want to see. Present-day media, like media in the past, have to appeal to an audience. The audience for the role models you dislike is greater than the audience for the role models you want. That's not to say I approve of the choices of the marketplace, but they are what they are. It's a two-way street.

Personally, I choose to opt out of most mainstream media (which is becoming more and more fragmented and less mainstream every day) and so avoid a lot of those role models. I try to support books, movies, and tv shows that present stories that I enjoy and so help modify what is offered.

ChrisFixedKitty Wrote:I've been noting that the British TV that we've been watching suffers from glam-over-acting far less that Hollywood (Dr. Who, Jekyll, Jane Austen MPT, Shaun ot Dead and Hot Fuzz).

True - and being European, I could say the same about French, German, or Spanish TV/movies. I'm afraid this is not so much a Western phenomenon as an American one...but the American influence sure can be felt, especially in smaller European countries like my own that are much more easily susceptible. We simply don't make enough shows of our own, so we watch even more American ones.

Quote:it's not spite from me, exactly, but the irritation I feel at very average men dissing the not-as-hottie Hollywood women that fuels my ire here. Perhaps its feminist spite on my part, or perhaps a little "have you looked at yourself, O kettle?" that I don't know how to express to them individually without being rude.

And that was my point: TV is not reality, and most of us know that. Of course there will always be people who can't tell the difference...

Barry from Athens Wrote:You know that media has always held up models for the average Joe and Jane to emulate. How many men could be Hector or Achilles or even one of the other unannointed Greek heroes? I doubt that many who sat around the campfires in the Bronze Age wanted to hear about Bruce the Skinny who could take sticks and rope and make a catapult.

Sir, I take exception to the dualism here. (hugs) You're mixing subhero looks and subhero action and abilities! I want the action and abilities to rock, without regard to the person's looks. Hell, let the slightly handsome accomplished hero/ine spy/superhero/superscientist have a nice-but-knockout bro/sis to deal with during regular life and really F8 with the stereotypes.

I think watching Bruce the Average with the same techtoys and training that James Bond gets accompish kickass stuff would be fun and more inspiring (so then-- you'll never believe this-- this Spartan captain's sword is against his OWN FoOkin neck, and silver-tongued Odysseus here starts telling him how he's really just about to kill off his own people's hopes instead of just us, a small troupe of the enemy...)

And Greatness from humble beginnings is classic! I think Arthur being a tweepy farmboy before the whole sword-stone thing and having his right-hand man kicking ass (ok, and then falling in love with his lily-white queen, I admit) is an inspiring part of the story. Likewise with the Black Cauldron. Likewise with Clark Kent, with alter-ego replacing right-hand man.

I think having several normal-looking-pretty possible love interests would make the hero/heroine's ultimate choice less obvious and potentially more interesting (with good writing, as for all romantic developments) than having the obvious Hollywood star and that other girl to choose from. Remove that obvious cue, give both of them good but different personalities... really.

Rooting for Snape as Col. Brandon over Mr. Shallowpants, any day of the week. That, my friends, is a hero worth falling for. Please pardon Sense and Sensibility non-genre reference.

ChrisFixedKitty Wrote:I think watching Bruce the Average with the same techtoys and training that James Bond gets accompish kickass stuff would be fun and more inspiring

But that's the whole point: James Bond is anything but average! If he was, everybody could become a secret agent, and then what's the point?

Anyway, if you want to see something like that, watch Johnny English...