We have moved to new forum software and posting here is closed!

PLEASE BOOKMARK THE NEW FORUMS

	Subtopic	Started By	Posts
	Archive through Apr 24, 2002 Last Post: Apr 24, 2002, 10:33 am		20

Posted By: Bmat Apr 24, 2002 - 07:44 am

I asked my class this morning, all women, what they would prefer in a story: the timid princess who cringes back and wrings her hands while her knight battles the villain, or the brave princess who grabs a club or a vase and watches for a chance to bop the bad guy. They all agreed the timid princess is their preference.

Sighing, Ursula, blows the smoke from her club and retreats.

Posted By: Nomad Apr 24, 2002 - 09:48 am

Wow...I would have fully expected them to say the brave proncess. Hmmmmm..... How old are these gals?

Posted By: Bmat Apr 24, 2002 - 09:58 am

*grin* @ Nommy. They are all older people. I was surprised, too.

Of course the question I asked was about being in a fantasy story. Perhaps other situations would get a different answer. At first, in fact, I needed to explain I was not talking about real life, since their first reaction was, "If two men are fighting just leave them alone." So I explained about the princess idea and the hero vs the villain.

Posted By: Nomad Apr 24, 2002 - 10:10 am

Ahhh yes...from the old school. So to speak. They believe in their princes sweeping them off their feet...fighing the battles...etc. LOL

Posted By: Aslan Apr 24, 2002 - 10:33 am

That seems to depend solely on culture. I'm living in Oklahoma right now, and I guarantee that most women around here, young or old, would rather be princesses. But back in Iowa where I was raised, more women would beat the tar out of the villain. Certainly not all. Maybe not even the majority. But more. It's cultural rather than biological.

Posted By: Baze Apr 24, 2002 - 10:37 am

Hmmm- interesting stuff.

I would say though, that the archetypal hero's journey is not inclusive of a specific gender. The shape of story encourages us to have a hero (from Star Wars to Beowulf or vice versa), one who overcomes problems of whatever sort (personal issues, poverty, youthful naivete, evil enemy), but that doesn't necessarily have to be tied to gender difference. Basically, Buffy works as a hero just as well as Luke does.

But, LB, if you're bringing Freud into it, then maybe it would be as well to introduce a little Jung into the mix. I don't entirely subscribe to this, but I think essentially it holds some truth. This is the idea that every human holds opposites within themselves, including the anima/us- the perspective of the opposite gender. Clearly, Jung didn't put this into scientific language, as he was really more a philosopher than what we'd regard today as a psychologist, but it strikes a chord. Every male has a female side, just as every female has a male side. This could be down to hormone levels, social upbringing- I'm not a scientist or a doctor- but it works in the same way as yin and yang. As humans we hold balance.

Away from the philosophy then, what does this mean for story? Essentially, that the useless princess cliche is a distorted image, explaining why it feels wrong to many people today. The point of view of your students, Bmat, may be down more to their environmental situation than their essential being.

Basically? Equality rocks. Equality in literature rocks.

Baze
x

Posted By: Bmat Apr 24, 2002 - 12:18 pm

Or I suppose a cigar could just be a cigar, and that's what they like because it's a pleasant fantasy.

Posted By: Baze Apr 24, 2002 - 01:32 pm

That too.

Posted By: The Master Apr 24, 2002 - 01:56 pm

I know many strong willed and independent women that would prefer the knight in shining armor to rescue the fair princess in distress. That's a classic set up for romatic fantasy that has been popular for centuries and will likely remain so. IMHO just the set up that she's a princess is more likely to elicit this kind of response.

The same strong women get ticked off when its always "the girl" who falls down in horror movies or stands there like an idiot while the slasher cuts her to bits. And they love the Ripley types in SF that kick some serious butt. Its different fantasies played out in different ways. There's no reason people can't enjoy all kinds.

Now its true that men are far less likely to enjoy a fantasy where a prince is in distress and the warrior woman comes to save him. Men generally don't like weak male characters. Still, you won't find many that don't enjoy kick butt women standing as equals a la Aeryn on Farscape. They just want the man to be kicking butt too

Posted By: LightBrigade Apr 24, 2002 - 02:36 pm

* Applauding Baze in admiration *

Pondering on the Master's remarks , I can't help nodding . * sigh : Ivanova , ah , Ivanova ! *

* But then Ursula brings her hand down on my head *
Yes , Ursula :-)

* silence *

Posted By: sarahl2 Apr 24, 2002 - 02:56 pm

it seems that the women-power mentality flip-flops as decades pass. for one generation, they would work in a factory, or play professional baseball as their men go to war. these women would probably be more disappointed in a shrinking violet. there was a revival of this in the bra-burning days twenty years later. Then, another drought. Twenty years later again (late eighties, early nineties) we had the 'career woman', affirmitive action kick. however, between these rushes of female-empowerment, we get the princesses. now, we are in a princess phase. if you doubt this, take a gander out your driver side window as you go through town. i've seen about a dozen 'princess' stickers on disgustingly 'cute' little cars this week alone. not to mention the 'daddy's girl' personalized plate that made me nearly hork my sonic burger. this is reflected in our popular entertainment. early nineties, we had characters like sara conner in terminator 2. strong, completely independent and likely to stomp your face in. now, the most popular entertainment focuses on princesses, even if they are portrayed as something more. so, with the natural ebb and flow of culture, these characters will be favored in writing as well. however, the same may not be true in another ten years.
~{S}~

Posted By: Krastakin Apr 24, 2002 - 08:52 pm

wow I've spawned a debate! YAY!
But unfortunately...haven't had the opportunity to study philosophy or psychology...so I can't really add to the "serious" conversation

Sarah (since I can reply to yours without sounding like an idiot):

I never thought of it that way before...it's strange isn't it, the way Princesses breed Warriors, and vice versa? Maybe we're all just trying not to become our parents

But about Sarah Conner...she wasn't a complete hardass (excuse the language, if it isn't blotted), most female characters aren't completely one or the other. To follow through with your example, she couldn't actually go and kill Tyson, because she still had that bit of softness which prevented it. And certainly in Terminator 1 she wasn't...she was an unwilling hero.

Even Laura Croft, kick-butt person that she may be, makes mistakes because she is driven by emotional influences, and they flaw her. I got the feeling throughout the movie that she would have given everything to be in daddy's arms, and turned back time.

Can anyone think of a heroine that's completely out of it?

(Ursula...be a dear and let up on LB...he needs to head to his forum and post more interactive things so that S'reia can actually learn something from her experience )

Posted By: The Master Apr 24, 2002 - 10:21 pm

I thought they did a great job with Sarah Conner in Terminator. In the first movie, she was just a "regular lady". Humdrum, nothing special life, just going about her business. Then a very bad guy comes after her...there's no reason she would have the faintest idea of how to deal with it. The "hero" shows up to protect her, and she needed him. Yes, its a take on the princess idea, but it could have been a woman from the future that came to save her and it wouldn't have made any difference to the story. Well, except she wouldn't have gotten pregnant, which was important for the set up of T2, but you get my drift.

Fast forward to T2...from her experience, she toughens up and finds out how to protect herself. Granted, they put her in the loony bin (like you would have believed she was anything but a raving lunatic), but she stayed tough because she had to. She knew it might not be over, and when push came to shove she was ready. Sure, she still needed a protector, but we're talking about a robot protector verses a robot killer so its not like she was on even footing. She was also being protector over her son, an instance where I thought the maternal instinct thing was well played and not hammered to death.

Posted By: Baze Apr 25, 2002 - 01:13 am

Yup, I'm a fan of the Terminator series, because Sarah Connor did come across as a real female hero. One little thing does nag however- that she was represented as being a borderline psycho in the course of protecting her son. It was almost saying that a woman couldn't be this sort of ass-kicking hero without being a bit flipped in the head. Other than that- great stuff. I totally agree with the Master about the maternal instinct thing- really well done.

One more thing- Krastakin, you're totally right about Sarah Connor not being a total hardass, but then I can't think of a single hero, whether male or female, who is totally without emotion. Emotion's what drives you to be a hero, and mercy is a part of that. Obviously, mercy's not *always* a part of that(!), but it's in keeping with the hero archetype.

Now expecting someone to come along and prove me wrong!

Posted By: The Master Apr 25, 2002 - 09:36 am

Yeah, but wasn't just her son, it was the whole world. That's what that playground/nuclear explosion scene was all about, and for most of the movie that's what she expected to happen. With that kind of pressure, I think I'd be a little psycho myself!

Posted By: Bmat Apr 26, 2002 - 08:29 am

More from my students.

My students (older, women) thought about the helpless princess cliche since their last class. One said maybe the 4 brothers of the princess taught her how to use a sword, so she could be right in there fighting.

Another student said that the princess would have had a protected life and would not know about fighting.

I thought that the princess would be well aware of intrigue and danger which would surround the throne. But the students said the father would have always protected her.

Something I thought made a lot of sense: If the princess helps her hero he would resent the help, and his self-esteem would be lessened.

Even so, I think the princess should be evaluating to see if her help were needed or if she should run. And that is not to run between the two and get stabbed in the heart to die in her lover's arms.

Posted By: Krastakin Apr 27, 2002 - 03:20 am

"Another student said that the princess would have had a protected life and would not know about fighting.

I thought that the princess would be well aware of intrigue and danger which would surround the throne. But the students said the father would have always protected her."

In which case...if she were anything like most women in common day society, or so the stereotypes say, she would have become a complete hardass just to spite them

Posted By: Aslan Apr 29, 2002 - 12:10 am

Baze, true Sarah Connor did seem a bit flipped out. But don't all heroes have to flip out a little? I mean, they're under a lot of stress! In different ways, truly. Frodo flipped many a time, also a hero thrust into the spotlight after a fairly normal life.

There will always be stories about the cool, calm, collected heroes, but they aren't the ones we love. We can admire, but we can't identify.

If you've ever been in one of those intense, life-threatening situations, you know the razor's edge that your mind sits upon. It doesn't usually go over that edge, but in a normal life these moments are very short-lived. The heroes of our stories are in this state at all times. I wouldn't believe it if they weren't a little loopy at times. Connor worked for me as a very real character. That made the fact that she was a strong female character even more ... important.

Regarding the princess, I guess we like playing ourselves in all sorts of roles. I wouldn't mind a woman coming to save my butt. In fact, I'd expect it of her if she were more able to do the job. But my eagerness for that scenario comes from the culture that I'm currently living in, where none of the women around me would likely do anything other than scream. In other places I've lived, I might have preferred the knight role or the partner role.

But as the Master said, all roles are good and the more shoes we walk in (even in our imaginations), the more understanding we become.

*clink! clink!* (pennies dropping into very full jar)

Posted By: Ulfgar Jun 09, 2002 - 08:05 pm

Bmat, what kind of class are you teaching? Adult education? A writing class at a college? I'm curious to hear about it....

Posted By: Bmat Jun 10, 2002 - 03:27 am

Ulfgar. No no, nothing like that. I teach several types of classes but all are non-academic. I teach at the community college, parks and recreation, and senior centers. Line dancing and exercise. At one of the senior centers (ages run from 50's to 80's) I choreograph and teach a three day a week aerobics class. The first half hour is aerobics, the second is stretching and resistance exercises. During that section we talk about various issues, just because we all have known each other for a good while. Anything goes except religion and politics, since I've learned that those subjects can cause hurt feelings. There are 30 ladies (no men, sadly, the few who try are overwhelmed by the number of ladies.) The women are of varied backgrounds and offer a wide variety of experiences and points of view. (Similar to what we have here- a variety of ideas.)