Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Whilst I'm on a typing roll, I thought I should mention another type of heroism. This is one that seems selfish on the surface but actually has slightly deeper implications.
Consider people like Burt Munro, who simply wanted to build and run the world's fastest Indian motorcycle, or those who chase land speed records in general, or those who climb Everest or choose to follow any personal goal that can't possibly have wider benefits to mankind.
Indirectly, I believe they do benefit mankind. By chasing personal dreams, these people at least serve to inspire us to fight against the odds. In a way, you could ascribe this kind of heroism to the small spider that (apocryphally) inspired Robert The Bruce in his campaign. The spider played no part in the battle, of course, but the example served to strengthen his resolve.
I suppose there's also a kind of "negative" heroism, too. Rosa Parkes is a shockingly obvious example, but by kicking up her heels at an established order she started something big to the advantage of all. Likewise the Suffragettes. I call these "negative" not because what they actually acheived was negative at all, but because what they did was perceived as anti-social by the powers that be at the time.
Such people are regarded as heroes these days, of course, but in the context of the time they were branded otherwise by their rulers. Much the same holds true today; if you are anti-Iraq-war or a May Day rioter you will receive the same hostility from the establishment. History may judge differently.
Me, I grew up as an only child in a neighborhood with few kids. As such, I read a LOT. Not much in the comic book department, but I did grow up with a few Wonder Woman comic books (mostly thanks to the TV series) and watching Princess Leia on the big screen. I read a lot of fairy tale stuff, but someone, the gender rolls presented there never got drilled into my head - in my stories I was the knight who saved the prince and my family did nothing to discourage this (heck, I had a plastic suit of armor when I was in second grade) I knew what made a heroic character (strenght of character, strong will, cleverness, persistance, etc.) and gender never really entered into it.
*nod* I was a rather bloodthirsty child. So as a consequence, I read *LOTS* of historical accounts of the mountain men, and the settling of the American contnent, including various treatments of the indian wars. Almost all of them non-fiction [most fictional westerns were too formulaic to keep my interest even as an 8 year old...], almost all of them "politically incorrect" by today's standards. ;]
Something that stuck in my mind to this day long long after the name or author of the book has faded were accounts of setteler women at Jamestown and Boonesborough and elsewhere grabbing Kentucky or Hawken rifles and defending their families and homes from marauders [both white and red] and wild beasts while the men were away elsewhere.
No beast so fierce. Gender has nothing to do with it. And unless one reads avidly and broadly, it's easy to miss a lot.
I went to parochial private school [as I'd mentioned above], so Joan de' Arc was presented there as heroic both for her faith and courage as well as for her skill at arms and generalship.
Later on... Wilma Mankiller was a personal hero of mine.
Small wonder I grew up with a somewhat unpatriarchal view of what constitutes heroism, huh?
GlitchGirl wrote:
A book you might enjoy lectatege is "Monstrous Regiment" by Terry Pratchett - the story of a girl who joins the army disguised as a boy and her resulting adventures. Some very interstesting commentary on gender rolls and war as well.
Two others are Mercedes Lackey's "Oathbound" series, and J. F. Rifkin's "Silverglass" novels. Heroic adventure - and the heroes are both women. And extremely three-dimensional - not cardboard cutout characters.
lectatage wrote:
I am, and not just because it backs up my argument but because Hollwood and TV are for most women in the West the main forms of storytelling, and therefore important.
That's a pity. That says more negative about western women and our culture than it does about Hollywierd.
Here's a question for you: Was Leigh Brackett male or female?
lectatage wrote:
Now here's a thought : Women have a lot of sexual power over men (or so I'm told, she said modestly), so whereas its OK for pre-pubertal and early teen (i.e. non-sexual) girls to have "male" heroic strength, for a woman to have those "masculine" atrributes as well as her natural sexual powers is just that wee bit too scary for mainstream storytelling.
I do have to say that in the real world it doesn't seem to put real men off though so go figure.
It doesn't seem to, does it? I like women who're both tough and feminine. So do a lot of men I know. Go figure.
electranaut wrote:
Such people are regarded as heroes these days, of course, but in the context of the time they were branded otherwise by their rulers. Much the same holds true today; if you are anti-Iraq-war or a May Day rioter you will receive the same hostility from the establishment. History may judge differently.
Just as a "fer instance": if the British had won and crushed the American Revolution, can you imagine how history would have treated Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Payne, and Hamilton? Or how it would have treated Benedict Arnold differently?
Heh. Or if Santa Anna had won... would Travis, Bowie, and Crockett be remembered as heroes or villians? ;]
Side Note: Those who're anti-Iraq-war or a May Day rioters don't recieve hostility just from the establishment.
***********************************************
*sigh* Coming up on Store Update day, and I may not be able to get back to this for a day or so. A pity - this is a cool thread. _________________ "I'd add a legitimate comment here, but that would mean reading everything, which I have no patience for." - Slynky
Alien did indeed quite break the mould with Ripley as hero and, in cinematic terms at least, hasn't really been followed to the same extent. Probably one of the keys to this, however, is that the original script (Dan O'Bannon's, before everyone else got at it) was written with a note at the top explaining that the roles were expressly written to be interchangeable for either male or female characters. .
That explains an awful lot!
Regarding Aliens I did get that whole 'both mothers protecting their young' irony and I'm not saying that the introduction of that theme did not give the film greater depth (although also quite a few icky cute moments )
However I think that if they had made Ripley male, that whole aspect (for better or worse) would have been underplayed, because at the end of the day, in fiction, male heroes do not seem to need the same amount of justification to behave aggressively, for their actions to be acceptable, as a female hero does (particularly if the aggression is extreme)
With a woman it has to be personal.
Which is a bit of an insult to men when you think about it.
electranaut wrote:
As for the third installment, a full critical breakdown of the intent of the film is somewhat non-applicable.... This is because the script was still being written whilst shooting.
That also explains a lot !
electranaut wrote:
Riding off into the sunset is viable, but would have been dramatically unsatisfying..
And when has that ever stopped Hollywood?
Besides even if Sigourney Weaver had wanted out they didn't have to kill her character off - look at the Bond series - how many different actors have they had now?
No, Watson, it won't do, it won't do at all...
Nevertheless, a very interesting and informative post Electranaut.
[quote="Ironbear]] Something that stuck in my mind to this day long long after the name or author of the book has faded were accounts of setteler women at Jamestown and Boonesborough and elsewhere grabbing Kentucky or Hawken rifles and defending their families and homes from marauders [both white and red] and wild beasts while the men were away elsewhere.[/quote]
It is interesting how women are allowed - nay encouraged to be equal when force of circumstance requires it - its the Rosie the Riveter phenomonen
Of course when their presence is no longer required there is usually a backlash movement to get them back to a more subordinate position. but its so hard to keep them down on the farm now that they've seen Paree...
[quote="Ironbear] unless one reads avidly and broadly, it's easy to miss a lot..[/quote]
You won't find me disagreeing with that. Unfortunately even in the developed world most people do not read either avidly or broadly which is why mainstream fiction/media is so influential in shaping the world view of the majority, and why it is important that good examples are available to all, not just those with an interest in learning or a private education.
Quote:
]I went to parochial private school [as I'd mentioned above], so Joan de' Arc was presented there as heroic both for her faith and courage as well as for her skill at arms and generalship...
I know this is largely irrelevant to the argument so skip this paragraph if you like but I do not welcome Joan of Arc as a role model. So far as I am concerned she was a violent deluded religious zealot - and the world has quite enough of that sort of thing at the moment n'est ce pas?
Thanks for the tips on Lackey and Rifkin - I will endeavour to find them in the library. Let no man say I do not read avidly and broadly.
Quote:
]
lectatage wrote:
I am, and not just because it backs up my argument but because Hollwood and TV are for most women in the West the main forms of storytelling, and therefore important.
That's a pity. That says more negative about western women and our culture than it does about Hollywierd..
True, but women are just folks and there is no reason to expect them to be any better than men in this regard.
Leigh Brackett is female I believe.
Last edited by lectatege on Wed Jul 26, 2006 4:56 am; edited 1 time in total
It doesn't seem to, does it? I like women who're both tough and feminine. So do a lot of men I know. Go figure.
By presenting 'tough' and 'feminine' as two seperate qualities you make it sound as if toughness is essentially not a feminine quality - a bit like me saying that I like men who are both brave and masculine?
I would like to make a distinction between reading real life accounts of heroic women and fictional tales.
Now, you might think that the real life accounts would be more influential on young minds but from what I have read (and please don't make me quote chapter and verse for it Bear because I can't without trawling through two years worth of New Scientist) children generally take their cue from fictional stereotypes more than real life - even their own experience - thus little boys in the study insisted that women 'didn't' drive even though their own mothers drove them to school every day.
I know intellectually that women are as gutsy as men (and hell, you don't need much of an intellect for that!) so reading factual (as opposed to dramatised and thus fictionalised) accounts of Elizabeth I, Annie Bonnie or whoever does not take me any further forward (although it is of interest in its own right naturally)
No - what I feel is missing for adult women is the emotional affirmation of that fact - which I believe is only available through story telling,
Which I think is where I came in... _________________ A broken stereotype is a beautiful thing
I was going to suggest that the answer to whether Leigh Brackett was male or female could once have been obtained by asking her husband, but I'm too late.
I'm not sure mountaineers or motorcycle racers are heroic. Shouldn't heroism by definition benefit someone else?
As for the gender-in-entertainment question, from reading the posts above I've synthesised the title of my new mega-hit media project, which will satisfy both sides: Hard Pink.
IMP. _________________ RIVER: skin on the outside. First chapter FREE from www.ianmpalmer.com
Yes, palmers, I agree about the true meaning of heroism being for the benefit of others- I'm using the term in in its broadest possible sense. Another oft-used sense of the word is to describe a battling sufferer of some illness as a hero. Again, that's not a strictly true definition but it seems to stand. What I'm saying is that we- as a society- often ascribe a sense of the heroic to someone who overcomes any kind of struggle to acheive an aim and that inspiration in itself could well drive others on to acheive more widely felt benefits.
Quote:
Side Note: Those who're anti-Iraq-war or a May Day rioters don't recieve hostility just from the establishment.
You're right Ironbear, I picked a couple of rather poor examples, but you got my drift anyway
That didn't take as long to finish as I thought. Short update. Ok, back - did I miss anything important?
lectatege wrote:
Unfortunately even in the developed world most people do not read either avidly or broadly
That's their problem. It's too bad, but there's a wealth of information out there available freely - if they don't take advantage of it, there's no reason for anyone to tailor down to the lowest common denomionator of the willfully ignorant.
lectatege wrote:
which is why mainstream fiction/media is so influential in shaping the world view of the majority, and why it is important that good examples are available to all, not just those with an interest in learning or a private education.
From each according to their talents, and to each according to their lack of ability and interest?
You can lead an ass to the library, but it doesn't do much good if all it does is eat the bookcovers.
lectatege wrote:
I know this is largely irrelevant to the argument so skip this paragraph if you like but I do not welcome Joan of Arc as a role model.
Then don't emulate her?
lectatege wrote:
True, but women are just folks and there is no reason to expect them to be any better than men in this regard.
Why not?
lectatege wrote:
By presenting 'tough' and 'feminine' as two seperate qualities you make it sound as if toughness is essentially not a feminine quality - a bit like me saying that I like men who are both brave and masculine?
And you were doing so good at contexts before. I could have spelled out "physically tough/strong/muscular", but I assumed it in the context. My bad.
Toughness is essentially not a feminine quality. It is essentially not a male quality, either. Bravery is essentially not a female or male quality - using "essentially" as "integral to" in context. And this time I'm going to state specifically both mental and physical toughness.
"Fop" and "foppish" for males predates "metrosexual" long before the advent of modern media and mass entertainment. Masculine isn't even neccessarily an integral male quality. An' it were, languages wouldn't contain words that denote it as an adjective: "male" would suffice if they were fully synonymous and always inclusive.
"Female" and "male" define plumbing. Traits define masculinity and feminininty.
So yes: I used them seperately for a reason. There are women who're not physically tough, strong, muscular or athletic. There are women who are not mentally and emotionally tough. There are women who're both or one or the other.
There are also males for whom both are true, but I'm not attracted to males [using "like" as euphemistic for "attracted to" in the context of mine and electranaut's exchange], so it wasn't needed to be pointed out.
Apologies if that comes across as especially acerbic, but based on previous exchanegs, I suspectt hat you knew exactly what I meant and the context in which I meant it, and were quibbling merely to quibble.
lectatege wrote:
No - what I feel is missing for adult women is the emotional affirmation of that fact - which I believe is only available through story telling,
[Inclusive of the entire post, but I only grabbed the money quote]
We don't learn from the real life examples of the best and worst of our kind?
Then we're doomed as a species, and nasty brutish and short is the best we can expect of the future of our existance.
It's fortunate that I don't neccessarily accept New Scientist studies as authoritative when they contradict my own experience and observation, or I would find that concept depressing. And no, I won't make you quote chapter and verse: I have New Scientist.com bokmarked and can look them up if needed. _________________ "I'd add a legitimate comment here, but that would mean reading everything, which I have no patience for." - Slynky
Unfortunately even in the developed world most people do not read either avidly or broadly
That's their problem. It's too bad, but there's a wealth of information out there available freely - if they don't take advantage of it, there's no reason for anyone to tailor down to the lowest common denomionator of the willfully ignorant.
I quibble with 'a wealth of information available freely' - have you seen the state of the local libraries in the poorer parts of the UK? And believe it or not, not everyone has free access to the internet over here either. But let them eat cake...
And I'm not talking about dumbing down either; to present information in an accessible and easily understandable form does not necessarily involve a drop in quality - do you think that the Bible should only be available in Latin or the original Greek and Hebrew?
Ironbear wrote:
From each according to their talents, and to each according to their lack of ability and interest?
You can lead an ass to the library, but it doesn't do much good if all it does is eat the bookcovers.
And you can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think!
You were lucky Ironbear, you had a father who was a remarkable man in his own person, and who knew the value of education - maybe you would have made it anyway, who knows?
But would you condemn a child to a life of poverty and ignorance because its parents were poor and ignorant?
There are few, very few people who have the wit and determination to raise themselves out of the mire without encouragement in some form or another - do you believe that the rest are beyond redemption? If a man is drowning do you refuse to throw him a line because he hasn't learned how to swim, or if he doesn't see the line or misses it a few times do you then walk away?
Quite apart from any other moral considerations it is a shocking waste of human potential, which cannot be good for society as a whole.
Ironbear wrote:
lectatege wrote:
I know this is largely irrelevant to the argument so skip this paragraph if you like but I do not welcome Joan of Arc as a role model.
Then don't emulate her?
Well, I have been hearing these voices saying "Go on the Animotions site, Lectatege, and show them the error of their ways"...
Maybe its time for my medication again...
Ironbear wrote:
lectatege wrote:
True, but women are just folks and there is no reason to expect them to be any better than men in this regard.
Why not?.
Because we have enough on our hands with keeping ourselves delapidated and botoxed without taking on any additional responsibilities thank you so very much.
Ironbear wrote:
Apologies if that comes across as especially acerbic, but based on previous exchanegs, I suspectt hat you knew exactly what I meant and the context in which I meant it, and were quibbling merely to quibble.?
Me? Quibble for the sake of quibbling? Ironbear, you wound me...
No, (lol) it doesn't come accross as particularly acerbic, and I was sure you didn't mean it that way, but it can bear that interpretation and it is these little assumptions that get under the radar and inform the general mindset.
Sorry, I appear to be gibbering a bit there.
Ironbear wrote:
We don't learn from the real life examples of the best and worst of our kind?
No, not unless we are also somehow emotionally engaged - rational considerations have very little influence on our decision making, that is why history is always repeating itself, both on a personal and a global level.
If that were not the case all adverts would be rows of statistics instead of the wonderful works of art that they undoubtedly are.
Ironbear wrote:
Then we're doomed as a species, and nasty brutish and short is the best we can expect of the future of our existance.
Not if we have stories. _________________ A broken stereotype is a beautiful thing
Joined: May 31, 2002 Posts: 638 Location: Planet Mongo
Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:39 am Post subject: Re: Heroes.
The Female of the Species
When the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
He shouts to scare the monster who will often turn aside.
But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail,
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
When Nag, the wayside cobra, hears the careless foot of man,
He will sometimes wriggle sideways and avoid it if he can,
But his mate makes no such motion where she camps beside the trail -
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws -
'Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale -
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
Man's timid heart is bursting with the things he must not say,
For the Woman that God gave him isn't his to give away;
But when hunter meets with husband, each confirms the others tale -
The female of the species is more deadly than the male.
Man, a bear in most relations, worm and savage otherwise,
Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise;
Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact
To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.
Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low,
To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe.
Mirth obscene diverts his anger; Doubt and Pity oft perplex
Him in dealing with an issue - to the scandal of the Sex!
But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame
Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same,
And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,
The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.
She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast
May not deal in doubt or pity - must not swerve for fact or jest.
These be purely male diversions - not in these her honor dwells -
She, the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else!
She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate;
And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim
Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.
She is wedded to convictions - in default of grosser ties;
Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him, who denies!
He will meet no cool discussion, but the instant, white-hot wild
Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.
Unprovoked and awful charges - even so the she-bear fights;
Speech that drips, corrodes and poisons - even so the cobra bites;
Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw,
And the victim writhes with anguish - like the Jesuit with the squaw!
So it comes that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer
With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her
Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands
To some God of abstract justice - which no woman understands.
And Man knows it! Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him
Must command but may not govern; shall enthrall but not enslave him.
And She knows, because She warns him and Her instincts never fail,
That the female of Her species is more deadly than the male!
I quibble with 'a wealth of information available freely' - have you seen the state of the local libraries in the poorer parts of the UK? And believe it or not, not everyone has free access to the internet over here either. But let them eat cake...
Quibble all you want. Internet access's not available for free everywheres here, either. And there's still a wealth of information available for the taking. If someone is hungry for knowledge, they'll find a way to get access.
If someone can afford a TV, the Uk's television lisence, movies, comics, and DvDs... they can afford books and an internet connection. It's a matter of choices.
If they can't... then they're not going to have much access to your mainstream media infusion, will they?
The key phrase is "willfully ignorant". Someone who isn't hungry for it won't take advantage if it's laid out in front of them.
lectatage wrote:
And I'm not talking about dumbing down either; to present information in an accessible and easily understandable form does not necessarily involve a drop in quality
I didn't mention dumbing down the information at all. The "lowest common denominator" refers to those who will barely intake information when it's presented in the form of sitcoms, never mind seeking it out.
lectatege wrote:
You were lucky Ironbear, you had a father who was a remarkable man in his own person, and who knew the value of education - maybe you would have made it anyway, who knows?
But would you condemn a child to a life of poverty and ignorance because its parents were poor and ignorant?
There are few, very few people who have the wit and determination to raise themselves out of the mire without encouragement in some form or another - do you believe that the rest are beyond redemption? If a man is drowning do you refuse to throw him a line because he hasn't learned how to swim, or if he doesn't see the line or misses it a few times do you then walk away?
I was given examples. Following up on them was entirely up to my own determination. People condemn themselves, or determine to strive for something else. I'll repeat the exact quote I responded to:
lectatege wrote:
which is why mainstream fiction/media is so influential in shaping the world view of the majority, and why it is important that good examples are available to all, not just those with an interest in learning or a private education.
You are making a mistake here: while it serves that purpose on occassion, poorly, it's not the primary task of popular entertainment to educate or enlighten - that's a task it does poorly. It's the task of entertainment to entertain. [Strictly speaking, it's the task of modern popular entertainment to sell products - entertainment is a secondray consideration at best. Education is a poor third cousin if that.]
I'll resist the temptation to exapnd on this and merely note in passing that our loss of some traditional roles costs us: to enlighten and infuse knowledge is the traditional role of the Bard, not the entertainer, and popular and mainstream fiction/media serves even the task of the entertainer poorly.
Without an interest in learning, the content of popular media has little bearing. Infusing the interest in learning is a task that comes from elsewhere. Once it's acquired, people will find a way to that wealth of information. Without that - they won't even if it's spoonfed to them.
Mainstream media isn't throwing someone a line. You have to throw them the line of an interest in learning long before.
Mainstream media and fiction's failings are the symptom. The disease starts elsewhere, and the cure starts elsewhere. Mainstream media reflects failings elsewhere in the system - it doesn't cause them.
lectatage wrote:
Well, I have been hearing these voices saying "Go on the Animotions site, Lectatege, and show them the error of their ways"...
When were you planning to start?
lectatage wrote:
Because we have enough on our hands with keeping ourselves delapidated and botoxed without taking on any additional responsibilities thank you so very much.
That's why I grew a beard. Giving up shaving gave me more time to read.
lectatage wrote:
Not if we have stories.
I noticed you sidestepped the entirety of the substance of the last several paragraphs. I'll return the favor in kind.
Hasdrubal channeling Kipling wrote:
That the female of Her species is more deadly than the male!
Depends on the female, and the male. ;] _________________ "I'd add a legitimate comment here, but that would mean reading everything, which I have no patience for." - Slynky
All times are GMT - 7 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4Next
Page 3 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Profile
Search
Memberlist
Log in to check your private messages
Usergroups
FAQ & TOS
Log in
So as a consequence, I read *LOTS* of historical accounts of the mountain men, and the settling of the American contnent, including various treatments of the indian wars. Almost all of them non-fiction [most fictional westerns were too formulaic to keep my interest even as an 8 year old...], almost all of them "politically incorrect" by today's standards. ;]
