Seanan McGuire (seanan_mcguire) wrote,
Seanan McGuire
seanan_mcguire

  • Mood:
  • Music:

Body Bag Blondes: Why I Break Up With Stories.

This is a topic that's been sitting in my rolling note file for a while, waiting both for the sting of the event that triggered it to fade, and for the actual event to recede far enough into the past that even a vague description wouldn't trigger a big red SPOILERS sign. So you know, it took more than two years. That's a long time, even for me.

I watch a lot of television, read a lot of books, and buy a lot of comics. I am a huge consumer of media of all types. And, like many consumers of media, I'm looking for characters I can relate to. For me, yes, that usually means the females* (although not always). And yeah, it bothers me that in a narrative with eight males and one female, it's frequently the female who will be the target of violence or killed off to make a point.

Now, I'm not saying that female characters should have a "get out of mortal injury free" card, nor that they should be immortal. But there's "everyone in this story gets the crap kicked out of them on a regular basis, it was Karen's turn," and then there's "mysteriously, every male character survives the explosion unscathed, again, but Karen is in the hospital, again." Or, even worse, "all the guys are fine, Karen's dead, meet Katie." Karen, in this scenario, was probably a replacement for Kelly, who replaced Kendra back in season one. And the beat rolls on.

I am not saying that all things must have absolute gender equality. Big Bang Theory was a primarily male cast for the first several seasons, and that was fine. H2O: Just Add Water was a primarily female cast for its entire run, and that was fine, too. Sometimes, there are situations where it makes sense for it to be mostly one gender or the other. But this is a "sometimes" thing, not a "four times out of five" thing. If there's no pressing reason for a character to be one gender or the other, why not try striking a balance? One of the only things that's ever disappointed me about Leverage is the way that the "evil doubles" of all the main characters have been male. Male thief, male hitter, male hacker, male mastermind. When your core cast is so well-balanced, why not make your Mirror Universe equally well-balanced?

(Yes, we have seen another female grifter, but as she was brought in to essentially be a replacement Sophie while Gina Bellman was pregnant, she's a bit of a different duck, and she wasn't brought in when they needed an alternate team. Which is too bad, because she's awesome.)

And now to the event that caused me to start thinking these things so critically:

Once upon a time there was a show, and it was made for me. It could not have been better tailored to my tastes if the producers had been bugging my phone. I loved it without reservation, even though the cast was almost purely male, and I defended it from accusations of misogyny. It was my show.

Time passed, and more female characters were introduced. They didn't become core cast, but that was okay; there were natural limits on the number of core cast members, and I was happy with the expanded universe. It made things more realistic. And then things started getting bad in that expanded universe. How could they make us, the viewers, understand how bad things were?

By killing all the female characters who had appeared in more than one episode, naturally. And by doing it in a way that was meant to be "heroic," but involved them failing to navigate a scenario that left the male characters entirely untouched.

I cried until I was sick after that episode. I turned off the show. I never went back. Literally never; I haven't watched so much as a preview since that narrative decision was made. Was I overreacting? Maybe. But there is so much media out there these days, so many stories, that once you make me cry for reasons that are not "this is so moving and tragic," but are instead, "this is so unfair and infuriating," we're over, you and I.

And that, right there, is when a story loses me. When they use the female characters as a shortcut to emotional anguish; when they kill or maim the women because that's easier than setting up a genuinely and realistically painful scenario. Especially since we almost always start out with a severe gender imbalance in genre or action shows, and that means that killing the token woman can leave us with an all-male cast.

Bones, which I adore, has a rotating cast of interns, only one of whom is female. When they had to kill an intern last season, it wasn't her. I cried like a baby over the death they chose; the intern they killed was my second favorite among the available choices. But it didn't make me angry the way it would have if they'd chosen Daisy. Why? Because killing the woman is so often viewed as the "cheap and easy" choice that I wouldn't have been able to focus on the tragedy through my anger.

Again, I am not saying "never kill the woman." Veronica Mars is one of my favorite shows ever, and they started off by killing Lilly Kane. NCIS, which I also adore, killed off a central female character very early in their run. But both shows killed their characters in a way that made sense for the show, and did not reduce her to an emotional red stamp. "We need this to hurt, so kill the girl." You need to kill the character, not "kill the girl." If you can do that, you'll keep me. If you can't, you'll lose me. And I am not the only one you'll lose.

I find it a little fascinating that women make up such a large percentage of the audience for these stories, but we're still the ones who die when the monster comes, to prove that the threat is real. I'd like to see it change.

And I still miss Lilly.

(*I don't say "women" because I watch a lot of science fiction, and a lot of cartoons and teen dramas. So "girls" is often accurate, as is "blue lizard people of the egg-laying gender.")
Tags: contemplation, cranky blonde is cranky, too much tv
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 188 comments
Previous
← Ctrl ← Alt
Next
Ctrl → Alt →
I don't watch much TV. Because of that, I have no freaking idea what show we're talking about. If it wouldn't be a violation of Seanan's LJ Etiquette, could someone please tell me so I can avoid it?
I second this motion.

naamah_darling

5 years ago

If you're talking about SPN, it wasn't the reason I lost interest - that happened far earlier - but it was the reason that when I went back to catch up on Castiel, I never really managed to warm up to the show. It's a pity in the sense that a show about urban legends and folktales in the US would be an interesting concept, but I think it would need to be done very differently (as would a show on working class people, be it all genders, or male-centric).
Agreed. It makes me want to see Sparrow Hill Road on television.

alicetheowl

5 years ago

jadis17

5 years ago

wee_warrior

5 years ago

I tend to hide under a rock from most television until someone sits down and starts binge-watching a show with me. (Excepting Doctor Who.) The recent exception has been Warehouse 13, which is refreshingly balanced and hasn't had spontaneous female body count yet! Fingers crossed. I'm still working through first season.

When I expanded my mediacrit goggles to also track how PoC are represented a few years ago, I just about went blind. Even Warehouse 13, which is otherwise good, the single-episode Black (or Asian or Native) guy gets it left, right, and center. I can't even ragequit without going on a complete media fast, because I can't find any shows that aren't doing it.
I agree with ALL OF THIS. A lot would be solved if they just gave Leena stuff to do!

gement

5 years ago

branna

5 years ago

seanan_mcguire

5 years ago

Are you talking about Supernatural? I thought that had been noted as NOT being the show you were talking about, but now I'm confused. I don't want a huge amount of TV, but the shows I do watch are ones I watch in their entirety. I would definitely like to know which show you are talking about. :}

I recently marathoned through most of Supernatural (haven't watched the most recent season) and I loved it. I did ponder the issue of gender and the show since there really were few major recurring female characters. At the same time, the show really is FOR women, and not just because of the fan service the boys offer. The relationship between the brothers is what really drives the show. It's one of the reasons why I don't think any of the female characters they tried ever really worked in the long run. I never really got angry at their treatment of female characters. Maybe that makes me a bad feminist, but ... *shrug* I loved the show for the relationship between the brothers and its ability to poke fun at itself.
I am.

And I don't know. It bothers me a lot that "the show is for women" gets used to excuse having no female characters at all. How many times do we use "the show is for men" to excuse having no male characters? Because that doesn't seem to happen.

I don't think any one thing makes anyone a bad feminist; you'll note that I didn't say "this is the show I mean and you need to stop watching RIGHT NOW." It was just problematic for me.

orikes13

5 years ago

seanan_mcguire

5 years ago

branna

5 years ago

boojum

5 years ago

gement

5 years ago

beable

5 years ago

tiferet

5 years ago

I am at something of a disadvantage in general discussions of this kind by virtue of being cable/satellite-challenged; I simply haven't seen a lot of the genre fare that's available primarily via Syfy/BBC America/etc. That said:

Where Supernatural is concerned, I watched the first handful of episodes and promptly lost interest for reasons mostly unrelated to gender issues. My problem was that the series appeared to be designed as high-intensity hurt/comfort, except that it was nearly all hurt and not much comfort. And all indications were that things were never going to get any better, because the entire premise of the series seemed to be "how much can we torture Our Heroes this week?"

Not being into character torture for its own sake, I bailed. And everything I've heard about the series' ongoing plot arcs since then seems to indicate that my initial perception was accurate.

The only other series from which I've gotten something of the same "vibe" -- although here I'm working almost entirely from secondhand online reports and one or two tie-in novels -- is the original BBC incarnation of Torchwood, although in that instance I'd substitute angst for torture as the prime descriptor (thus, "how much angst can we inflict on Our Heroes this week?"). But because I've seen virtually no onscreen content, that may be a distinctly unreliable conclusion. And I do know that Torchwood's treatment of gender relations is a good deal more liberal -- at least in some respects. (I have seen John Bowerman's Jack Harkness character by way of some of his Doctor Who appearances....)
Torchwood was the only other show I dropped for making me cry until I threw up.

hoppytoad79

5 years ago

seanan_mcguire

5 years ago

hoppytoad79

5 years ago

gement

5 years ago

seanan_mcguire

5 years ago

thedragonweaver

5 years ago

tiferet

5 years ago

micheinnz

5 years ago

knittingwoman

5 years ago

tiferet

5 years ago

jenfullmoon

February 1 2012, 21:11:42 UTC 5 years ago Edited:  February 1 2012, 21:12:07 UTC

Much as I agree with the "disposable female" stuff on Supernatural...at this point it seems like almost every regular character has died, and only the two guys on contract have remained. Every male character seems to be disposable as well by now.

RIP Bobby and Castiel.

I know by the very concept of the show (2 loners on the road constantly) means that (a) you can't have too many regulars and (b) almost everyone is going to die permanently at some point except for S&D, but it still gets aggravating.
Yeah.

beable

5 years ago

Come to think of it, that is about when I quit watching the show in question too. Bad things were happening for the sake of bad things, instead of real plot advancement, and I wasn't willing to slog through it.

As a balm for the episode in question, which I think it takes a little of the sting away, there is a fanmade video I found very comforting. The boys barely appear, and the women's deaths--really, their lives-- are framed as incredibly couragous sacrifice. So you know, what it should have been if the writers were going to do it at all.

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9WzQIrP9Zc
Thank you for this.
I also know which show you're referring to and now I know why you dropped it, which I have been wondering for years.
My patience, she is not infinite.
Man I wish they brought the lady hitter back on Leverage when they had that team-up episode :(

A point in their favour, though: apparently they had a choice between a dude and a lady character to kill at the end of last season, and flatly refused to kill the lady.
And that is awesome.

As is your Olivia icon.
Uhm. Oddly enough, this is something a friend of mine who just read Feed and Deadline picked up as a point she didn't like about those two books - that it felt like "kill the girl" territory. It wasn't my original thought about them, but I can see why she might think that.
OH GOD YES.

Part of why I insisted on a blatantly female pseudonym was that I looked at Feed and went "holy crap all the girls." But I was never killing women to cause male pain. I was killing characters to serve the story. I didn't mean for there to be so many dead girls. :( On the other hand...how many genre shows could have that many dead girls, because how many would have that many girls to kill?

hoppytoad79

5 years ago

branna

5 years ago

hoppytoad79

5 years ago

tiferet

5 years ago

seanan_mcguire

5 years ago

Oh Supernatural why do you fail your ladies so hard?
When you visit every single female character that has appeared more than once only to kill them, or make them evil(and then kill them.) There is nothing more you can say to me to make me stay. Not even Misha Collins or Mark Shepard is enough.

I left at the end of that season, and it was relentlessly awful. It did not redeem itself at all.
Sadly, we are not alone.

Deleted comment

Yeah, that one was fun to write. And filled me with hate.
And now I'm dying to know which show you're referring to.

That said, the situation you describe is familiar to me, but for different reasons. I defended Battlestar Galactica until I was blue in the face, furious at people who did nothing but bitch when they watched the show. And then the second half of the last season happened, and it felt like a smack in the face. All this time, I thought the show knew what it was doing, and in that last half of the last season, I realized the show had no idea. Worse, I had better ideas for how to wrap it up, and from that point on, I decided I wouldn't defend a show again, no matter how much I loved it. :-/
I was at a party where Ron Moore basically admitted that some of the really nonsensical stuff he did with BSG was stuff that he'd been wanting and waiting to do until he had creative control on a show and they couldn't stop him. (He was drunk off his ass, but I don't feel I'm revealing a confidence because they did a podcast at that party and there were about 25 people there, only two of whom knew him well.) Some of it was stuff he'd literally dreamed. I remembered thinking that that was how I plotted for an RPG I was writing for at the time but that if I was being paid millions of dollars to do it I think I would have planned a little better. That was why the mnemonic key for the Final Five was "All Along The Watchtower" which made no sense at all. (After I found that out, I used quotes from that song in the OOC journal because that's my perverse sense of humour there.)

calico_reaction

5 years ago

tiferet

5 years ago

calico_reaction

5 years ago

seanan_mcguire

5 years ago

calico_reaction

5 years ago

YES THIS.

One of the things that makes me rage about this is that it's BUILT INTO THE STRUCTURE OF OUR STORYTELLING. As a culture, we're used to constructing stories around straight white able male main characters, and then adding in the diversity around the edges--which means when a show/book/movie needs a character to kill off, the women, characters of color, and nonstraight are right there in the line of fire.

I remember reading that, when it came time to write The Killing Joke (the Batman storyline where the Joker shoots Barbara Gordon through the spine and paralizes her so as to cause Commissioner Gordon and Batman pain), the reason they picked Batgirl to cripple was because she was the only Batfamily character who wasn't in some way holding up part of the story by herself. She was the only one unnecessary for the continuation of the titles. Because that's how she'd been written, on the edges, for the last twenty years.

Thank god for John Ostrander and Kim Yale, who created Oracle from the ashes.

It's something I'm always aware of when I'm looking at the cast of a series story--whether it's tv or books or comics. If the only women (characters of color, disabled, queer, poor, etc) are at the edges of the narrative, or there's only a token presence in the main cast . . . then I have to decide if it's worth the potential heartbreak. Because I know who'll hit the chopping block when the time comes, and I try to spare myself that kind of mental anguish.
...ugh.

Just ugh.

muddlewait

5 years ago

Spot on. The gender imbalance bothers me, too, and it seems like too many of the women in shows, movies, comic books, etc. end up being eye candy in need of rescuing by Brave, Strong Men. I like that Doctor Who left that (mostly) in the past when Uncle Rusty got it going again in '05.

I got into NCIS largely after Kate was killed, but I remember some of that and I like that the writing focused on the fact that a valued member of the team was lost and gender was irrelevant. If DiNozzo or McGee had been killed instead, I've no doubt it would have been handled much the same way.
Agreed.
That Show also treats black men the same way it treats women--killing them off just so the white male leads can suffer beautifully about it. Argh.
I really wanted to see Henricksen take up the life after his abrupt initiation into the truth of how things were, and of course they killed him right after. I still do not know why I did not see that one coming.

gwynnega

5 years ago

tiferet

5 years ago

seanan_mcguire

5 years ago

I love you, Seanan, for saying and explaining these thing so clearly. I'm right there with you.

I love you, too, and there's plenty of room.
I like how in Warehouse 13, in one of the first season episodes, Mika and Pete get in a car accident, and in both her fantasy and the reality, Mika woke up before Pete did, and Pete was more badly hurt than she was.
I also like that Warehouse 13 has a lot of awesome female characters, like Claudia. Also, that's a show that knows how to kill characters in realistic, sensible ways instead of going for the easy shot.

Out of curiosity, which show did you love so much until they killed off all the women?

I want to see a show that takes all these sexist tropes and reverses them, so it's a mostly-female cast where the token men are sex objects that get hurt and/or killed for stupid reasons, things like "all the women are fine but the men are in comas" and basically treat the male characters as subhuman and watch the outrage come pouring in, then comment "Don't like it much, do you?"

With that in mind, it occurs to me that in my main fantasy novel I'm working on, the main character, a sorceress, never gets injured (though she does almost die at one point from going WAY past her power limits), but the male character whose perspective we see most of the story from is often to be found getting injured. I was already thinking of hurting him some more, since he's only just beginning to learn magic, but now I'm even more sure I want him to be a frequent visitor to the infirmary.
Oh yeah, and in the same series there's a rival sorcerer (male) who is a rather incompetent ass.

Heh, there's a lot of "subverting the dominant tropes" going on in that novel of mine. It's basically a serious drama that pokes fun at the common tropes/plots/patterns of high fantasy. For instance, I'm planning to have a "the one man destined to play a key role in defeating evil" get killed and revived about half a dozen times, losing his nerve, and running away, never to be heard from again.
I started that series because I got really fucking bored with high fantasy, since all their plots are nearly identical.
Supernatural.

fayanora

5 years ago

I rarely watch any tv shows, don't even have cable or any substitute right now. But we did watch Veronica Mars back in the day, that was an amazing show.
Agreed.
I am still watching that show, but ... I guess "grudgingly" is the right word. And I've utterly stopped defending it against accusations of misogyny, because, well, yeah.
Yeah.

Having just re-watched all of Veronica Mars in the past month (I was sick with a plague after Arisia, and spent a weekend on my couch watching season 1 of VM and half of season 2, and then felt this need for completeness and watched through the remaining season and a half over the next week and a half), I miss Lilly too.

Season 1 remains my favourite of Veronica MArs, largely because it was a mystery that had the most emotional resonance with me, and because Lilly was fabulous.

I still love the video Logan made for her memorial.

Me, too. On all counts.
I had given up on the show way earlier, but I recall a friend who was a huge fan begging me to give it a second chance, and there was promo saying people would die, and pictures of the six characters. I told her if it wasn't the two women who died of the six, I'd watch the show forever. I was sad my promise was not redeemed, even though I really did not want to watch--I just didn't want to be proved right more. Sigh and alackaday. We'll always have Paris, by which I mean Veronica Mars.
No, I'm totally with you there. Not wanting to go back doesn't mean I wanted to hear how much worse things had gotten. And things have gotten worse.
I'm suddenly reminded of a fascinating article I read about female-centered folklore, specifically about an alternate form of the hero's journey that shows up in a lot of female-centered heroic folk tales. The trope is called—I kid you not— The Armless Maiden. (Link goes to the article in question, which has a breakdown of the form of the tale.)

When I first read the title, I thought, "I've never heard of this fairy tale, and I am very into them." When I read the article, I realized that I had, actually; even the Andrew Lang color-coded fairy tale books have one. But the notable thing is that most cultures have them, and the tale involves the quite literal loss of hands or arms. The fact that the girl wins them back later does not negate the fact that cultures all over the globe made tales about women losing body parts as a matter of course. That's really disturbing, whether literal or symbolic.
Agreed.
I've been waiting for you to write about this for a long time, and I'm very glad you did. Thank you.
Very welcome.
I agree with your post. I agree about Leverage, however, I did want to point out that Elliot's double is a woman in the art theft episode that introduced Chaos. I know this is a tiny quibble, and they did recently double him with a man. It doesn't make your point any less valid, but I'm an annoying pendant lie that.
We have seen alts in other genders, but when they brought everyone back to be a "Mirror Universe," they only brought back the boys. One episode does not put you on equal footing with recurring characters who get favors and backstories.

gwyd

5 years ago

Previous
← Ctrl ← Alt
Next
Ctrl → Alt →