Representation in Culture: Women

[ferretchucker]

SO, as V recently took a step back with a view to having some new ideas crop up, I thought it might be fun to spark up some regular debates. For the time being I was thinking of looking at representations of different social groups within contemporary pop culture (music, film, art whatever)

Now, I thought I might as well start with women. No, this is hardly a new debate and yes, we in particular have had years of the "women in horror" discussions. Still, let's give it a go.

Of course - debate etiquette. By all means argue passionately but not personally. Keep it friendly, kids ;)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think my issue with this topic is that there is never and will never be a "solution". There is NO true, good, without-problem depiction of a woman possible in a film because the very nature of the art naturally leaves it open to interpretation.

Take Ripley, for example. Generally speaking she's thought of as a pretty good, unharmful, should-be-more-like-this woman of film. She begins the film with moderate power and is shown to be more intelligent than her superiors, and by no means passive. She survives to the end using her ingenuity and lives on to kick more ass in the future. So great, she's a wonderful woman of film! No damsel in distress, doesn't depend on a man, doesn't back down from arguments.

BUT, there is the counter argument that she is only powerful because she is masculinised. The qualities that ultimately save her and stop her from being subjugated are those typically associated with men. Even her clothes and make-up lack the typical (hate to use that word but can't think of a better one) femininity. Hell, the character WAS a man in the script! Just replacing the "him" with "her"s in the script doesn't make her a good woman, it makes her a man played by a woman...doesn't it?

This is my issue. The problem isn't that women supposedly only have power when they are made to be like men, the problem is that we as a culture have an image of a "standard man" and we can't get past it. Besides the physical aspects, we have this notion that qualities of sternness, emotional strength, willingness to fight etc. are "manly" qualities rather than just qualities that a person could have.

Granted, this IS how men have been portrayed in culture for years, but maybe if we just stopped talking about it as an aspect of being "male", we'd no longer think of it that way.

THEN there's the tin of worms Miley has opened. Is she objectifying herself, prostituting her body to appease the male fantasy in order to be loved and have worth - is she GIVING herself to men OR is she using her body to gain power over them? Who has the power?

In all honesty, I don't know. I just don't. I will not for a second deny that there isn't an awful lot of inherent sexism in our culture today and of course, there are the historical aspects of it - things that have stuck within the discourses of film. But equally I think a lot of the issue is that we keep on talking about it, poking holes and tearing apart any female figure for all of the "bad" ways she is depicting women. Is it always about gender? Could we equally not read Miley Cyrus' new persona as a harrowing idea of Americans or youths or all of the other social categories she fits into? Aren't people sometimes just people?

And only now do I realise the irony of my argument: "We all need to stop talking about sexism so much...so let's talk about sexism."

[Kandarian Demon]

Interesting debate :)

Well... I have a feeling I'm about to get in trouble :D

I'm a woman - who happens to be an anti-feminist, and very tired of the sexism debates. Not that I'm saying that sexism doesn't exist - although I am of the opinion that it goes both ways.

But I'm incredibly tired of how these "strong, independent woman" feels the need to whine and complain until they get their way - the protection they say they don't need - no matter how woman are portrayed in art and in the media. If there's not enough woman, they complain - if there is, they complain about how they're portrayed.

I agree with you - whatever they do to when they portray woman, it will be viewed as sexism. It's a game you just can't win.

Did anyone ever say "I really don't think it's ok how so many men are killed and tortured in horror movies and video games"? No... nobody even thinks about it, because that's what happens in a horror movie... people die! And although I don't have an actual statistic to prove my claim, I would say that far more male characters are victimized in horror movies. More often than not, the last survivor, the hero, is a woman.

I've also noticed how woman tend to get very excited when male characters - or even men in real life - have their private parts mutilated in one way or another."Teeth" was a COMEDY about a vagina with teeth, and I know for a fact that a lot of woman LOVED it. I don't recall that anyone ever questioned if the theme of the movie was ok or not... but I am pretty sure that if the story had been about a man who had the ability to mutilate the vaginas of woman... well, that movie would probably never have been made, would it!

And when it comes to the "objectification" of woman, uhh... what about all the girls who would eat Justin Bieber alive if he didn't have security? We have plenty of "eye candy" too, and it's socially acceptable for us to be very open and honest about it too. Men would be labelled as "sexist pigs" if they talked about female celebrities the way us girls talk about our male idols.

You can draw a parallel to how a man is a "pig who takes advantage of young woman" if he is in a loving relationship with a younger woman - but an older woman who is very open about how she picks up young men for sex? She's not an old pig, she's not taking advantage of anyone... she's a liberated, modern woman... a "cougar", a heroine, and she might even get her own reality show!

I know, I know... a typical argument is that "it's different because woman have it so hard"... but I find that a very, very bad excuse for having double standards.

I agree with you that "our" idea of what a "real man" or a "real hero" is, is pretty ridiculous - and I really see that as a form of sexism too. You guys seem to be stuck in a very stereotypical role, and at the same time, "we" woman can't make up our minds... one minute you have to be superheroes, and the next, you get bashed for being "cavemen". "Equality" is completely on our terms, and can be twisted and turned around whenever it's convenient for us.

Again, as a woman, I have to say this in response to how you described Ripley... as someone who "doesn't need a man" - what's wrong with needing a man sometimes? It's nature, and in many ways it's logical, as you are generally stronger than we are (with some expections), and are usually better at keeping a cool head. I'm not ashamed to say that I feel safer in the company of a man. It bothers me that us more "old-fashioned" woman are looked down upon in the name of "womans rights", and no matter what we say to defend ourselves, we're either "traitors" or "so brainwashed that we don't even know how much we really hate it". Where's my free choice, that's what I would like to know... I hate that feminists have taken away my right to be a woman, in the way that is feels right and natural for me. And I hate that they have the right to target me for trying anyway. I hate that when I speak my mind, they have the right to shut me up, to ban me, to delete me.

When woman whine about horror movies, video games etc. - when they want stuff banned, or scold and boycot the companies and creators for creating and releasing the material... what they don't realise is that what they're REALLY saying is "we're woman, we're so weak that we need protection from the media and from pop culture, and we need to have special rights"...

With true equality, we wouldn't give it a second thought. It's a horror movie - we're all equal - we'll all get killed :D

And I probably will be now, haha :D

[Sculpt]

I agree with pretty much everything you said. I think you are seeing things exactly as they are. In my understanding, there are masculine and feminine characteristics with men and women. They are very good. And I don't want to erase or blur them. Still loving people is the top priority.

Let me go ahead and continue with the topic we've percolated to the top which is gender issues, in and out of film.

I saw Alien a few times before I heard the role was written for a man. I still don't notice a difference. For the most part, I enjoy people "being themselves", as long as that doesn't include being immoral, unnecessarily hurting, taking advantage, lying and bullying people, whatever their sex.

As a Twentieth Century Western man, I suppose it's rather normal for me to accept women being 'tomboys' - enjoying things men do, joining men in most all activities, expecting to be treated with respect and fairly, and being assertive. I've heard sometimes it's other women who reject that more often. Of course, part of that may also be what I'm used to, and what I prefer.

At the same time, I don't know that I'll ever be comfortable with a women having a position of authority over me. I don't like it. I deal with the best I can. Although I didn't make all the rules of my society, I want my female loved ones to have the right to do any sort of moral work they want, are led to do, are good at. And so, that means at work, there may be a woman with authority over me. I demand every supervisor treat me with respect, but I no doubt am more sensitive to a woman abusing the authority by treating me with disrespect.

Generally speaking, I'm more uncomfortable with a man acting feminine. Why that's the case is good to consider and resolve; however I must act properly regardless. Compassion and moral reason keep my attitude and actions in righteousness -- that is, being loving: compassionate, respectful, accepting and willing to get to know and befriend. My source of love comes from God, and moral understanding from God/Christ/Bible/christian teaching. I've received learning from many sources.

In any film, I don't like seeing a woman threatened, scared, injured, raped, killed, etc, but neither do a like seeing it done to anyone/anything. But it's certainly possible I'm less tolerant of cruelty to those more innocent, children, animals, weaker, etc, and women. It's my duty to protect them. In film, I understand it's part of the story that has a narrative, it's going somewhere. I don't particularly like any story that isn't beneficial in some way. And so, if any film or story is merely cruelty, to anyone/anything, as some form of entertainment, I don't like it, and I'm not going to 'consume' nor accept it. There really isn't a gender issue there for me.

Ever since I was an adult, I didn't like gratuitous sexual nudity activity, for it's own sake, unnecessary for the story, in horror, or any film. That's also true for gore or violence. Anything detracting from the story annoys me. Objectifying anyone, when it's removing or diminishing their humanity, whether sexually or otherwise, male or female, is not a good thing. When it's done, we diminish ourselves and our loved ones, and corrupt our own character.

In a horror film, the story may require we understand something is killing people. Traditionally, it then affects the main characters. If the film doesn't have me care about the characters, it's a poorer film for it.

[Kandarian Demon]

As a Twentieth Century Western man, I suppose it's rather normal for me to accept women being 'tomboys' - enjoying things men do, joining men in most all activities, expecting to be treated with respect and fairly, and being assertive.

I can tell you from experience that that is very true! My theory - and it's only a theory - is that some woman feel threatened by another woman who is able to be "one of the guys", and see it as an unfair advantage (although believe me, being a tomboy is NOT the way to get a date!).

I also suspect that maybe, even if it's subconsiously, that is what bothers some of you guys who have a problem with feminine men, as you talked about in your post. I had a male friend once who was very effeminate. I didn't have the boundaries with him that I would normally have in the company of a man. We even shared a bed on a few occasions.

And I experienced on several occasions that men threatened or harrased him when we were walking down the street together - but more often than not, they seemed to be in a rage because I was by his side, and it seemed very important for them to point out to me that they were real men and he was not.

[Straker]

At the same time, I don't know that I'll ever be comfortable with a women having a position of authority over me. I don't like it.

That's kind've sad to be honest.... Besides, sometimes it can be fun. :cool:

Generally speaking, I'm more uncomfortable with a man acting feminine.

Why would you care either way how 'feminine' other men act as long as they aren't acting inappropriately towards you?


In any film, I don't like seeing a woman threatened, scared, injured, raped, killed, etc, but neither do a like seeing it done to anyone/anything. But it's certainly possible I'm less tolerant of cruelty to those more innocent, children, animals, weaker, etc, and women.

Usually in movies you aren't supposed to enjoy a rape scene, are you?

The other themes are all common in the horror genre too. I'm a little surprised you are able to watch horror movies at all considering a large proportion of them involve people being scared, injured, intimidated and killed at some point.

As for the actual topic, the main problem with society in general stems from a lack of positive female role models. The horror genre has always been fairly progressive in that regard, in that there are plenty of good examples of positive female characters. Obviously there are exceptions, but compared to other genres where you see a wide array of vacuous female characters who simply can't exist inside a movie without a male character, horror is probably ahead of the curve.

[Sculpt]

I can tell you from experience that that is very true! My theory - and it's only a theory - is that some woman feel threatened by another woman who is able to be "one of the guys", and see it as an unfair advantage (although believe me, being a tomboy is NOT the way to get a date!).

I also suspect that maybe, even if it's subconsiously, that is what bothers some of you guys who have a problem with feminine men, as you talked about in your post. I had a male friend once who was very effeminate. I didn't have the boundaries with him that I would normally have in the company of a man. We even shared a bed on a few occasions.

And I experienced on several occasions that men threatened or harrased him when we were walking down the street together - but more often than not, they seemed to be in a rage because I was by his side, and it seemed very important for them to point out to me that they were real men and he was not.
Interesting. I've never harassed a guy with a girl, boyfriend/girlfriend or otherwise. I don't have any desire to. That's not one of my faults.

Being envious or jealous of a feminine guy enjoying the company of a woman I'd like to have company with? I don't doubt I've experienced that. Again, I wouldn't threaten or harass a dude because of it. If they're not dating, then I really wouldn't care. I know how to be a friend, and I know there's an aspect of 'friend' that is the kiss of death to being 'more than friends'. If I just want to be friends with a woman, I don't feel restrained in pursuing that.

[Sculpt]

That's kind've sad to be honest.... Besides, sometimes it can be fun. :cool:

Why would you care either way how 'feminine' other men act as long as they aren't acting inappropriately towards you?

Usually in movies you aren't supposed to enjoy a rape scene, are you?

The other themes are all common in the horror genre too. I'm a little surprised you are able to watch horror movies at all considering a large proportion of them involve people being scared, injured, intimidated and killed at some point.
I think I answered all those questions in my post already, or to a large extent, but I'll take them up anew.

In the case of a women having authority over me, I suppose it's sad if I have a problem with any human having authority over me, but I do, men and women. I think it's very human. I'd rather be resistant to authority with discernment, as opposed to a blind follower. As I said, I think it's heightened with a woman, but I know it, admit it, examine it, and I deal with it properly. I actually doubt anyone even knows. That's success with weakness.

Why would I even care if a man acted feminine? Again, I have some thoughtful ideas, and working those I've made concrete progress in renewing my mind, but people have to go father than that. I espouse 'know thyself', but that's only helpful. I decide to love and respect people regardless of my feelings. Not perfectly, of course. But I try to constantly watch and recognize my 'reflex' thoughts and feelings, and then exercise self control. I'm not dependent on what I'm used to, how I was raised, what I think I know, subconscious whims and feelings. I hope that makes sense.

As I said in my post, in a horror film, if people dying, being in peril and being scared is part of the story, and moves the story, I'm OK with that. I said I don't like films where that's all there is (like gore porn). Horror films, even if they seem 'supernatural', are about dealing with the truth, facing fear, suffering, sacrifice, defending, rescuing, redemption and changing. That's what I like about Horror film and all kinds of stories stories.

[Kandarian Demon]

Interesting. I've never harassed a guy with a girl, boyfriend/girlfriend or otherwise. I don't have any desire to. That's not one of my faults.

Being envious or jealous of a feminine guy enjoying the company of a woman I'd like to have company with? I don't doubt I've experienced that. Again, I wouldn't threaten or harass a dude because of it. If they're not dating, then I really wouldn't care.

But are you saying that if they WERE dating, you WOULD care? (I get that you wouldn't harm anyone for it, just wondering what you meant)



As I said in my post, in a horror film, if people dying, being in peril and being scared is part of the story, and moves the story, I'm OK with that. I said I don't like films where that's all there is (like gore porn).

I think I get what you mean - I think I've said several times in several threads that I'm not a fan of the extreme "torture porn" genre. I can watch it, but it disturbs me in a way that I don't enjoy... luckily, there are a million other movies to watch... and I don't mind gore at all, it's just that particular category of movies that I don't enjoy much.

BUT... the gender of the victims in those movies really don't make a difference to me. I don't think that it's degrading or harmful to woman that there are female characters in those movies. Woman are not a minority that needs special protection - and even if they were, that wouldn't automatically make it a problem when a female character gets killed or tortured.

I think this comparison might make it easier to understand what I'm trying to explain:

If there's two things I absolutely can't stand in this world, it's racism and homophobia. I absolutely do not tolerate it.

But I am not going to scream "discrimination!" simply because a coloured or gay character is hurt in a horror movie. I would be more worried if there were no characters like that at all.

I would have a problem if it was clearly the directors intention that I should find the characters pain/death amusing or somehow morally justified BECAUSE that character was gay or non-white - or if the character was somehow being ridiculed during the scene for being what he or she happens to be, through the use of stereotypes, for example. I've seen this happen in a few movies, and THAT offended me.

I hope this made some sense...

[Straker]

I'd rather be resistant to authority with discernment, as opposed to a blind follower.

It's not an either or situation though, you can respect authority, regardless of gender, without being a blind follower...

[Sculpt]

But are you saying that if they WERE dating, you WOULD care? (I get that you wouldn't harm anyone for it, just wondering what you meant)



I think I get what you mean - I think I've said several times in several threads that I'm not a fan of the extreme "torture porn" genre. I can watch it, but it disturbs me in a way that I don't enjoy... luckily, there are a million other movies to watch... and I don't mind gore at all, it's just that particular category of movies that I don't enjoy much.

BUT... the gender of the victims in those movies really don't make a difference to me. I don't think that it's degrading or harmful to woman that there are female characters in those movies. Woman are not a minority that needs special protection - and even if they were, that wouldn't automatically make it a problem when a female character gets killed or tortured.

I think this comparison might make it easier to understand what I'm trying to explain:

If there's two things I absolutely can't stand in this world, it's racism and homophobia. I absolutely do not tolerate it.

But I am not going to scream "discrimination!" simply because a coloured or gay character is hurt in a horror movie. I would be more worried if there were no characters like that at all.

I would have a problem if it was clearly the directors intention that I should find the characters pain/death amusing or somehow morally justified BECAUSE that character was gay or non-white - or if the character was somehow being ridiculed during the scene for being what he or she happens to be, through the use of stereotypes, for example. I've seen this happen in a few movies, and THAT offended me.

I hope this made some sense...
If I saw an effeminate male dating a woman I found attractive, would I care? No, I wouldn't care anymore than if he was a masculine guy. In both cases, if they were attached to me for some reason, I might involuntarily eat my heart out, but then consciously watch and learn.

Everything you've wrote makes sense to me. It also offends me if it was clearly the directors intention that I should find the characters pain/death amusing or somehow morally justified because of that characters race, sex or orientation.

I also don't like it when stereo types are mis-portrayed -- that is, after they are labeled, their views or actions are counter to the stereo type or the core belief systems; especially when it's done with malice. But unfortunately, simplicity and stereo types are common to stories and films, due to lack of time and concentration on the plot. Comes with the territory.

[Kandarian Demon]

It's not an either or situation though, you can respect authority, regardless of gender, without being a blind follower...

I definitely agree with that! There is a big difference between respecting an authority that deserves the respect, and following someone's every word without question.

[Sculpt]

It's not an either or situation though, you can respect authority, regardless of gender, without being a blind follower...
Of course. I do respect authority, by choice. Sometimes it's easy, sometimes it's hard. I assume that's true for everyone. There's some people you would find it easy to take commands from, and others who you'd find it more difficult. There may be good reasons or no good reasons for it, but regardless, we choose to do the right thing. That's all I'm saying.

[Straker]

Of course. I do respect authority, by choice. Sometimes it's easy, sometimes it's hard. I assume that's true for everyone. There's some people you would find it easy to take commands from, and others who you'd find it more difficult. There may be good reasons or no good reasons for it, but regardless, we choose to do the right thing. That's all I'm saying.

I totally understand what you said, I just think its sad you are uncomfortable with a woman having a position of authority over you.

[ferretchucker]

I think it's interesting that we keep going back to this notion of the "effeminate man" or "tomboy". Obviously, these ARE frames of reference that exist within our current discourses on gender.

What I was trying to get at in my original post was that rather than thinking of qualities as "masculine" or "feminine" we need to deconstruct BOTH genders and build up again afresh, free from the anchors with which we define character attributes. Obviously this kind of sociological revolution cannot happen overnight. But as I said, I think part of the problem is the emphasis on discussing and criticising portrayals of men and women as men and women, rather than just as people.

[Sculpt]

I totally understand what you said, I just think its sad you are uncomfortable with a woman having a position of authority over you.
Ah, I got ya now. I wasn't sure what you meant by 'I think it's sad'. In the US, it's currently often used as a condemnation phrase; like, "I think it's sad that you have to get drunk every night.", where it doesn't mean sympathy or empathy with the person or situation, rather it means you need to correct your immorality.

[Sculpt]

I think it's interesting that we keep going back to this notion of the "effeminate man" or "tomboy". Obviously, these ARE frames of reference that exist within our current discourses on gender.

What I was trying to get at in my original post was that rather than thinking of qualities as "masculine" or "feminine" we need to deconstruct BOTH genders and build up again afresh, free from the anchors with which we define character attributes. Obviously this kind of sociological revolution cannot happen overnight. But as I said, I think part of the problem is the emphasis on discussing and criticising portrayals of men and women as men and women, rather than just as people.
Yes, we should not attach a vast array of moral character qualities to people based on gender, gender traits, gender identity, ethnicity, age, etc. I certainly don't want to assume someone is going to rob, lie, etc, based on those attributes. In a free speech society, people are going to be free to choose to bend gender appearance and behavior. And most individuals have a genetic and/or semi-permanent gender traits that we associate with effeminate male or tomboy. Those characteristics do not equate to sexual preference. In both cases, nobody should be harassed, harmed or treated unfairly. I hope none of that sounds overly proverbial.

That being said, I'm not sure what you mean by we need to "deconstruct BOTH genders and build up again afresh".

[metternich1815]

I am a man, but I would actually say I am a strong feminist, but not radical. I think the radicals go over board. In my opinion, the horror genre is the best in regards to women. Especially 70s up. I find it funny that some critics in the 80s actually said slashers was a reaction against feminism because, in my opinion, the opposite is true.

[ferretchucker]

That being said, I'm not sure what you mean by we need to "deconstruct BOTH genders and build up again afresh".

As in, we're often so preoccupied with females and what constitutes femininity that we neglect considering men and masculinity. As a result, the stereotypes will always continue to prevail because we'll maintain the "standard masculine male" by which others are compared, thus holding in THEIR stereotypes. Basic structuralism - defining but what one is not.

In other news, Lily Allen's new song delightfully deals with this topic. Especially like the Robin Thicke line.

E0CazRHB0so

[Kandarian Demon]

As in, we're often so preoccupied with females and what constitutes femininity that we neglect considering men and masculinity. As a result, the stereotypes will always continue to prevail because we'll maintain the "standard masculine male" by which others are compared, thus holding in THEIR stereotypes.

Very well said...

And another thing I would like to see is an equality movement that isn't either feminism or the mens rights movement. Both camps are fighting their battles with the attitude that "it's the other genders fault" - I don't think that will do anyone any good.

[adamhenderson]

Yes! This is the sort of thing I signed up for! I love engaging in philosophical discussion. Sorry I couldn't post sooner, but I've been busy with work and the like.

Anyway, I think you all raise some interesting points regarding gender issues in society and media. I guess the biggest point I would raise right now is the lack of true female voices in cinema/ fiction (especially in the horror genre).

Discussions of representations of women in cinema are fraught with peril, and slasher films are a prime example. Slashers may be seen by some people as 'reaction[s] against feminism' (as metternich pointed out), but others might claim that they are indeed pro-feminist (its usually always a woman who survives and men who die by the end credits, as Kandarian Demon pointed out). Both opinions hinge on the crucial 'p' word: perspective. Both perspectives have significant evidence to support them.

And this brings me back to my earlier point: The dominant horror film makers are men. This may be wishful thinking (due to inherent sexism within society), but I think there need to be more female horror film-makers/ novelists. Who can better give a female perspective than females themselves?

Does anyone know of any female horror writers that are popular (I can think of only Anne Rice)?

[shadyJ]

Poppy Z Brite is another famous horror author(ess).

One thing to consider is that women statistically may not be predisposed to horror (of course there are exceptions) as much as men. What if they simply have a stronger aversion to horror as a basic psychological predilection? If so, it will never be a genre where there is a parity of women voices to men. If that is the case, women will never be portrayed fairly in horror. It could be that simple.

As for misogyny in slasher movies, I think, on the whole, women are portrayed very poorly in that subgenre. But you have to remember that the heyday of slashers were in the late 70s and 80s. Women were rarely portrayed well in any genre of any kind of movie. Misogyny was by no means unique to slasher films.

[adamhenderson]

shadyJ, you have raised some interesting points.

It is easy to say that women are presented well in slasher films because it is always a female character that survives at the end, but if we take into consideration the well worn trope that only the virgin survives in the end of most horror movies, it does raise some interesting implications with regards to sexism. The ultimate subconscious suggestion of a film like 'Halloween' is that women who don't have sex and focus on their academics are smarter than the supposed 'bimbos' who don't care for academics and have promiscuous sex.

[shadyJ]

shadyJ, you have raised some interesting points.

It is easy to say that women are presented well in slasher films because it is always a female character that survives at the end, but if we take into consideration the well worn trope that only the virgin survives in the end of most horror movies, it does raise some interesting implications with regards to sexism. The ultimate subconscious suggestion of a film like 'Halloween' is that women who don't have sex and focus on their academics are smarter than the supposed 'bimbos' who don't care for academics and have promiscuous sex.

Until slasher movies started to become more self-aware (thanks largely to Scream), it used to be the virginal girl that survived, NOT because the filmakers were trying to present a feminine strength, but because it catered to a fantasy archetype for males. In these stories, the ideal woman preserves her life by preserving her purity. You might think of the killer as an avatar for that element in the male psyche which judges and damns those woman which it can not wholly own. Once a female character has 'given' herself (by which I mean her innocence and her honor, etc) to someone else in the story, she must be destroyed for squandering that which is most precious.

For these same reasons, victims of rape must also die in so many movies. Rarely in an older film (and even in many recent movies) will you see a rape victim survive. However, the death of the raped woman is usually treated as a tragic necessity, whereas the murder of a promiscuous woman is treated with glee. But willing or unwilling, their fate must be the same; in the contest of manhood, someone else has claimed that prize, so she must be destroyed as a penalty of that defeat.

Of course, this is all very barbaric, but I believe it really is the reasons for the writer's decisions in these stories, subconscious or otherwise. And these reasons are ample cause for horror in themselves; nothing is more terrifying than the landscape of the naked male psyche.

[Kandarian Demon]

Poppy Z Brite is another famous horror author(ess).

One thing to consider is that women statistically may not be predisposed to horror (of course there are exceptions) as much as men. What if they simply have a stronger aversion to horror as a basic psychological predilection? If so, it will never be a genre where there is a parity of women voices to men. If that is the case, women will never be portrayed fairly in horror. It could be that simple.

I think there might be some truth in that (and I say that as a woman who loves horror) - but in my own experience (and that is of course ONLY my experience), for a lot of woman, being a horror fan is just not "feminine", and I suspect that that is the main reason why we don't see any more woman in horror - more than a psychological thing.

Both genders have things they just don't do (in general) - men probably a bit more than woman, but we certainly have them too. Those things that we just can't do, because we wouldn't be "real men" or "real woman".

These ideas are supported by the reactions that we get from others when we break those unwritten rules - and those reactions come from both our own gender and from the opposite.

For example, I as a horror fan have often been judged by other woman. But it's also my experience that being a female horror fan scares off a lot of guys.

The thing is, I could mention a few things that would cause the same reactions for a man - from other men as well as from woman. I really, honestly don't think it's mysogyny, it's not just something that affects woman - we just tend to focus more on it when it does.

It's a difficult balance, though - because one thing is equality, but I really don't agree with the view that the two genders are the same - even though that's a very popular idea right now, and something that I actually used to agree with.

[Kandarian Demon]

It is easy to say that women are presented well in slasher films because it is always a female character that survives at the end, but if we take into consideration the well worn trope that only the virgin survives in the end of most horror movies, it does raise some interesting implications with regards to sexism. The ultimate subconscious suggestion of a film like 'Halloween' is that women who don't have sex and focus on their academics are smarter than the supposed 'bimbos' who don't care for academics and have promiscuous sex.

Although I can honestly only recall a handful of movies where that is actually the case - isn't that more of a religious thing? I mean, even people who are not religious are often more or less influenced by the religion of the society they have grown up in.

Look at all our prophets, or a character like the Virgin Mary. Look at all of our celibate priests, nuns and monks... So many of the holy characters and people that we are more or less raised to look up to, or even follow as our leaders, are virgins or at least celibate. I think it goes much deeper than just gender.

And again - are our male movie heroes any less stereotypical?

[Sculpt]

Until slasher movies started to become more self-aware (thanks largely to Scream), it used to be the virginal girl that survived, NOT because the filmakers were trying to present a feminine strength, but because it catered to a fantasy archetype for males. In these stories, the ideal woman preserves her life by preserving her purity. You might think of the killer as an avatar for that element in the male psyche which judges and damns those woman which it can not wholly own. Once a female character has 'given' herself (by which I mean her innocence and her honor, etc) to someone else in the story, she must be destroyed for squandering that which is most precious.

For these same reasons, victims of rape must also die in so many movies. Rarely in an older film (and even in many recent movies) will you see a rape victim survive. However, the death of the raped woman is usually treated as a tragic necessity, whereas the murder of a promiscuous woman is treated with glee. But willing or unwilling, their fate must be the same; in the contest of manhood, someone else has claimed that prize, so she must be destroyed as a penalty of that defeat.

Of course, this is all very barbaric, but I believe it really is the reasons for the writer's decisions in these stories, subconscious or otherwise. And these reasons are ample cause for horror in themselves; nothing is more terrifying than the landscape of the naked male psyche.
Thanks, Shady, I had never thought about it that way -- that the promiscuous women are killed off because they are women the male viewer cannot wholly own, women who have squandered their purity that is precious to a male both in a procreative-evolutionary and psyche-intimate-holy sense. It, the male (even human) subconscious or the Freud "ID" (from ID, Ego, Super-ego), is sweeping through the film doing what it does, which I would think would be quite evocative.

Shady, did you conceive of this yourself? If not, where did you hear it from? Did one of the slasher films speak of it, like Victor Miller?

[Sculpt]

For example, I as a horror fan have often been judged by other woman. But it's also my experience that being a female horror fan scares off a lot of guys.

The thing is, I could mention a few things that would cause the same reactions for a man - from other men as well as from woman. I really, honestly don't think it's mysogyny, it's not just something that affects woman - we just tend to focus more on it when it does.
You have me curious. What are a few things that would cause the same reactions for a man?

[shadyJ]

Thanks, Shady, I had never thought about it that way -- that the promiscuous women are killed off because they are women the male viewer cannot wholly own, women who have squandered their purity that is precious to a male both in a procreative-evolutionary and psyche-intimate-holy sense. It, the male (even human) subconscious or the Freud "ID" (from ID, Ego, Super-ego), is sweeping through the film doing what it does, which I would think would be quite evocative.

Shady, did you conceive of this yourself? If not, where did you hear it from? Did one of the slasher films speak of it, like Victor Miller?

When you view stories as maps of the subconscious, it seems like a a very plain analysis to me, and I am sure I am not the first to think of slasher movies in those terms. From a psychoanalytic perspective, slasher movies are probably an easy interpretation. And, in a broader view, much of horror stems from 'monsters of the Id'. Graphic murders in these scenarios are usually forms of wish-fulfillment; the greater offense to the ego corresponds to a more gruesome death. These themes are by no means confined to horror, they are just more apparent in horror because the anxieties are typically manifest in a more defined, concrete form in horror, ie a monster or murderer.

[Kandarian Demon]

You have me curious. What are a few things that would cause the same reactions for a man?

Well, just to give you one example, and it's a "real life" example - a couple of years back, I knew a guy from work - totally straight, by the way - who happened to be what you would probably call "metrosexual". It goes back to what you were talking about earlier, about the "feminine" man. And more than anything, his passion was designing, sowing and knitting clothes.

The guys were really nasty to him - the woman seemed to like him, but did to some extend participate in the jokes behind his back. And I know from a conversation that I had with him, that he had a really hard time finding woman who would actually date him. Ironically - he turned my offer down when I asked him out, because he was looking for someone more "feminine" :D

[adamhenderson]

Awesome discussion going on people!

In these stories, the ideal woman preserves her life by preserving her purity. You might think of the killer as an avatar for that element in the male psyche which judges and damns those woman which it can not wholly own. Once a female character has 'given' herself (by which I mean her innocence and her honor, etc) to someone else in the story, she must be destroyed for squandering that which is most precious.

ShadyJ, I think you just might be dead-on correct here. Superb analysis of slasher films. I also loved this line:

nothing is more terrifying than the landscape of the naked male psyche.

The best horror speaks to us on a primal level, and not just a flight or fight level, but on a deep subconscious level where our animal instincts lie, and it's this kind of analysis that we need more of. You don't have a blog do you? I'd follow it in a heart-beat!

The guys were really nasty to him - the woman seemed to like him, but did to some extend participate in the jokes behind his back. And I know from a conversation that I had with him, that he had a really hard time finding woman who would actually date him. Ironically - he turned my offer down when I asked him out, because he was looking for someone more "feminine"

Yeah it is interesting how all that works. See I would have thought that his natural proclivity towards feminine hobbies would be a massive 'in' for him in regards to success with the ladies. I didn't think women rejected men for being too feminine in the same way that men rejected women for being too masculine (I thought women were somehow less shallow in that regard).

I myself was raised pretty much by my mother (my father was largely absent in my life) and I think that I've got feminine qualities (such as understanding and nurturing attitudies-- which is why I'm a primary school teacher), but I'm really self-conscious of appearing too feminine and so modify my speech to be more masculine (especially in a school setting for some reason).

I have a girlfriend, and she seems to enjoy having sex with me, so I don't know, I'm doing something right. Maybe its a fine line with these matters.

----

Okay how about this:

I've been dabbling with writing horror fiction for the last few months (massive Stephen King fan, but I want to write a bit more subversively than him), and I've come up with an idea for a novel that is a subversion of the slasher movie.

Instead of a male killer, the killer is a woman, and instead of women dying for being promiscuous, men are killed for only valuing women for their visual appearance. I wanted the female killer to be a Kathy-Bates-in-Misery type character.

Is it too on the nose, do you think?

[shadyJ]

Thanks for the compliments, Adam.

Regarding your story idea, I can't tell you if you have a good recipe for a story there. I should probably have a better understanding of its treatment before I suggest anything, but I'll just say this anyway: if you want tension, I think you will need to make an effort to develop sympathy for the male victims. Otherwise, it may just be an exercise in schadenfreude- punishing shallow douchy stereotypical men. In that case you would be rooting for the killer, which may not make for a bad story, but you would lose a sense of danger in doing so. That approach would make for a better black comedy. However, if you want a horror story, make your reader care for those whom you place in harm's way.

[Kandarian Demon]

Yeah it is interesting how all that works. See I would have thought that his natural proclivity towards feminine hobbies would be a massive 'in' for him in regards to success with the ladies. I didn't think women rejected men for being too feminine in the same way that men rejected women for being too masculine (I thought women were somehow less shallow in that regard).

Well, not all stereotypes are negative... and it's a big myth that woman are less shallow, but I think they do tend to try to protect the idea that they're not. Of course, as with everything else, this is obviously a HUGE generalisation, and I am in no way suggesting that ALL woman (or men, for that matter) are shallow. But when talking to woman with no men in the room, it's all about looks and money for quite a lot of them.

Maybe its a fine line with these matters.

I definitely think so - I think up until a certain point, you would be right in thinking that it's an advantage. But of course, again, that IS a generalisation. And I'm living proof of that - I've fallen for a few guys over the years who crossed that line completely.

I also think that our natural appearances can influence how we are read. I've been picked on and rejected all my life for being "butch", but I'm really not sure I would have been read that way if I didn't happen to be tall, broadshouldered and have facial features that are generally not considered "pretty".

In fact, I've noticed that people seem to automatically expect me to have a tough, dominant personality, even though that is as far from the truth as you could possibly get. So I don't think I can get away with as much as a "pretty" girl would, without being labelled as masculine.



Okay how about this:

I've been dabbling with writing horror fiction for the last few months (massive Stephen King fan, but I want to write a bit more subversively than him), and I've come up with an idea for a novel that is a subversion of the slasher movie.

Instead of a male killer, the killer is a woman, and instead of women dying for being promiscuous, men are killed for only valuing women for their visual appearance. I wanted the female killer to be a Kathy-Bates-in-Misery type character.

Is it too on the nose, do you think?

Well... there are plenty of "revenge movies", but not sure if I've seen a story with that exact story line.

I don't really like the idea of one gender punishing the other though, but that's just my personal opinion :)

I'm going to sound like such a cynic right now, but in recent years I have come to the conclusion that most relationships are based on superficial values anyway. At least I really don't think that one gender is better than the other in that respect.

[Sculpt]

Well, just to give you one example, and it's a "real life" example - a couple of years back, I knew a guy from work - totally straight, by the way - who happened to be what you would probably call "metrosexual". It goes back to what you were talking about earlier, about the "feminine" man. And more than anything, his passion was designing, sowing and knitting clothes.

The guys were really nasty to him - the woman seemed to like him, but did to some extend participate in the jokes behind his back. And I know from a conversation that I had with him, that he had a really hard time finding woman who would actually date him. Ironically - he turned my offer down when I asked him out, because he was looking for someone more "feminine" :D
Thanks for the example. I know what you're saying now.

Sorry the designer turned you down. Did he actually say he was looking for someone more feminine? (I can break his legs for you. ;) ). If not, what made you think that?

[Sculpt]

...
I'm going to sound like such a cynic right now, but in recent years I have come to the conclusion that most relationships are based on superficial values anyway. At least I really don't think that one gender is better than the other in that respect.
...(Please pardon me if anyone perceives this as a tangent)

I don't doubt that. Still, I suppose it depends on what you consider superficial. It may be men and women have different ideas on what is superficial.

I extraordinarily respect people who seek out a spouse with no regard to how sexually attracted they are to the other's appearance. I admit I'm not going to court (date to marry) someone I'm not sexually attracted to. I'm not going to assume I can overcome my "sexual repulsion" of them in a marriage relationship. I don't think it would be fair to them. And even if they didn't want sexual contact, I still would. I realize a spouses appearance can change, but I think the root of sexual attraction would still be there.

I should note, sexual attraction would certainly not be my only consideration for dating or marrying someone.

Is sexual attraction superficial?

I think most would say that's the most superficial item there is; probably because appearance is often equated with "surface". I think it's superficial to a friendship, but not to a marriage.

Just for fun, an online dictionary defines superficial as:
1. Of, affecting, or being on or near the surface: a superficial wound.
2. Concerned with or comprehending only what is apparent or obvious; shallow.
3. Apparent rather than actual or substantial: a superficial resemblance.
4. Trivial; insignificant: made only a few superficial changes in the manuscript.

Considering my understanding and plan for marriage, referencing the 4th definition, sexual attraction wouldn't be insignificant to me, and thus wouldn't be superficial.

Many say a higher portion of women do not consider sexual attraction to their potential spouse as an important consideration. But I wonder how many of those same women would equally not care if their potential spouse had no sexual attraction to them?

[Kandarian Demon]

Sorry the designer turned you down. Did he actually say he was looking for someone more feminine? (I can break his legs for you. ;) ). If not, what made you think that?

LOL that won't be nescesarry :D Yeah, he did... we had been pretty friendly for some time, so I think he felt the need to give me the "I like you, but..." explanation. And, fair enough... I didn't resent him for it or anything.

(Please pardon me if anyone perceives this as a tangent)

I don't doubt that. Still, I suppose it depends on what you consider superficial. It may be men and women have different ideas on what is superficial.

That is probably one of those truths that many, especially woman, just don't want to accept. That's what I think I was mentioning earlier when I said that equality does not nescesarily mean that men and woman have to be exactly alike - and that's what I meant by saying that one gender isn't better than the other, so I don't think one has the right to punish the other. But - I'm repeating myself here - again, we're making a generalisation.


I extraordinarily respect people who seek out a spouse with no regard to how sexually attracted they are to the other's appearance. I admit I'm not going to court (date to marry) someone I'm not sexually attracted to. I'm not going to assume I can overcome my "sexual repulsion" of them in a marriage relationship. I don't think it would be fair to them. And even if they didn't want sexual contact, I still would. I realize a spouses appearance can change, but I think the root of sexual attraction would still be there.

I should note, sexual attraction would certainly not be my only consideration for dating or marrying someone.

Is sexual attraction superficial?

I think most would say that's the most superficial item there is; probably because appearance is often equated with "surface". I think it's superficial to a friendship, but not to a marriage.

Just for fun, an online dictionary defines superficial as:
1. Of, affecting, or being on or near the surface: a superficial wound.
2. Concerned with or comprehending only what is apparent or obvious; shallow.
3. Apparent rather than actual or substantial: a superficial resemblance.
4. Trivial; insignificant: made only a few superficial changes in the manuscript.

Considering my understanding and plan for marriage, referencing the 4th definition, sexual attraction wouldn't be insignificant to me, and thus wouldn't be superficial.

Many say a higher portion of women do not consider sexual attraction to their potential spouse as an important consideration. But I wonder how many of those same women would equally not care if their potential spouse had no sexual attraction to them?

I get what you're saying, and I don't disagree, actually. It's like I said, I can sound a bit cynical at times, but I was simply stating the fact (or what I think is a "fact", at least) that we're all at least at some level superficial - if that is the correct word.

You ask, IS it being superficial? Well - in a way yes, but if it's human nature, we can't really change it, and if we can't, then what good does it do us to blame each other for it? However, when it comes to judging someone on their income, as many woman in particular do, I have to admit that I find that extremely shallow... although of course, who am I to say what they should look for in a partner.

I think we, especially us woman, have an unrealistic idea of what romance is and should be... and I'm the first to admit that I would absolutely love it if my prince charming existed, but I am enough of a realist to know that he doesn't - if it makes any sense to explain it like that. There is the reality that we would like to be real, and then there's the actual reality that isn't quite as cute.

The fact is that if it was all about personality, which is a beautiful thought, we would all be pansexual. The difference between a close friend and a partner IS the sexual attraction.

BUT... I HAVE also experienced that feelings, including physical attraction, CAN develop even though you initially didn't feel anything at all and never thought you would. I've seen people whom I even considered unattractive turn into "hunks" right in front of my eyes.

Still, I'm 36, and I've kind of had to learn to accept that I can't attract a better half the way I happen to look. If I couldn't when I was 25, then I sure as hell can't now that age is starting to creep up on me. It sucks, to put it mildly, because I am the ultimate "nest builder" and never really wanted anything more than my own family. But - do I resent men for it? No, absolutely not... you can't blame anyone for what they're not attracted to. But a lot of woman choose to call it mysogyny.

[Sculpt]

I get what you're saying, and I don't disagree, actually. It's like I said, I can sound a bit cynical at times, but I was simply stating the fact (or what I think is a "fact", at least) that we're all at least at some level superficial - if that is the correct word.

You ask, IS it being superficial? Well - in a way yes, but if it's human nature, we can't really change it, and if we can't, then what good does it do us to blame each other for it? However, when it comes to judging someone on their income, as many woman in particular do, I have to admit that I find that extremely shallow... although of course, who am I to say what they should look for in a partner.

I think we, especially us woman, have an unrealistic idea of what romance is and should be... and I'm the first to admit that I would absolutely love it if my prince charming existed, but I am enough of a realist to know that he doesn't - if it makes any sense to explain it like that. There is the reality that we would like to be real, and then there's the actual reality that isn't quite as cute.

The fact is that if it was all about personality, which is a beautiful thought, we would all be pansexual. The difference between a close friend and a partner IS the sexual attraction.

BUT... I HAVE also experienced that feelings, including physical attraction, CAN develop even though you initially didn't feel anything at all and never thought you would. I've seen people whom I even considered unattractive turn into "hunks" right in front of my eyes.

Still, I'm 36, and I've kind of had to learn to accept that I can't attract a better half the way I happen to look. If I couldn't when I was 25, then I sure as hell can't now that age is starting to creep up on me. It sucks, to put it mildly, because I am the ultimate "nest builder" and never really wanted anything more than my own family. But - do I resent men for it? No, absolutely not... you can't blame anyone for what they're not attracted to. But a lot of woman choose to call it mysogyny.
In regards to the fellow who said he 'wanted someone more feminine', if you were asking for the truth, and that was it... I'm with you, I wouldn't regret getting the truth. I want the truth.

You're right, I have been told of non-sexual attraction friendships that turn into sexual attraction marriage. Sounds wonderful. Personality, pheromones, spirits and God make anything possible. All the more reason to have a variety of friends. Funny, reminds me of the "When Harry Met Sally" scene about how men and women can't be friends. I don't believe it; it's just a complex humorous contemplation.

Along with friends becoming lovers, I've also seen attractions I never would have expected. I've dated women who were beautiful, and friends and family thought they were ugly. Some men like very thin, some very heavy set. Honestly, you'd be foolish to think no man would be sexually attracted to you. There may be statistically demonstrated physical attractiveness levels, but I assure you, sexual attraction is in the eye of the beholder. I'm absolutely certain there are men sexually attracted to you. And in an area near you. :)

And I should also say, I completely agree with you, that we all need to be thankful for the lives we have. That is to say, we must live in the now, and not think we can't be whole, happy and have a worthwhile life unless we have a spouse and/or children. You're spot on with that. With that understanding, we can accept a future spouse is possible, seek a mate, date, and accept we don't know if it will happen.

[Kandarian Demon]

In regards to the fellow who said he 'wanted someone more feminine', if you were asking for the truth, and that was it... I'm with you, I wouldn't regret getting the truth. I want the truth.

I didn't ask, but I didn't mind him telling me. I've heard it before, anyway.


Funny, reminds me of the "When Harry Met Sally" scene about how men and women can't be friends. I don't believe it; it's just a complex humorous contemplation.

Well, most of my friends over the years have been male, and I tend to get along with them better than I do with woman, so no, I don't believe it either...


And I should also say, I completely agree with you, that we all need to be thankful for the lives we have. That is to say, we must live in the now, and not think we can't be whole, happy and have a worthwhile life unless we have a spouse and/or children. You're spot on with that. .

It's not actually quite what I meant (although in a way it kind of is), but thanks LOL! :D I would say the complete opposite is true, for ME at least (and we can only speak for ourselves). But I've accepted that life is meaningless. If there is something you are desperate to achieve, but you know that realistically you can't have it, it will only make you more miserable if you keep trying.