PAYING HELL SINCE 1987

ABOUT

Gemini. Fire Rabbit. INFJ. Christian. Fat. Feminist. Liberal. Independent. Kinsey 1-2.

You can call me Statler. I'm an eternal tourist, a constant student, and a fandom addict.

Biggest Fandoms, Forever: Doctor Who, Harry Potter
Other Fandoms: How I Met Your Mother, Parks and Rec, Community, Castle, Marvel, DC, Downton Abbey
Fandoms I Intend to Start: Revolution

This blog is HAES-friendly, LGBTQQIAA-friendly, and sex-positive. I like to talk about gender in the media, and religion.

You can ask me anything.


S L Y T H E R C L A W

companions in the tardis

TAGS

LINKS

SEARCH
PAYING HELL SINCE 1987

hotelsongs:

Something I’ll never be tired of: EVIL LADIES.

Something that was tired before it began: evil ladies being held exclusively accountable for the sins of their male counterparts.

Sometimes this is a fandom problem (Jaime Lannister, ASOIAF), sometimes a textual one (Graham, OUAT), sometimes a bit of both (Spike, BTVS). But it’s a problem no matter what, because it’s a pattern. Situational “bad boys” are shown as being maneuvered into place by an unapologetic dame. Male straddlers of the grey line are constantly being pushed into this back-and-forth of acting (for reasons of badassery) and regretting (for reasons of woobie), and the woman’s pushed forth as a get-out-of-jail-free card. Oh, she pushed him into it; oh, he’s doing it for love of her, or for her volition, but he has a heart, unlike that cold snake bitch he’s fucking!

Usually it’s so they’re made palatable as a romantic lead, which makes the schematic even grosser: we’re meant to expect their redemption the minute they switch lady hands, because why not? Why make it about their conflict when we could make it a dichotomy of Good Woman v. Bad Woman! Not like this poor bro had any choice in the matter! They never wanted to do the things they did! They’re GOOD GOOD GOOD under all that sexy badass set dressing! GOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!

They make it so easy.

And it’s dull as fuck.

Who wants to read about anyone who isn’t the main character of their own life (regardless of what they are in the text)? Who thinks it’s sexy to have a character’s intellectual and emotional agency obliterated just so that they can serve as a moral clean slate? It’s weird, it’s infantilizing, and really, what a spectacularly patronizing way to treat your readers/viewers: an adult male with blood on his hands can only do Bad Things™ out of some kind of mean-spirited emotional thrall? Sorry, I don’t think so. Try again. Try letting your characters make fucked-up choices for a myriad of reasons, both selfish and unselfish, both cruel and kind, both well- and ill-meant. Note, choices. Try treating your characters like goddamn adults for once.

Choice is more interesting. Grey is more interesting. Expect me to find a tabula rasa under that black leather and I’m not going to buy it. It is not always the woman that bids them eat—and even if bidden, they have to be treated accountable for the bite.