Mad Max and Masculinity

[Joel]

We can probably all agree that the "men's right's" spat online over the feminist agenda of Mad Max is more laughable than threatening, in that female empowerment does not mean the emasculation of men.  Notably, Return of Kings's retrogressive point that Theron's character had the 'audacity to "bark orders" at Max' and that 'Max would never allow that' is just beyond the pale.  I don't know about you, but I think Return of Kings absolutely missed the mark on Max's character.  Which brings me to the question I want to put out there for you guys:

What is the modern day conception of masculinity?

By comparison lets just rehash the old-school stereotype.  Men have power and authority over women because they are the more able sex.  There's lots of classic though laudable heroes that fit this stereotype. 

For the sake of argument lets just stick to contemporaries of the Max Max trilogy.  We got Rick Deckard's sorta rape-y romance with Rachael.  There's also Indiana's leading the damsel around.  Jake Gittes's slapping Evelyn Cross.  In each of the three the stereotype serves the purpose of protecting. 

However, there's fence sitters like James Bond who both protects and objectifies women.  Then there's the purely objectifying beta males of Revenge of the Nerds or Jack Ryan, 16 Candles, that acquire man-ness from sexual (domination) triumph.  The ick factor of later sorta gives the basis for the darker views on Bros nowadays, right?

(I'm sure there's way better examples, but hopefully that's sufficient context).

Okay, so back to the question.  I think there's a few parts to it and also some general assumptions too.  For me, I think 1) there is a difference between men and women, 2) that this is both biological and social, and 3) that the dichotomy of masculinity and femininity has cultural (and storytelling) merit.  I don't think diverging from the classic stereotype 'blurs the genders' as Return of Kings says.  I think that culturally we are more interested in more complex characters that diverge from stereotype in general.  And that more importantly, masculinity can be decoupled from the notion of dominance and hierarchy.

Further reading from a superficial google search:
"Who's The Man? Hollywood Heroes Defined Masculinity For Millions" -- NPR
"Defining A Modern Masculinity" -- Dr. NerdLove

So take for example the quintessential loner, nihilistic, tough guy, dark horse - i.e. Mad Max.  I think he's the perfect example of the modern day uber-masculine archetype because he can be paired with a powerful and strong female lead and still come out the toughest guy in the room.  By contrast, the same can't be said about the classical male that Return of Kings thinks is the only kind of manly man.

I think it works because the lone wolf, the wandering ronin, the Western cowboy defies the conventions and rises above the issues that hamstring classical masculinity.  Specifically: 

Is he an alpha male?  Nope.  He's a punk that defies authority and is disgusted by his need to wield it.  He's the last to speak up and only because he has to.  So soon as he has utilized that power, he is ever eager to shed it.

Does he require respect or dominance?  Nope.  He doesn't give a damn what society thinks about him and is similarly immune from it's encouragement as he is it's discouragement.

(However, this loner is only exemplified as a masculine character when he is a hero; proving that despite all his omeganess that he is the most capable character in the story.  When he is not a hero then he might be less masculine, which I'd tie back to Mad Max below).

Ultimately what makes a masculine character, after all?  A character who defines his masculinity relative to those around him, or a character who is solid and self sufficient within himself?

Which might lead to a follow up question:

Is then Theron's character masculine? and in corollary, can Max be feminine.

I think this is the more interesting question and something I REALLY hope gets explored more.  There's no doubt that Theron's character is the biggest and baddest female lead since Ripley, but she reads undoubtedly as female despite her shaved head and ruthless dominance.

Spoilers ahead.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

I'm totally just reading things from very little here since the plot of the fourth movie was so thin.  From what I can glean, I'd say that Max and Furiosa are foils of one another and that this allows them to be read as both masculine and feminine.

Furiosa is defined by her positive hope and her negative idealism.  She is hopeful when leading the brides to the green place, but becomes unrealistic when leading them aimlessly into the desert.  She is masculine when striving for realizable goals and then feminine when relying on senseless hope. 

Max is defined by his positive heroism and his negative self-resiliency.  For simplicity, allow me to say that heroism can be considered masculine.  Max is most masculine when he is triumphing for the sake of others.  Sure he kicks ass just because too, but his shining moments are when he sticks his neck out.  Contrast for example his acquisition of the bigrig in Road Warrior versus his willingness to then drive it at the climax.  On the other hand, his reticence to help stems not from his selfishness but from his fear of loss, which is definitely feminine.  Taken together, the classic 'riding into the sunset' is the epitome of his character type.  The character is both displaying his selflessness having done the deed without interest of reward (lets say the gal), as he is his emotional fear of... responsibility? love? family?  -- All attributes that make men biologically men.  Masculinity is about protecting family, and in that main aspect the character is most incapable.

On the other hand, Furiosa is not the nurturing woman in the end, but the champion of her new family.  She ascends the patriarchy and so Max becomes a redundancy.  You get the same in Westerns too with the empowered female then continuing on.  Take for example 'Once Upon a Time in the West' or more contemporary 'Cold Mountain'.

[Lustful Bride]

I don't feel that I can contribute much to this but my perfect image of a man (from Hollywood I mean and aside from My own Boyfriend) would have to be Steve Rogers, Both before and after he got the super soldier serum.

He was a man because he had a good heart and stood up for others, even when it would have led to him being beaten by someone much stronger and bigger than him. And then after he got the serum and became absolutely muscular, hes still a man because he uses this strength to protect others and even stand against what he sees as hurtful against freedom. To me that's a man.being a man doesn't have to do with strength though, its whats inside. 

Hell I could probabbably beat my boyfriend in an arm wrestle, but what I love about him is whats on the inside.  :-)

Cheezy? Yes, Corny, yes.

True? Your goddam right.  ;D

[Mathim]

I don't feel that I can contribute much to this but my perfect image of a man (from Hollywood I mean and aside from My own Boyfriend) would have to be Steve Rogers, Both before and after he got the super soldier serum.

He was a man because he had a good heart and stood up for others, even when it would have led to him being beaten by someone much stronger and bigger than him. And then after he got the serum and became absolutely muscular, hes still a man because he uses this strength to protect others and even stand against what he sees as hurtful against freedom. To me that's a man.being a man doesn't have to do with strength though, its whats inside. 

Hell I could probabbably beat my boyfriend in an arm wrestle, but what I love about him is whats on the inside.  :-)

Cheezy? Yes, Corny, yes.

True? Your goddam right.  ;D

That's actually how I would idealize masculinity. Being proud of having brains and heart and not stooping to violently silencing anyone with the contrary opinion.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

----------------------SPOILER ALERT---------------------------------




There is quite a bit going on in that film when viewed through the lens of feminism.  One could start with the “milk-mothers” brushed over at the start of the film and the importance of mother’s milk being given to the children.  Of the War Boys being little more than brain-washed uber males that gleeful rushed to their deaths in combat, while the Brides were soft and beautiful in their grace.  These two groups really brought together the stereotypes of masculine and feminine.  Notice both are dressed in white, one symbolizing being a walking corpse for the War Boys while the other is of feminine purity.  So the movie clearly lays out the stereotypes for you, but then interjects characters such as Furiosa, Max and the War Boy that joined them to muddle those boundaries.  Also keep in mind the “crones” in terms of the older women that went into combat.

As for Furiosa’s character, she is certainly cutting a feminine characterization as she is trying to protect the other women.  Femininity is very much tied to nurturing and protecting, which she does by protecting the Brides.  Now she accomplishes this in a traditionally masculine manner of being a commanding presence and a frightfully effective fighter.  By the same token she also does become a damsel in distress during the fighting, having to be rescued by Max and in losing her bearings so that he has to take over leadership of the women.  So Max retains his masculinity despite being captured at the start, he regained his freedom by his own strength and wits.  He leads the women from the salt flats back to prosperity at the Citadel and in general is the quietly, dominant hero of masculinity.  So I am not sure where this threatening of masculinity and femininity arises with Max and Furiosa. 

The movie highlights that women are not weak for being feminine, just as men are not necessarily strong by being masculine.  I do not regard Max as the best fighter in that group and there is even a scene where it’s highlighted he is not the best shot.  So while both contributed and retained their gender roles, neither was really on top.  Which I suppose is what is so upsetting to people.

To me the greater shift was in the Brides and in the War Boy.  The War Boy (I forget his name) starts out with testosterone fueled vigor and rage to see battle.  He is what you would consider a teenage boy.  Yet as the story progresses he becomes more vulnerable and more feminine, relying on the women to help him and taking their orders.  The Brides become more commanding in their attitudes, one even boldly tricking the large War Boy into taking her onto the vehicle so that she could help Furiosa at the final battle.  So there is certainly, to me, more gender movement there.

[Joel]

@Pumpkinseeds

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

It's the masculine destroyer versus the feminine creator in the film-- that's interesting because in most mythologies Chaos is ascribed more as a feminine trait and Order is more of a masculine trait.  (Definitely ideas of gender a millennia years ago are different than ideas of gender now).  The masculine destroyer makes more sense now?

I loved the "crones" in the film.  -- The young fertile brides, the non-breeding Furiosa, and the sterile crones who hold the seeds for rebirth.

Furiosa though defends by being offensive, which is more masculine than feminine.  She's the one that defaces Imortan, and she strikes out to make the deal with the mountain passage people, leaving Max behind to guard the girls.  On the other hand, Max is the one who takes care of tank treads while she continues on with the group.  Atop of that, both of them drive the war-rig. 

Even the way they exchanged roles with the rifle to take out the light was a fun switch.  Max is negatively masculine in his bravado, taking two shots with the expectation that he can do it free standing.  Furiosa is positively feminine in her patience insistence that she take the last shot.  She is positively confident in her own abilities over Max, irrespective of ego, asking for his shoulder for balance rather than offering her's for his shot.  She's not Molly Pitcher loading his cannon.  That positive cooperation contrasts with Max's negative independence.  In that regard, femininity is better than masculinity.

It feels right that there ought to be more gender movement with the war boys and the brides.  They are the new generation while Max, Furiosa and the others are ossified in what they (know) knew. 

All of this just leaves me wanting for more content in the movie!  Charlize and Hardy so nailed that shit despite the paucity of dialog.

[Angie]

Oh Return of Kings...I can never tell if they're faking it a'la Onion or they actually believe this shit. Probably the latter.

I can't contribute much to the discussion because I haven't seen the new Mad Max, but I will say this: Characterization is the most important aspect of a story, period. If a story would (somehow) be served properly with the use of a hyper-masculine protagonist, great, go ahead. If it would be served by something that's actually three-dimensional, even better. Ideally, a character would be defined by personality and actions first, appearance second (or third, if you separate personality and actions). Heck, most of the characters I make on this very site are defined more by personality then looks-I can assign any image I please to my characters, and that satisfies me.

[HannibalBarca]

My perfect image of a man would be Atticus Finch from To Kill A Mockingbird.  To be honest, a woman acting the same way would be my perfect image of a woman as well.  To me, being an adult means two things:  Responsibility for one's self, and the ability to be responsible for others, whether another individual, or your community in general.  In that regards, the general differences between men and women don't outweigh the general importance of simply acting like an adult, regardless of gender.

[Joel]

@AngieJussan - I agree, though I use appearances as readily as I do characterization.  They are interchangeable in my mind.  I also think the choices a writer (or artist) makes says something about that person as well as what that person (wants to) convey(s) either consciously or unconsciously about their world view.  I also think this whole 'triggers' and 'you do you' habit is counter productive to creative criticism.  In fact, "Girls" had a fantastic (!!) parody of that in an episode.  Anyway, I digress.  I know that the above is NOT at all what you were talking about with appearances.  But my point is that making things universal can also be diluting?  Like you're losing one color from your palate? 

@HannibalBarca - I think the issue is more nuanced than just being responsible.  I mean yeah, that's actually the right answer:  People should all be responsible and noble and good people regardless of their gender.  But how females and men are represented as responsible in narratives, usually depends on their gender?  I think the question is more about how this can be done in a positive and conscientious way?  I mean personally, I think it'd be boring if men and women were portrayed exactly the same in narratives.  There are distinctions that are fun and can add depth to a character, I think.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

 I am not sure if the masculine destroyer is such a correct traditional view.  God is seen as a masculine figure that created the cosmos, along with Hephaestus from Greek mythology and in general men are seen as creators and innovators throughout history.  Women in certain mythologies are seen as sowing the seeds of destruction and being creatures of temptation and chaos.  Simply look at the origins of the word hysteria, consider the story for Helen of Troy and the story about Eve in the garden.  Now you could say that men are viewed more positively for their destructive impulses or at least were at some point.  Men are expected to be more direct in their confrontation and honorable, like soldiers and warriors.  Whereas women are often placed in a more sneaky and underhanded method than their male counterparts.  Contrast for instance Hawkeye with his bow and arrow, perched high above firing off arrows to the Black Widow assassin character that uses deception (side note: there was a great article about how Black Widow had to shed her femininity so to speak to become so badass, whereas Hawkeye was able to keep his masculine ability to be a father and husband).  In Mad Max there was also a dose of this since Furiosa was the first to go for a gun in the fight between them and also had the knife hidden in the handle of the gear shift, along with all the hidden guns throughout the cabin.  This shows certain, “I can’t fight a man without cheating” mindset.

The notion of gender roles and expectations I think makes people uncomfortable.  Most of the traits I see here are what would be ascribed to a good person, not so much a good man or woman.  Good heart and responsible are kind of generic things people would ascribe to a good person or mate.  I think the sooner we as a people can realize our bias and confront them, the sooner such things can be handled and put aside.

[Lustful Bride]

“I can’t fight a man without cheating”

In a fight, especially for your life, there is no such thing as fighting fair. You can fight honorable, but there is no such thing as fairness. And she was expecting to be chased down by an entire war party, so I think her having guns hidden everywhere was just good planning.

Edit: This comment reminded me of something I read in a book somwhere long ago where a reporter complained to a US General that it was unfair that the US troops were using nightvision goggles to fight at night when the insurgents had no such capability. But for the life of me I cant remember what book it was.

[Aethereal]

I mean personally, I think it'd be boring if men and women were portrayed exactly the same in narratives.

The problem is that people have some kind of weird preconception of what the opposite sex is like, and they simply overdo it. It has happened far too often that I read or watch something a man has written, find the male characters fairly relatable, but the female characters only induce the feeling of "...What is this alien?  ??? ". They simply don't feel human to me anymore.
       I treat males and females the exact same way in real life - why should I do differently in literature? A person is a person is a person foremost and even if the statistical averages end up being slightly different dots, no one really is a statistical average in real life.

       (Cannot comment on Mad Max specifically, as I've not seen that movie.)

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well considering my statement was in regard to gender roles and characterization and not on the tactics of the character, I find the quote you are referencing a difficult one to associate.  Certainly have a multitude of hidden weapons makes good tactical sense, but once more we are talking about how the people writing and portraying the character of Furiosa were using intended or unintentional bias.  The film made a point of showing Max taking away all these weapons and then of her showing the knife in the gear shift hidden from him.  This was an intentional moment in the film that actually served no purpose other than to show Max making her less dangerous by removing the weapons.  Whereas Max is always viewed as a threat by the women despite having a weapon or not.  Such as when he steps out of the vehicle with the other War Boy and the crones, who are armed are immediately wary and fearful of the men.

I also wanted to point out that in terms of ground breaking gender roles, I think Claire Underwood from House of Cards is more revolutionary than Furiosa.

[Lustful Bride]

Well considering my statement was in regard to gender roles and characterization and not on the tactics of the character, I find the quote you are referencing a difficult one to associate.  Certainly have a multitude of hidden weapons makes good tactical sense, but once more we are talking about how the people writing and portraying the character of Furiosa were using intended or unintentional bias.  The film made a point of showing Max taking away all these weapons and then of her showing the knife in the gear shift hidden from him.  This was an intentional moment in the film that actually served no purpose other than to show Max making her less dangerous by removing the weapons.  Whereas Max is always viewed as a threat by the women despite having a weapon or not.  Such as when he steps out of the vehicle with the other War Boy and the crones, who are armed are immediately wary and fearful of the men.

I also wanted to point out that in terms of ground breaking gender roles, I think Claire Underwood from House of Cards is more revolutionary than Furiosa.

Hmm I think you have a point. Il take your work on Underwood from HoC since I haven't watched that show. *too busy with game of thrones >3<*

[Angie]

@AngieJussan - I agree, though I use appearances as readily as I do characterization.  They are interchangeable in my mind.  I also think the choices a writer (or artist) makes says something about that person as well as what that person (wants to) convey(s) either consciously or unconsciously about their world view.  I also think this whole 'triggers' and 'you do you' habit is counter productive to creative criticism.  In fact, "Girls" had a fantastic (!!) parody of that in an episode.  Anyway, I digress.  I know that the above is NOT at all what you were talking about with appearances.  But my point is that making things universal can also be diluting?  Like you're losing one color from your palate? 

(Emphasis added)

I see where you're coming from. Appearance has its place as well (and I know we're getting away from Mad Max, but I wanted to say my piece on this). Making someone look like a hero or villain, or in some cases, NOT look like a hero or villain, can be just as important. I'll reference video games since I know them quite well, and in this case, bring up Just Cause 2. Rico does not look like the archetypal hero, at first glance, he looks more anti-hero then hero. This actually does tie into his character-he's mean and surly, but his job involves blowing shit up and toppling entire regimes. And in fact, this was the one problem I had with the movie Drive-Ryan Gosling does not look like a badass motherfucker. Granted, his actions show that The Driver IS, but at first glance, you wouldn't think of him as being capable of smearing a dude's head on an elevator floor (spoiler alert).

So in summary, appearance is important, but to me (and I want to make this clear, this is PURELY opinion), personality is more important. I often find that when I build a character's personality, that's when the appearance also starts to take shape. Am I making any sense at all?

[Joel]

@Pumpkinseeds -

Ultron/House of Cards Spoilers

That's an interesting point with Black Widow and Hawkeye.  And maybe taking from what Shienvien said, it sorta feels a bit like overcompensation.  Because a Black Widow who is a mother would feel like she abandoned her child whereas a Hawkeye father is the breadwinner when he leaves his family and risks his life.  Classical male characters are more noble when they have families, but the story always requires them to be apart from their families.  Male characters who stay with their families are considered less masculine because they are the ones that do not go to war or whatever.  On the other hand, if say Black Widow has a child, but that child is separated from her, then her character would be expected to be more fanatical than cool tempered.  She wouldn't for example pursue Banner.

I'm always like... do you spit in the face of conventions or bend them.  You could just plain gender swap it.  A fem-Mad-Max would totally still read as Mad Max.  But a Furiosa minus the brides would be such a boring, un-relatable character like say... Resident Evil girl.  Sure she's a woman and she's badass, but why.

Claire Underwood.  Absolutely.  She's in some part, characteristically a woman, but her character is more defined by her situation than her persona.  She's a woman in a man's world and after a few seasons of us being educated on why she can't have what she wants, she finally gets all her pieces together and strikes out on the best path available to her.  Besides it feels like the show wants you to look at it in an almost Shakespearian way...  which does make Claire more manipulative of Frank whereas Frank is outright authoritative over her.   

Though is it counter productive in stories/cinema to continue portraying men as physically stronger and physically intimidating over women?  Given that sort of dynamic, it'd make sense for someone who is physically weaker to be smarter about how they engaged their (largely male) opponents.  Even Max gets owned by physically larger men and outside of those instances he still shoots people in the back or 'cheats' in other ways. 

Women are also physically stronger than men.  But that generalization of men being physically threatening... is it good for narrative or not.  It feels like it's almost necessary (even if it's never tested) to give a complimentary contrast between male and female protagonists.  I don't think it has to exist, but I'd miss it if it's a convention I can't use anymore.

@Angiejussan -  I think that's what made Drive compelling actually.  Gosling's baby faced carnage is an interesting contrast that I thought added depth to his character.  It's not overt as in say Battle Royal, which only talks about the situation than the character when comparing innocence with violence. But I think casting a different actor for The Driver... like say Charlie Hunnam would make him a very different character indeed.  Ultimately I don't think it's The Driver's brutality that makes him frightening but his indifference in the face of that brutality that makes him shocking.  Gosling's unmarked, smooth and non-gritty demeanor captures that in a way that a more obvious criminal casting would not, I think.  (This of course went totally haywire in Only God Forgives).

[Angie]

@Joel: I was going to make that jump, and I forgot to. I totally agree that his appearance as a baby face does serve to make the brutality all that more shocking. In fact, I think a lot of the characters have appearances that go against how their actual personalities are in Drive. Ron Perlman, for example, really does look like a hard-ass bastard, but it's slowly revealed that his personality is far more along the lines of a whiny kid (even reflected in his character's name, "Nino", which means "Child"). And it is quite effective that Gosling is going around doing Hotline Miami levels of violence with utter indifference, it serves the story far more then an obviously criminal face would. And that's really all it comes down to: Does this serve the story? If yes, proceed. If no, try again.

[Aethereal]

But that generalization of men being physically threatening... is it good for narrative or not.

To me it isn't good narrative, really, as it is some kind of weird generalization I personally cannot relate to from real life... I have never perceived men as more intimidating than women myself, you see (and during a certain period of my life, it was downright vice versa - it was the girls who went about brutally beating people - and I mean repeatedly bashing someone's face into the edge of a stone sink brutally - up at the first school I was in, and later on in university I changed residence because of a 1.85-ish woman I knew had physically violent tendencies).
      I tend to read body language rather than appearance, and if the body language doesn't convey ill intent, that person simply doesn't register as intimidating to me, even if they are over two meters tall and well-built. Stronger? Probably. Intimidating? No. I haven't personally seen women being less inclined to physical violence than men. And believe me, size doesn't matter all that much when a person is really damn intent on hurting you or worse, also knows how to fight...

[Juggtacular]

Well considering my statement was in regard to gender roles and characterization and not on the tactics of the character, I find the quote you are referencing a difficult one to associate.  Certainly have a multitude of hidden weapons makes good tactical sense, but once more we are talking about how the people writing and portraying the character of Furiosa were using intended or unintentional bias. The film made a point of showing Max taking away all these weapons and then of her showing the knife in the gear shift hidden from him.  This was an intentional moment in the film that actually served no purpose other than to show Max making her less dangerous by removing the weapons.  Whereas Max is always viewed as a threat by the women despite having a weapon or not.  Such as when he steps out of the vehicle with the other War Boy and the crones, who are armed are immediately wary and fearful of the men.

I also wanted to point out that in terms of ground breaking gender roles, I think Claire Underwood from House of Cards is more revolutionary than Furiosa.

I considered Furiosa plenty dangerous(She went from being a slave to Imperator over the literal tons of capable men at the Citadel, which probably involved a lot of murder and the loss of her arm). She was the only person aside from Joe's roided up son at the end who had a physical fight with Max and was making him work for that win. When he was at the Citadel, he was knocking guys 15 feet and tossing them like ragdolls so since those two actually went at it and the fight probably would have kept going if Nux didn't show up, I'd say she was plenty dangerous. I considered her even moreso because she was so badass with only one arm. Like literally holding Max from falling to his death after getting stabbed. She was uber badass.

If anything, it showed a massive respect of her prowess from Max that he decided to take all the guns. So she'd have absolutely no chance of turning the tables on him and fucking him up like she almost did in their first fight. Basically Max was thinking, "If I slip up even a little around this woman, it's my ass on a platter." Even Joe considered her dangerous. Remember when he sent Nux back to get them? Nux said he'd stab her in the spine and keep her alive. Joe said "Fuck that, kill her." Not only did she piss him off, but she proved how much trouble she could be. Trouble he didn't want.

And the wives/Furiosa considered Max a threat because of all they saw him do. The Green Place women considered him a threat because they seemed to be an Amazon-esque society, or at least hadn't been around men in a very long time as the youngest one in their group was about mid-30's and she remembered Furiosa from 7000 days ago(19 years). Plus Furiosa and I'm assuming more women were kidnapped by Joe and his War Boys. So men probably weren't high on their list at the time.

[Evolution]

This is an interesting thread and a lot of points were brought up.  Before I go into any of those I'll just state my opinion on the movie.  It really had nothing to do with feminism or anything like that.  My problem with the movie was that it was an action movie called Mad Max, and Max wasn't even starring in the movie.. That is pretty much my complaint.  That being said, I've never really been a Mad Max fan so for me its just one movie in a long list of simply 'meh' movies.

What I don't understand is why political correctness in a movie matters.  Feminism is just one of those groups that you really can't please.  If you get involved, even if its pro feminism, sooner or later it'll come back to bite you.  Joss Whedon got railed on by feminists not that long ago for the Ultron movie (Which in its own right was a terrible movie) for how he portrayed Black Widow even though most of his career he has done nothing but write strong leading female characters.  Even a movie like Mad Max doesn't make feminists happy.  Sure it has a badass female character, but someone earlier on the thread complained 'well they had that thing with the milk mothers'.  People talk about this stuff like movies reflect how people act in society.  'That movie was sexist and misogynistic'... So?  Who cares... Its just a movie.  I don't think you can project societies screw ups on movies.  Complaining about sexism in movies is like complaining about violent videogames being the cause of school shootings.

At our core I believe that for the most part we are shallow individuals, and nothing reflects this more than what is around us.  Hollywood for example, almost all the top paying actors are attractive, or had been at one point, why? It doesn't really have anything to with quality because one of the top grossing movies of the last few months was Fast and Furious 7, which is nothing more than a mind numbing action movie.  The reason is that we want to see pretty people.  That is why even today magazine have fit/attractive men and women on the cover.  Now you could very easily argue 'well it doesn't apply to me' but really it kinda does.  Just look at 90% of any sexual roleplay on thiis site alone.  All the characters are either hot/attractive young women or handsome/athletic men.  Why?  Because that is what WE fantasize about.  In retrospect it is a lot easier to bitch about a movie being sexist than it is to look at yourself as someone who is in part to blame.

Someone mentioned Claire Underwood in one of the earlier posts.  My wife and I were huge fans of House of Cards up until the train wreck that was season 3.  Claire Underwood was probably my favorite character on the show.  She was a strong, cold, devious and calculating character.  The line where she says "I am willing to let your unborn child wither and die if that's what it takes" made me say "That... Was badass"  The way she handled things was amazing, more so that she held her own against a character like Frank Underwood.  Even in season 2 the way she dealt with both rape and abortion were both very interesting plot lines, not because it was making a statement but more it fit Claire's character.  Now the cold and confident woman we see in seasons 1 and 2 basically becomes a retard in season 3.  She actually becomes a female cliche.  Ruled by her emotions, making very irrational decisions all because the writers wanted to make some kind of social statement.  In that remark I'm talking about Claire and her gay rights cause that she picks up and talks publicly about even though it is basically screwing with her husband's career.  I'm a little fuzzy on season 3 because I only saw it once.. What was it that Claire wanted to be.. US Ambassador?  She wanted to do it on her own, but didn't get the votes.. So what does she do? Cries to her husband and forces him to appoint her as the Ambassador anyway.  Later on in the season due to her lack of experience  she gets duped by the Russians.  Even though it was her fault, who does she blame?  Frank for some magical reason.

Of course Claire isn't the only character that the writers messed up because of some social agenda.  There was that thing with Frank, and Meechum.  I imagine the writers had this "Lets show how progressive Frank is, that he can be a badass but also like dick at the same time" moment.  When in reality it ended up going nowhere.  The Meechum/bi thing happens ONCE, and is never mentioned again, almost as if it never happened.  Not to mention it is a part of himself that Frank keeps hidden away from everyone, so I really don't see the point in even putting that in the show.  Getting back to Claire, she is someone who is a smart woman, someone who has her eye on the big picture, despite all that she pretty much not only jeopardizes her own future but her husband's bid for presidency by going 'lol I'm leaving you just as your campaign is getting started'.  Honestly it really made no sense.  It felt like the writers just threw that in there for a shocking cliffhanger, however the season itself was so terrible that by the time the end came I really didn't care what happened.

Someone also talked about their 'ideal' actor, and some talked about looks while others talked about personalities and whatnot.  The reality is that almost all actors are selfish and entitled d-bags (Btw I'm really not sure if its okay to use profanity on this board so I'm trying to be delicate with my language, a feat that I'm finding harder than I'd imagined).  Actors get paid outrageous amounts and lead a privileged life where they are worshiped for a skill that isn't even useful in the real world.  Now you could argue that I'm bitter about their lives as opposed to mine, but I'm really not.  I'm just pointing out facts.  In most cases the personality of an actor doesn't really hold much, if any weight in my mind when I'm judging a movie.  Clint Eastwood for example, I LOVE his westerns, and I even love some of his newer movies.  Gran Torino being one of those films.  Does it matter that its a known fact that a few decades ago Eastwood was banging this woman whom he refused to marry, not only that but he refused to wear condoms and throughout their relationship he forced her to get countless abortions as a result?  No, to me none of that matters when I'm watching a movie, just like most of the world.  We live in a technological world where information is very easily shared, while there are some people who are ignorant of such facts, as a whole most people just don't care.

Getting back to the topic at hand..  I think the thing I find the most disturbing about discussions like these is the fact that we live in a world where some people don't have clean water to drink, some people don't have homes, some go to bed hungry.  All that is happening when there are people being paid sums up to 40 million dollars for walking around and talking.  The issue isn't 'Man.. Hollywood as a whole is a messed up industry' but more 'Ya know..  I think this movie is a little sexist in the way it depicts men, and stereotypes women, which is the REAL problem guys!' 

[Blythe]

Getting back to the topic at hand..  I think the thing I find the most disturbing about discussions like these is the fact that we live in a world where some people don't have clean water to drink, some people don't have homes, some go to bed hungry.  All that is happening when there are people being paid sums up to 40 million dollars for walking around and talking.  The issue isn't 'Man.. Hollywood as a whole is a messed up industry' but more 'Ya know..  I think this movie is a little sexist in the way it depicts men, and stereotypes women, which is the REAL problem guys!'

While I won't comment on the rest of your post, this particular part of your post has an informal fallacy in it.

The presence of other worthy topics out there does not make this one less worthy of discussion.

[Evolution]

Blythe, I think in comparison this topic is considerably less 'worthy' than the topic I suggested.  For the sake of argument I'll return back to the topic at hand.

Men's right, as well as women's rights are very important things.  There are a lot of injustices in the world when we're talking about men's and women's rights.  There are very serious subjects to be had.  Men's rights groups as well as feminists and women's rights groups have a responsibility to address the issues that actually matter.  In my opinion whenever a rights group starts bitching about a movie they're taking steps backwards because they're talking about something trivial over something that matters.  I'll say again, I think human rights, both male and female are VERY important.  I just don't see movies as being a part of that discussion.  I'd agree with the original poster that it is laughable that a men's rights group is bitching about the feminist agenda in the movie, just like I'd think its stupid when a feminist group does the exact same thing.

I'll further explain why I feel this way.  As a reasonable human being I don't let movies dictate how I feel and how I judge things.  Just because I see a man hitting a woman then laughing about it, doesn't mean I'll go and do the same thing in the real world.  Just because I see a movie where women are dominating men, doesn't mean I'm going to pick up the opinion that women are out to get men in the real world.  Most people I assume are reasonable human beings and as such aren't affected by stupid movies, and those people who do let movies influence them in such way, well a movie is the least of their problems. 

I know I'm going a little off topic but I do believe it somewhat relates.  I believe the whole 'rape culture' thing is a similar situation.  How people talk about rape culture in movies and media as if some how it contributes to rape.  People rape because they want to.. They don't do it because they saw it in a movie.  In my opinion when people talk about things like 'rape culture in media' what it does is trivialize the ACTUAL issue of rape.

[Blythe]

You are entitled to your opinion, but if you feel there are other worthier topics to discuss, you can always create your own thread to discuss them.

There's really nothing wrong or particularly unworthy with the premise of this thread's particular topic, and it would really be better to stay on topic with what this thread is discussing.

[Evolution]

For the most part I either stayed on topic or responded to points that others had made in the thread.  I said that there are more important topics but I don't believe I ever said this thread shouldn't exist.  As for making my own topic I might do that.  I've mainly used the site for roleplaying purposes but I'm starting to branch out as of late.  Some of the threads in this board in particular are very interesting.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Movies, music, video games, plays, books and so forth are what scientists would consider cultural artifacts of a society.  Items of popular media and designed for entertainment purposes reflect aspects of a culture and so there is certainly something to be said for movies portraying how people act in real life.  Things that we as a culture and a people find appealing enough to invest millions of dollars in buildings and then viewing hints at what our cultural values and beliefs are at the core.  So examining a film is actually an important way to see where certain social groups are ranked, how certain values are viewed and what exactly is going on in a society.  Also the director, writers and actors are artists whether you appreciate them as such or not.  They are attempting to convey a message and trying to understand that message is part of being a good movie goer.  To call the film numb and mindless, and then fuss at people for seeing a deeper meaning is quite contradictory.

As for feminism being hard to please, you may insert any political group into that area not simply feminism.  Any political and social group that people have passion about will have portions that are more radical and strict than others.  Liberals, conservatists, environmentalists, what have you. 

Also I think you are confusing this topic with one about movies and popular media causing violence and dictating certain behavior.

[Evolution]

Pumpkin Seeds, I'll try to respond to each of your points.

I'd agree that there are movies/tv shows/music that reflect things in our society/culture, which is fine, but I don't see that when people criticize movies for specific reasons.  People discuss movies as if the things that happen in movies will set a trend for the real world, not what you said about how the movie is making a point about society and THAT is what we should be discussing.  All movies have a plot and are about something, but I also don't believe that all movies HAVE to have such a deep meaning that people like to inject into it.  Getting back to Mad Max, its a movie that shows that women are capable of solving their own problems, they can be strong and badass, and don't necessarily have to be the victim all the time.  None of that is a bad thing and perhaps that is what the writers were going for, but then people try to shove all this other meaning into it, or push a specific agenda.  Some men thinking that the movie is feminist propaganda, or feminists thinking the movie still has females that fit those stereotypical roles.  At that point no REAL issues are being discussed and it just devolves to people bitching/nitpicking over stuff that really doesn't matter.

As for directors, writers, and actors, I definitely value them.  I spend a lot of time watching movies as well as TV.  I'm guilty of liking actresses for no other reason than them being attractive.  While I value them, my personal opinion is that its outrageous that they get paid as much as they do.  Others might disagree, and they have the right to do so.

I agree with what you said about radical sects of any group.  Yes they exist, however what bothers me is the fact that no group calls out their own.  Since this thread is talking about Men's rights groups and Feminists, I'll stick with those two.  I believe that if you're part of a group you have a certain sense of responsibility about how your group is portrayed.  When the reasonable feminists don't speak out against the radical ones, its a lot easier for someone outside the group to think that most feminists not only condone what the radials are saying but agree with it.  Same goes for Men's rights groups, when the loudest voices are those that talk shit about women, those within the group who are reasonable need to make it a point and separate themselves from the hateful remarks and condemn those who are hijacking the cause.  It happens so often that I think we just brush it off as if 'Oh they're just radicals, we can't do anything about that' which I think is a problem, and threads like these pop up and we end up talking about aspects of the cause that don't matter as opposed to those that do.

I personally don't identify as a part of any group, political or otherwise, but when I see or hear something that I agree with I voice an opinion, just as when the group does something that I think is wrong I'll voice my opinion just as easily.     

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Why would you expect feminists to call out other feminists?  There is not a rigid system or organization to them.  There is not a central feminist organization.  Feminism is an academic discipline and a way of thought.  The actual feminist movement didn’t even hold such a cohesive organization as the sort to silence each other.  Nobody expects the LGBT community to tell extreme members to be quiet and nobody really expects Rush Limbaugh to be told to shut up by other conservatives.  Why?  Because there really isn’t any standing for them to do so and no real place for them to do so.  A feminist is allowed to voice her opinion publically and identify herself with whatever she likes.  In truth people tend to identify these opinions and people for them.  “Oh that sounds feminist, she’s one of them feminazis” when in truth she may have never read or indulged in any recognized feminist literature, writer or groups. 

If feminists spent all their time telling random women to be quiet because they had an opinion that they felt was stupid, then nothing would get done and that would be a greater undermining of feminist thought.

As for the movie situation, certainly movies are meant to be entertaining.  People are free to indulge and enjoy those movies.  Similar to the way people are allowed to simply view poems are comforting and pretty words to hear or read.  For some this is fine and I respect their desire to simply enjoy.  To others those same words speak louder and mean more, which is why you have literature courses and books.  The producer and director selected certain scenes to be expressed and shown.  If they are to be viewed as artists than we have to assume there is some meaning behind what is shown and in the selection process.  They are attempting to convey a message with that choice. 

There are various examples throughout cinema of “badass” women.  Furiousa is one of these examples now and she has struck a cord with people.  I do not think this is unintentional because the character is very well done and is portrayed by an actress known for these sorts of roles.  If I choose to dig a bit, search a bit for additional meaning then that is my decision to do so.  If people want to discuss those meanings and sort of poke around the movie then awesome as well.  I do not see how coming into that thread and saying, “this is all pointless” is supposed to contribute to a meaningful discussion.

If your opinion is that the movie was just fun and entertaining, then leave it at that.  Otherwise you are pretty much being the guy who runs into a coffee house screaming this is all pointless and storming off when everyone keeps talking.

[Evolution]

"If your opinion is that the movie was just fun and entertaining, then leave it at that.  Otherwise you are pretty much being the guy who runs into a coffee house screaming this is all pointless and storming off when everyone keeps talking." 

I think that was a little uncalled for.  I'm voicing my opinion but in no way am I making anyone stop from voicing theirs.  Nor am I disrupting the board, making random threads and shoving my opinion down other people's throats.  I read the thread and had something to contribute to it, which is what I'm doing.  I haven't called anyone out, nor have I insulted anyone.  I've read points people have made, and I've tried to respond to them while voicing my own opinion.  I don't even think I've used any profanity throughout my posts.

While people have the right to say whatever they want, they also need to be responsible in what they say.  You mentioned Rush, which is a good example.  He has a right to voice his opinion, and every so often he is actually right, the problem is, most of what he says is very selective and instead of taking in all aspects of a situation/argument he tends to pick the side that suits his agenda. Rush does identify himself as a conservative and a republican, and even though he has a lot of very radical views he has a certain sized following, which is why all republican politicians who run for president generally pay him tribute.  Now from one point or view that is fine because people can do whatever they want, but on the other side of the coin those candidates that go on his show are both condoning and even contributing to his particular agenda.  I'm using Rush as an example since you mentioned him, but liberals/democrats are guilty of the same thing.  For example Bill Maher has been making a lot of very anti Muslim statements in the last few months and I haven't really heard anyone in the liberal party speak out against it.

I'll say it again, I'm not stopping others from discussing what they want, just voicing MY opinions on the matter.  Yes, I think a Men's rights group bitching about Mad Max is trivial when compared to the real issues men deal with.  Am I crusading around trying to top said group of men from criticizing Mad Max?  No, I'm not.  A thread was created, to which I contributed. Hell I'm not even typing in all caps which indicates 'text yelling'.  If you want to characterize me in a certain way because of my views go ahead I suppose.  I won't do the same to you because your opinion differs from mine however. 

[consortium11]

Why would you expect feminists to call out other feminists?  There is not a rigid system or organization to them.  There is not a central feminist organization.  Feminism is an academic discipline and a way of thought.  The actual feminist movement didn’t even hold such a cohesive organization as the sort to silence each other.  Nobody expects the LGBT community to tell extreme members to be quiet and nobody really expects Rush Limbaugh to be told to shut up by other conservatives.

People sort of do expect people of similar political positions to call out others thought... NAMBLA was used as a stick to beat the LGBT community with for a long time, when Christian conservatives appeal to the middle ground they normally have distance themselves from the more radical fringes etc etc.

But what I think makes the argument that feminists don't call out other feminists weak is that they do... pretty much all the time. TERFs (Trans-exclusionary radical feminists) get called out all the time, there's quite a lot of conflict between second and third wave feminists, there's been a bit of a blacklash against what is seen as the upper-middle class, metropolitan elite nature of some feminist positions and arguments from within what I guess we could call the movement, tied into that has been a criticism of how white feminist figures are happy to talk about intersectionality when it comes to discussing racism in general but tend to block out people of colour's voices within feminism itself. It's only been a month or so since Joss Whedon... a self-proclaimed femenist... faced a huge backlash over Black Widow and was previously called out for what was interpreted as a transphobic joke.

If anything feminism is defined as much by their willingness to "eat their own" as it is by some supposed unified front. Now, in general such "call outs" don't happen when someone says something ridiculous or extremist about men but when two feminists do end up at odds it can be as bitter and violent as any form of political "debate" (and I use that term very loosely)

[MonkeyBee]

Hi. I'm probably going to deviate from the main start point of this topic. Also, bear with me, because this is so multi-pronged it's making my brain ache and I've been going round in circles on it even before I've tried to write it down. And there are so many rabbit tunnels.


For me, the film had everything to do with power, strength and beauty and what those things are. And that is both why it was taken as such a threatening thing by anti-feminists, and why film itself is such a strong medium for communication that it actually is very important what is being said on every level within it. How we interpret those things (power, strength, beauty) or how we are guided to interpret them might lead us to making masculine or feminine attributions. That's where the feminists have a case too.


My read on this call out about women taking up the screen time and "pretending" they can do everything men can in an action movie, is that it is a fear reaction. The fact that that reaction has been strong enough to provoke debate and discussion (the fact that this threat exists, that I am even typing this...) means that actually, this is a live topic that hasn't got a single answer. In countries or parts of countries, or families, where men experience a need to be dominant over women be that sexually, economically,  socially, or physically, a film showing women taking over every aspect that they consider men's territory is something to be afraid of. And to get angry about. This is Hollywood giving permission for everything to get out of their control and for women to claim back power over their own bodies. It's a very strong message, which for some people will be taken as a subversive call to action, or a gigantic snub.


Both Furiosa and Max showed a fairly level spread of strengths and weaknesses. They were fairly gender neutral as characters go. I think you could have swapped them over quite easily.  Although as I write that, I realise I've stumbled across the point the anti-feminists were making.


So, thought experiment time....

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

If Furiosa was the one chained up in a cage and tied to the front of a car like the woman on the front of a pirate ship, and made an attempt to gain control over a perceived hostile party who turn out to be her rescuers, by holding them up with a gun with no bullets (animal reaction - fear provoked), and inevitably failing, we would have been looking at your standard damsel in distress with a bit more bite. That's where again, the film, and the choices the director and writer have made, become very powerful.


We as an audience, I do not believe, would credit Furiosa with the same strength we credit Max with, if the only things that changed in that film were flipping her and Max's situations around.  If he was the rescuer. So is it just that we have such embedded ideas of masculine and feminine that we overwrite our perceptions onto what is actually happening?


Did Max need rescuing? No, he got himself out of it - forced them to help him, right? And anyway, he would have got himself out of it somehow.
Would Furiosa in that same position have needed saving? Hell yes, no way could she get that face mask off unless Max took pity...Right?

I think I'm guilty of internalised misogyny here, but it's interesting to me to see that the circumstances make (my) perceptions skew in different ways.

That is, I guess, the complaint. The film casts Max, who is, according to the title, meant to be the hero, as the woman from the black and white movie tied to the rail tracks. Max is at the bottom of the power balance. But that only makes him more feminine if you think that women having power is something foreign to her gender.


The War Boys again are a really fascinating point of that power balance. They are afraid because they're going to die. Maybe this is masculine, because men aren't allowed to show fear, but mainly, I think it's very human. So they wrap it up in bravado and wilfully believe the myth of finding a good death. They want to go out in a blaze of glory, which is very historically accurate behaviour.  Young men don't want to be cowards and it is vitally important that their shows of bravery are witnessed. But it's love, not femininity that allows the letting go of that fear. Maybe there's an argument to say that "woman is love". But I don't buy into that. Anyone can be afraid. Furiosa refuses to commit as much as Max does. He's the one who tries to stop her dying. She makes no attempt to stop him from leaving. She just accepts. They both do.


But... and this is where I wander truly off topic...  I don't thing gender was the main bit of the film to get wound up about. For me, what left me distinctly uncomfortable almost from the get-go, was the way the good/bad split was demonstrated. Physical perfection was set up as the thing to achieve. The wives are young and beautiful and slender, and they glow like angels. Pure and white. The War Boys, as someone has already mentioned, were similarly in white, which shows their innocence - it's not their fault, but the evil things the truly ugly people have done, have meant that their bodies are not viable. Genetic disability was cast as synonymous with evil, over indulgence and impurity, just to maintain that helpful face of villainy that Hollywood perpetuates so well.


The film would have attracted much more outrage, I think, if they hadn't marred their heroes. But, if you note, this was with what appeared to be acquired disability through interacting with the now unnatural world. Max's madness was used like a superpower or a haunting and was entirely symbolic of what he had been through, as was Furiosa's arm. It worked very successfully as an allegory, but it still makes me uncomfortable. And there's that point about the power of film again. The women worth saving were the perfect ones, and the fatter, uglier ones were left behind.

Do we think of a female character as truly strong when she's not borrowing ideas of masculine strength (does she have to shoot people, and know how to fight - in this context, yes, but are they really masculine traits?) or do we think it's boring and weak for her to do anything but? Furiosa is tough and admirable because she's de-feminized to some degree. I like that they didn't sexualise or fetishise her Amazonian style character - she was a person first, and a woman second. But can you have a strong female character who maintains sexuality, and doesn't shave her head, or does that immediately put her back into a context where she can only be considered in relation to men?  Could she have been a woman first?


Maybe it's that issue of audience. As soon as a woman is brought away from neutral it's ingrained that she's something good to look primarily, a decent character only secondarily.  Lara Croft, case in point. Men are allowed to be more 'feminine' these days, as long as they do it with enough macho bullshit and musculature to pare it off against. Or at least with a sports car. So maybe they're stuck in the same boat.  We've already been too influenced by the other films we've seen.

[Aethereal]

      Thing is, *no* real person I've actually met is woman/man first and a person second. Having it the other way around in movies (or other media) just feels ... alien to me. Inhuman.

      On the note of shaving heads: I come from a culture where there were only two kinds of people who got their hair cut short/shaved - slaves and, a bit later in the history, also newly married women... Things like that aren't really inherently "feminine" or "masculine".
      Also, long hair will make men more sexually attractive to me... Feminine body structure, in return, is something I am not turned on by...

     Admittedly, if I am talking masculine/feminine, I tend to refer to physical structure, not cosmetics, not attire, not behavior or preferences.

[MonkeyBee]

Fair points about being a person first, and also about the cultural context having an impact on masculine/feminine aesthetics.

I do question that there are no cosmetic aesthetics that you perceive to be more masculine or feminine within your culture though. That's a fantastically gender-neutral place you're living in and it's certainly a great thing to aspire to in your own thinking - I know my country's not there yet! There is a context in which the words Butch and Femme are batted about in relation to the style choices people make and I don't think that can be entirely written off, even if it isn't something we would aspire to be part of.

Does having long hair make you more of a woman? Hell no. Does it make you more feminine? Arguably, because of associations to do with fertility and health, which are things that supposedly lead to motherhood and nurturing, or simply as a sign of being someone who does not do physical work, where long hair would get in the way - of being taken care of. Does a man having long hair make you more masculine? Arguably yes, because it's a sign of virility. But dependent on culture, it's also a sign of weakness because of an implied avoidance of that same hard work. It gets complicated. Especially when you bring in rock stars and bikers and Thor, who clearly ooze testosterone.

I think in the visual context of the film, in which fertile feminine breeders have long hair, and the bald War Boys - half lives - are implied to be incapable of healthy reproduction, Furiosa's choice to have closely shaved hair might (in the visual context of the film) be a sign of her desexualisation. By choice, certainly, but desexualisation none the less.

So I guess that's what I meant with my woman first comment. Maybe I should have said 'at the same time as,' instead and added in 'being a sexually active being'.  Apparently I need to translate even to myself.

[Aethereal]

      The cutting of hair was an act of marking a person as submissive, or even (especially with slaves) even inferior. "We take away your symbol of strength and status, that which marks you as a free person."
      (Mind, not too far off was also why monks elsewhere shaved heads - to show their humility and lack of "fightery" aspects to their selves. And back then, many men typically had long hair and beards. So it is not inherent to my particular culture, either...)

      Ehh... And "I perceive" (or how I use words, as is) doesn't necessarily translate to "my entire culture perceives, latter foreign influences included." I personally just keep to what I like with my appearance, be it for looks or my personal comfort...

[MonkeyBee]

I think we might be making the same point on the hair cutting,  just coming at it from different sides.  For you it's about removal of identity and strength - a kind of neutralising of personality (either voluntary in the case of the monks,  or involuntary in the case of slaves). I very much agree with this.  For me in this case it extends to the neutralising of gender. I think it could be said to do the same in the case of slaves and monks as well. She's been brought to neutral.

Also, apologies.  In your previous post you were making a point about your culture not viewing this like that as gendered which I incorrectly took to extend into other parts of what you were saying.

[Ephiral]

Have been avoiding speaking here, as I haven't actually seen the movie, but this strays into a more general topic, so:

Do we think of a female character as truly strong when she's not borrowing ideas of masculine strength (does she have to shoot people, and know how to fight - in this context, yes, but are they really masculine traits?) or do we think it's boring and weak for her to do anything but? Furiosa is tough and admirable because she's de-feminized to some degree. I like that they didn't sexualise or fetishise her Amazonian style character - she was a person first, and a woman second. But can you have a strong female character who maintains sexuality, and doesn't shave her head, or does that immediately put her back into a context where she can only be considered in relation to men?  Could she have been a woman first?

Is it possible to have a strong character who's female (more on this in a moment) without descending into man-with-breasts? Off the top of my head and sticking only to media I've personally seen: Buffy, Willow, Anya (Buffy), Ripley (Aliens), Merida (Brave), Monica Rambeau (Mighty Avengers), Jessica Drew (Spider-Woman), Carol Danvers (Captain Marvel), Kamala Khan (Ms. Marvel), Kaylee Frye (Firefly)... I'd have to say yes. (Please note: This is far from a complete list! This is what I can come up with in two minutes of thought on too little sleep.)

I think the key point here is to break down that word "strong". (Failure to do so is exactly why "Strong Female Character" is a punchline in a number of feminist circles.) What I think of in this context boils down to two things: Is the character well-written (does she have her own personality and goals, and does she have agency (a real chance of achieving those goals on her own terms, and the ability to act on it)? If you break it down like that, you can quickly see that it has nothing to do with being more "masculine", unless only men have any real agency in your fiction.

Maybe it's that issue of audience. As soon as a woman is brought away from neutral it's ingrained that she's something good to look primarily, a decent character only secondarily.  Lara Croft, case in point. Men are allowed to be more 'feminine' these days, as long as they do it with enough macho bullshit and musculature to pare it off against. Or at least with a sports car. So maybe they're stuck in the same boat.  We've already been too influenced by the other films we've seen.

I'd argue that there's a vicious circle in effect, but one that both audiences and writers have the power to break out of: Audiences see women as eye candy, victims, or trophies because that's what they keep being given, and writers keep giving them that because audiences continue to pay for it and accept it (mostly) without question. Nobody's stuck at all, least of all in this era of public feedback and audience engagement - they either don't see the problem, don't see the solution, or don't want to put in the work.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well the U.S. military shaved the head of soldiers as a first step to removing individuality.  I believe many Western military units did so along with clean shaving the faces of these men.  This became a masculine image as the United States among other Western nations held a romance with their military members after World War II.  Facial hair and long hair was actually feminized for a time with the hippie movements and facial hair has only recently come back as a masculine style that I have seen.  So shaving of the head did have those roots in removing the individuality of the person along with adornments, but eventually became a masculine image due to the prevalence of men in the military and those ideals being held up as inherently masculine.

As for the whole woman and person thing being one before the other, I’m not really sure that is how people form their identities.  People have various roles that are filled and put forward.  Certainly people can associate with certain roles and identities more than another, but our identity is shaped by roles we take on and roles we are given.  I am a woman regardless of what else happens, my sex at birth is a woman and unless I undergo a drastic surgery to change my body I will remain a woman.  Society has preconceived notions of what that means and what is expected of me as a woman.  I do not simply wake up one day and say; I’m a person and so want to be treated this way.  To anyone looking at me, meeting me and associating with me I am a woman.  My social identity and my role is a woman.

So the yes Furiousa is a person, but her social identity is that of a woman.  Sexual identity is rarely neutral.  I have heard of gender neutral or gender shifting societies where a person could alter their gender, but those are a rare find and I believe regulated to hunter/gatherer groups.  I could be wrong there.

Ephiral is right about the vicious circle.  People want the familiar, writers want to sell and so give people more of the familiar, reinforcing preconceived notions and continued the turning of the wheel.  People that want something different are labeled deviants or are considered weird, writers that try to provide something different can be shunned or labeled “cult” writers and have their careers defined into a niche.  Social controls set in place to keep the status quo.

[MonkeyBee]

You guys are great.


Ephiral - Your definition of strong is spot on. My god you phrase things exceptionally well. I guess maybe I'm rallying against things on a purely superficial level - the man with breasts complaint. But I think I'm slow to define that (to myself) because just like it doesn't quite make horrific implications about disability, it doesn't quite cast Furiosa as that either. I guess I am bamboozled. And using discussion to work through what ifs and what ares and what might bes and whether implications are more general or specific,... and life, the universe and everything.


Absolutely there is a vicious cycle with writers and audience. Fuelled by money and figures, which makes it very difficult to break out of for either party. Because the people funding want a sure sell. And any writer who doesn't write for audience is either very wealthy, or willing to starve for his art.



Pumpkin - completely agree about preconceived notions, which probably sounds bizarre given the point I started out from. I think it feels like she's stepped outside of what a woman's preconceived role is within that society. Also, gender neutral is probably a film narrative construct rather than reality. So... Max, for example, is given active sexuality. He (we) get some good long looks at the half naked, wives hosing each other down, and he has a couple of moments over the pregnant lady. I may be way off the mark, but I think there was a sexual edge. In comparison, Furiosa doesn't present a flicker of attraction to anyone. There are definitely exceptions to this when looking at female leads more generally, certainly in amongst the characters Ephiral has named, but I found it really interesting that in this context, despite the film supposedly being about claiming back sexual power on some level, the most free character didn't own her sexual identity at all.

[Ephiral]

Thank you, MonkeyBee. *blushes* Was not sure I wasn't coming off a bit snarkier than intended toward the end there. Now watch me talk out of my ass about a movie I haven't seen.

I think that, honestly, part of the problem with Furiosa is the setting. In a world where you have to be the nastiest piece of work in sight to have any agency at all, is it possible to avoid sliding at least a little bit into what today's audiences would see as "masculine"? Being aggressive, violent, and seeing at least first meetings as a test of dominance are survival traits in that world, and a woman is going to have to wear that on her sleeve in a way a man wouldn't in order to get past the seemingly common bias of woman-as-prize. Desexualization plays directly into that too. I... have issues with the man-with-breasts trope, so I'm not sure how much I want to let the filmmakers off the hook here (esp. without seeing it for myself, something I plan to rectify likely when it comes out elsewhere), but I see a valid interpretation that this is a choice Furiosa is very consciously making - a sacrifice of her own identity that she feels compelled to make in order to survive.

[MonkeyBee]

Didn't take it as snarky, but you might have to tone check against someone who doesn't agree with what you were saying.  :)

For not having watched the film you're pitching pretty perfect. You're right about it being her choice to survive.  I do get that feeling.  But interestingly,  there are other badass ladies who are arguably more explicitly violent in the film who are not defeminized or masculinized. I think this is why I'm not sure how I feel about her as a character.  She's not overly violent or aggressive - she doesn't attempt to be badder than bad to prove a point (which would really hack me off because that's totally "woman can only survive by being man") she's just done what she's had to to survive and a lot of her "grit" is implied rather than demonstrated.  Which to be fair is the same for both main characters. She is what she is and I guess the implication made is that that can't be feminine in her situation.  Which is interesting.

[Aethereal]

Is it possible to avoid sliding at least a little bit into what today's audiences would see as "masculine"?

I am honestly not ever certain what to make of those kinds of questions. "Should" a woman act in a specific manner to be considered a woman? I know I don't ever *try* to be a woman; I am what I am, and one of those things, incidentally, is woman. A dominant, tech- and action-inclined woman, but nevertheless 100% woman. (Also heterosexual and will take a look at a good-looking man, I'll admit it.) Being interested in certain things or having my type of personality won't make me a "man with boobs" - why'd it apply to a movie- or other entertainment-media character?

      And what about people who aren't sexual not because they're "trying to de-sex themselves", but because they simply aren't sexual individuals in general? If a woman or man is inherently asexual - or at most demisexual - and has no or very low sex drive, then they would not flirt or otherwise show sexual interest even when given the option.

[Ephiral]

Didn't take it as snarky, but you might have to tone check against someone who doesn't agree with what you were saying.  :)

For not having watched the film you're pitching pretty perfect. You're right about it being her choice to survive.  I do get that feeling.  But interestingly,  there are other badass ladies who are arguably more explicitly violent in the film who are not defeminized or masculinized. I think this is why I'm not sure how I feel about her as a character.  She's not overly violent or aggressive - she doesn't attempt to be badder than bad to prove a point (which would really hack me off because that's totally "woman can only survive by being man") she's just done what she's had to to survive and a lot of her "grit" is implied rather than demonstrated.  Which to be fair is the same for both main characters. She is what she is and I guess the implication made is that that can't be feminine in her situation.  Which is interesting.

It's entirely possible that I'm giving the creators too much credit, but I see a tragedy of sorts there. You don't get to have any real agency in this world without giving up some of your humanity and identity.

     I am honestly not ever certain what to make of those kinds of questions. "Should" a woman act in a specific manner to be considered a woman? I know I don't ever *try* to be a woman; I am what I am, and one of those things, incidentally, is woman. A dominant, tech- and action-inclined woman, but nevertheless 100% woman. (Also heterosexual and will take a look at a good-looking man, I'll admit it.) Being interested in certain things or having my type of personality won't make me a "man with boobs" - why'd it apply to a movie- or other entertainment-media character?

Because you are not a character deliberately crafted by an author to behave in certain ways and fulfill a certain role, nor do you have to worry about being relatable to certain segments of your audience. The "man with boobs" complaint came about because, when faced with women looking for better representation, some creative types would do just that - swap the name and pronouns on a charactor or two and declare it good, with absolutely zero apparent understanding or acknowledgement that most women have a different set of life experiences and relate to different things than most men. For an example I touched on earlier: In Aliens, who would most women find more relatable, Ripley or Vasquez?

I'm not saying that all women must conform to a given set of expectations to be women - fuck that noise. I'm saying that characters are built around tropes and archetypes, and intended to be relatable or appealing to certain audience segments - and it's entirely possible for those tropes and archetypes to be tagged "masculine" by society in general, for the target audience to be male, regardless of the body they happen to be packaged in.

      And what about people who aren't sexual not because they're "trying to de-sex themselves", but because they simply aren't sexual individuals in general? If a woman or man is inherently asexual - or at most demisexual - and has no or very low sex drive, then they would not flirt or otherwise show sexual interest even when given the option.

There's a difference between "not particularly sexual" and "actively trying to remove any hint of sexuality and/or feminine gender cues" (since female, to a degree, is perceived as inherently sexual while male is not). What we're speaking of here is largely the latter.

[Aethereal]

The "man with boobs" complaint came about because, when faced with women looking for better representation, some creative types would do just that - swap the name and pronouns on a charactor or two and declare it good, with absolutely zero apparent understanding or acknowledgement that most women have a different set of life experiences and relate to different things than most men.

I wouldn't say I have had that different experiences from men unless you count rarely wearing a dress or a skirt (which men of other cultures have also traditionally done) or things that amount to purely physical functions (and the physical functions part is more true with some female women than others).
        Why is it that I find myself more often relating to a character who is actually male - not because they are male, but because they act and think as I would, whereas women are often portrayed as some kind of weird inhuman aliens whom I'd just be uncomfortable around if I ever actually met someone like that? I honestly do feel that the "just swap the pronouns" characters often end up being more realistic and relatable than those which result from a person sitting down and going "OK, I am going to write a *woman* now".

In Aliens, who would most women find more relatable, Ripley or Vasquez?

Aside of one being a side-character and the other the protagonist? Vasques gets killed halfway through and has way less screen time... I admit it has been (well) over a handful of years since I last saw Alien movies, but Vasques struck me as a fairly minor character when I first watched the movie, aside of "Oh, cool, an actual female soldier for once" ... immediately followed with the thought that she's pretty much destined to be killed. Since moviewriters won't generally allow someone like that to survive. 'Cause reasons.

There's a difference between "not particularly sexual" and "actively trying to remove any hint of sexuality and/or feminine gender cues" (since female, to a degree, is perceived as inherently sexual while male is not).

I'd say this is more current cultural bias than anything. Which isn't necessarily a good thing in itself.

[MonkeyBee]

Ephiral -  absolutely, but it's put across so much in the subtext that you don't get to that point until you think about it and arguably on a primary level all they're doing is saying it would not be possible for her to be such a survivor without adopting more male traits (ie as 'just' a woman).  I think she's a great character,  but at the same time I think she's been very carefully constructed to tread quite a few lines.  And yeah. .. whether the writers are off the hook or not I have no idea.  Because if you took her at face value...

Shienvien- I completely agree that portrayals of women in films and fiction very often miss the mark and I am with you 100% in that I get the feeling that I'm watching another species when I'm told my primary motivators in life should be make up,  hand bags, high heels, designer labels.  And babies. But that just points to a flaw in understanding of what feminity is on the part of the writer(s) and I don't agree that the solution is to pretend that a woman has no defining characteristics or life experiences and to allow gender to become tokenised.

You say you have no experiences that have been different from a man. Again I say you're very lucky.  I don't believe that's a very common experience. I wonder if you've seen The Killing.  Sarah Linden is  fantastically bad ass. She smokes, she doesn't cook, doesn't want to make nice with her partner,  gets obsessed with her job which she finds more interesting than her fiancé who thinks he should be the centre of her world,  and she deals with the reality of being a bad mother and losing her kid in a world that expects her to magic up maternal instincts and be supermum even while excusing absentee dad entirely.  That is something that is 100% a female issue and something a man would not have to deal with because society thinks it's alright that a father spends all his hours at work at detriment to his parenting responsibilities; it's only the mother than gets judged.  Leaving it out of the narrative would have done her character an injustice but to include it in a congruent way,  she had to be written as a woman not as a "man with boobs" even if she might share more typically masculine behaviour traits in other areas.  I love her as a character because she's a real person. Sexuality and gender included.  The second series also includes a young female cross dresser who I think is exceptionally well written and acted, who again, has a set of issues to deal with that come about from her being female.

Also,  on portrayals of asexuality and low sex drive - have at it.  I'm totally for this.  But to do those choices or experiences justice a film maker would have to acknowledge them, rather than just obliterate sex drive.  I don't think asexuality is as simple as just not finding someone attractive.  Also,  Furiosa was removed from sex in two ways.  She also was not put in a frame as a sexual object/ object of desire.  On the one hand great - she's not in there solely as a character for teenage males to fap over;  on the other - a strong woman can't be attractive?  Or is it because she's more aesthetically masculine/neutral? I don't know if there is a comment being made or even necessarily what it is but I worry that the short hand runs: men as sexual controllers,  therefore when free of men's control women hate men and don't want sex (all very heteromormative because lesbianism isn't really hinted at either).  Or even women don't actually want sex/ sex is bad. And because so much is left implied, that implication can become muddied.

Again this is only narrowly saved by the introduction of a romance.  But that interestingly is romantic, idealised love rather than sexual love.

Also I feel a little bad because it seems like we've hijacked what was meant to be a discussion on masculinity to talk about femininity!

[Ephiral]

Ephiral -  absolutely, but it's put across so much in the subtext that you don't get to that point until you think about it and arguably on a primary level all they're doing is saying it would not be possible for her to be such a survivor without adopting more male traits (ie as 'just' a woman).  I think she's a great character,  but at the same time I think she's been very carefully constructed to tread quite a few lines.  And yeah. .. whether the writers are off the hook or not I have no idea.  Because if you took her at face value...

I admit, I'm not sure what an audience who doesn't think about what they've watched is going to come away with - but I do think that "badass and equally-capable woman" is still a beneficial concept to put in their heads.

Shienvien- I completely agree that portrayals of women in films and fiction very often miss the mark and I am with you 100% in that I get the feeling that I'm watching another species when I'm told my primary motivators in life should be make up,  hand bags, high heels, designer labels.  And babies. But that just points to a flaw in understanding of what feminity is on the part of the writer(s) and I don't agree that the solution is to pretend that a woman has no defining characteristics or life experiences and to allow gender to become tokenised.

Oh, there are absolutely writers who go "I'm going to write a woman now!" and immediately descend into demeaning stereotypes. (Frank Miller, I'm looking in your direction...) No argument there.

I snipped your example for length and because I didn't have much to add, but it's a perfect one.

Also,  on portrayals of asexuality and low sex drive - have at it.  I'm totally for this.  But to do those choices or experiences justice a film maker would have to acknowledge them, rather than just obliterate sex drive.  I don't think asexuality is as simple as just not finding someone attractive.  Also,  Furiosa was removed from sex in two ways.  She also was not put in a frame as a sexual object/ object of desire.  On the one hand great - she's not in there solely as a character for teenage males to fap over;  on the other - a strong woman can't be attractive?  Or is it because she's more aesthetically masculine/neutral? I don't know if there is a comment being made or even necessarily what it is but I worry that the short hand runs: men as sexual controllers,  therefore when free of men's control women hate men and don't want sex (all very heteromormative because lesbianism isn't really hinted at either).  Or even women don't actually want sex/ sex is bad. And because so much is left implied, that implication can become muddied.

Honestly, I suspect this might be a combination of the single-example problem and the specific story we're looking at here. Do any of the more traditionally-feminine women in the movie get a moment of badass, or is it all on Furiosa? I can see her avoiding sex as a thing entirely regardless of her desire because, frankly, it's an extremely dangerous area for her - the moment she looks like an object of sexuality, she becomes a target, and being a sexual actor in her own right requires a certain level of vulnerability. She'd have to have someone she could trust with her life first - and my impression is she doesn't have that.

As for heteronormativity... I won't say it's not disappointing, but really, what do you expect in a major Hollywood production?

Also I feel a little bad because it seems like we've hijacked what was meant to be a discussion on masculinity to talk about femininity!

Ehh, I think we're still on topic - discussing the film in question and what it has to say on gender roles, and examining whether Furiosa actually hijacks a masculine role. (My conclusion based on everything I've read: not unless you consider "has agency" a masculine role.)

[MonkeyBee]

Ah, I guess we're okay then. Just being paranoid about topic slippage.

Honestly, I suspect this might be a combination of the single-example problem and the specific story we're looking at here. Do any of the more traditionally-feminine women in the movie get a moment of badass, or is it all on Furiosa? I can see her avoiding sex as a thing entirely regardless of her desire because, frankly, it's an extremely dangerous area for her - the moment she looks like an object of sexuality, she becomes a target, and being a sexual actor in her own right requires a certain level of vulnerability. She'd have to have someone she could trust with her life first - and my impression is she doesn't have that.

I have pretty much only agreement to add to everything you've said. Other more traditionally women do get to be badass. But Furiosa and Max both present pretty major trust issues and it would be... quite something for either of them to admit vulnerability. Which makes it a very beautiful film because there aren't that many that make such an overt comment about how difficult trust is. And okay, probably it only does because post-apocalyptic kill or be killed setting, but actually that is so human.

I guess my conclusion from all of this is that picking apart what constitutes masculine or feminine is bloody complicated and it sure as hell is not black and white. And that we have some pretty epic thinkers rattling around on these forums.