To clarify : “strength of character”
I don’t know what you mean, but I do find it silly when a 100lb Harley Quinn is kicking the crap out of 200lb men with guns and riot gear. At least if you get a muscled up woman, it’s more believable
Right, Xena is a much better ideal of a physically strong woman, plus has integrity, character, compassion that Harley Quinn can’t even dream about.
Quinn is a villain, what sense would it make to give her integrity or compassion?
Strength of character for men and women is the same. It is a basic trait of all human beings. Same with strength of purpose. However, how it gets expressed is different depending on the social and cultural situation they are in at the time.
That can relate to gender because some situations are gendered (for example, women are more likely to be in those situations).
In some movies, it is shown as muscles, aggressive etc. Eg Alien. In other movies it is shown in other ways.
Some examples:
The Color Purple
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri
Once Were Warriors
Fire by Deepa Mehta
Rabbit Proof Fence
Daughters of the Dust
Whale Rider
I’m not sure about that characterisation of Ripley in Alien. She doesn’t survive by fist-fighting the xenomorph, she’s not Arnie in Predator. She’s just determined and resourceful.
I don’t even understand the question, really.
Strong in character. Not powerlifter. I added a note to clarify.
I honestly thought my meaning was obvious.
Sorry, genuinely trying to understand here. So are you saying “in movies, women who have strength of character are also shown as being ‘manly’ (big muscles, punches people, etc). Is that how it really is?”
If that’s what you’re asking, I don’t think it’s true. Some movies have women of very strong character, who are physically weak, pacifist, etc. And some movies have women that have strong characters and are physically strong, cabable of violence, etc. And some movies have women who are douchey, flawed characters who can be physically strong.
I’m not sure I see any correlation between strength of character and physical strength, or propensity to violence, for either men or women. It’s more of a genre thing - in action movies men and women are more likely to be physically tough, and in political dramas they’re more likely to be physically weak. And there will be a mix of people with “strong character” and people with flawed or weak characters.
This was very well said! But reading through this thread it looks like OP is saying they look manly, not behave manly (I genuinely don’t know what put that in their head)
I still don’t get it. Are you asking if Sigourney Weaver in Alien is manly? If so, no
This is a very vague and open-ended question. Keep thinking on it and ask a more specific question to get better answers.
Masculine is the word you’re looking for. It’s all the same, really, just less precise. Out of biological necessity, women and men evolved different ways of handling situations. There will never be a stereotype or trait that applies to every individual of a large group, but if I ask you which is more likely to get into a bar fight, it’s clear the scale tips in one direction or the other.
But regarding the movie question, no. It’s cheap to make a woman physically beefy to give the idea that she’s strong. There are many examples where the woman hero character is not beefy strongwoman. Movies where sword skill or martial arts are employed. There are characters of women who are strong because of their intelligence, always being one step ahead. Women characters who use their cunning wit and charm to con people. Women characters who use their compassion and stoic nature to unite opposing groups to fight a larger enemy.
You see big = strong more often because it’s an easy trope. You wouldn’t expect to see a movie with some lanky spaghetti armed guy kicking ass all day. At most he’d usually be the hacker sidekick for comedic effect.
The discussion around gender stereotypes, no matter how accurate, will always be a landmine, so be warned.
Yes yes.
On a tangential note, I just had a post removed from nostupidquestions. My post about the degradation of knowledge.
Apparently lemmy mods have recently been given the power of shadow-removal (the power to temove while keeping you in the dark about the fact), which is nice.
When everybody you talk to is dumb as a rock. When the people in charge have the integrity of jello. What then? Is it worthwhile sifting cesspools for specks of intelligent conversation then?
It’s not a now thing. The masses have always been collectively dumb. There are some individuals who are intelligent, and they tend to form groups or colleges so they can be around similarly minded individuals.
Lemmy is not a good place for nuanced or intelligent discussion. Neither is reddit. For that, I suggest seeking out a philosophy forum, but then you’ll likely feel like you’re the common idiot… speaking from experience.
You are being trolled, this person made a humongous ruckus and pissed everybody off, and insulted everybody, and is acting like he has no idea what’s going on.
If anybody was a candidate to be permanently nuked from the internet, it’s people like the guy you’re responding to.
I figured, but checking post history gave doubts. I’m seeing this kind of stuff everywhere on reddit and Lemmy… dumb questions almost so stupid and ‘triggering’ it’s like they’re designed to make people upset and nothing else.
It’s more sinister than that, not only did this person go out of their way to be a complete jerk, they spent the whole evening editing their posts and replies, just to provoke conflict.
more sinister than that
That’s what I’m thinking too. It’s part of the common trend I’m seeing here and on reddit. Posting for no reason other than to get people into a pissed off state of mind, and it’s not funny trolling by any means.