Gender Reversal. Does it work?

RedJoker

Amica wrote: »

Maybe we could define a little what we mean by feminine and masculine traits? Obviously we'll probably disagree somewhat. It seems (so far) that we're saying leadership and independence are masculine traits, and the opposite (dependence and...subservience?) are presumably feminine traits. If that's how we're going to define those terms then we are giving women nowhere to go and nothing to aspire to - it seems to me that that leaves women with a bad choice: be weak or you are not a real woman.

Wikipedia do a decent start at it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femininity

...gentleness, empathy, sensitivity, caring, sweetness, compassion, tolerance, nurturance, deference, and succorance are traits that have traditionally been cited as feminine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculinity

Traits traditionally cited as masculine include courage, independence, and assertiveness,

It also includes physical characteristics like long hair being feminine or broad shoulders being masculine for example.

I certainly wouldn't see traditional femininity as having nothing to aspire to. There's some very virtuous personality characteristics described there.



I'd take the point that it's not a cut and dried thing though, it can change over time and culture. It might be that independence will no longer be considered a masculine trait in time, perhaps it's started already. The article mentioned homophobia once being considered a masculine trait for example. I wouldn't have associated the two but it probably is more common among men than women.

I'm not sure about subservience, subservience isn't a common trait for most people nowadays. I've usually seen it described as dominance/submissiveness rather than subservience. Perhaps in the past it might have been the case for women and considered feminine. The same could probably be said for independence in most developed cultures as well, most people, male and female, are independent to some extent. Maybe because mothers still tend to have their children with them more than fathers, and are less independent because of that, independence would still be considered masculine. Child rearing is still considered a feminine trait, courts will default to the mother keeping the children in divorce for example.

eviltwin

RedJoker wrote: »

Wikipedia do a decent start at it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femininity

...gentleness, empathy, sensitivity, caring, sweetness, compassion, tolerance, nurturance, deference, and succorance are traits that have traditionally been cited as feminine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculinity

Traits traditionally cited as masculine include courage, independence, and assertiveness,

It also includes physical characteristics like long hair being feminine or broad shoulders being masculine for example.

I certainly wouldn't see traditional femininity as having nothing to aspire to. There's some very virtuous personality characteristics described there.



I'd take the point that it's not a cut and dried thing though, it can change over time and culture. It might be that independence will no longer be considered a masculine trait in time, perhaps it's started already. The article mentioned homophobia once being considered a masculine trait for example. I wouldn't have associated the two but it probably is more common among men than women.

I'm not sure about subservience, subservience isn't a common trait for most people nowadays. I've usually seen it described as dominance/submissiveness rather than subservience. Perhaps in the past it might have been the case for women and considered feminine. The same could probably be said for independence in most developed cultures as well, most people, male and female, are independent to some extent. Maybe because mothers still tend to have their children with them more than fathers, and are less independent because of that, independence would still be considered masculine. Child rearing is still considered a feminine trait, courts will default to the mother keeping the children in divorce for example.

How much of the above is nature vs nurture? How much was down to the social mores of the time? Does anyone around today still think women and men are born with vastly different traits? Most women I know are independent and not afraid to speak their minds, most men I know would be emphatic and caring, they would be as good with their children as their spouses. Being a woman doesn't mean you have a special child rearing skill, society has just engineered it so that women were kept at home and we all know how slowly things change.

RedJoker

eviltwin wrote: »

How much of the above is nature vs nurture? How much was down to the social mores of the time? Does anyone around today still think women and men are born with vastly different traits? Most women I know are independent and not afraid to speak their minds, most men I know would be emphatic and caring, they would be as good with their children as their spouses. Being a woman doesn't mean you have a special child rearing skill, society has just engineered it so that women were kept at home and we all know how slowly things change.

Nature and nurture are linked. There are elements of both, it's never one or the other, but nature is going to effect the environment and change the type of nurture each gender receives.

I think that men and women are born with different traits. Given the scientific and observable evidence it would be hard to argue otherwise. I don't know how you want to define "vastly" though. We're born with different bodies and hormonal profiles which effects how our brains develop. We end up with different personalities and are better suited to different things because of that, as brain scans have been showing.

Men certainly have the capacity to be as good with their children as women, outside of certain physical restrictions like breast feeding. I'd argue that women would be better equipped psychologically for child rearing and changes in the brain and hormonal profiles of women after pregnancy would suggest that it's an evolved biological mechanism. I would speculate that this would create a special predisposition towards the development of child rearing skills. Men would also have this capacity but perhaps not the same biological predisposition towards developing it. I'd agree with you that society has a role though. For example, men find it harder to get jobs in child care, there's still a certain suspicion towards men in these roles unfortunately. How much of that is nature effecting nurture though? I doubt that the gender bias in the sector would disappear if this wasn't the case, it's having an influence but women tend to show a preference for this type of work compared to men.

Culture can certainly effect which traits are more likely to be developed. It's unlikely to be a coincidence that more women tend to be independent and speak their minds while more men are empathetic and caring then what used to be the case in the past. My original question was whether this was a good thing or not. Are men and women happier being androgynous? Is androgyny and equality the correct goal state? If it's even possible to get to that state, should we want to? Are there certain positive feminine characteristics men should be encouraged to develop? Conversely, are there positive masculine characteristics women should be encouraged to develop? Why should those characteristics be prioritised over the positive, more traditional ones which we may be more biologically suited/predisposed to? I'm assuming we don't want to encourage the negative traits of masculinity/femininity in either gender.

Amica

gentleness, empathy, sensitivity, caring, sweetness, compassion, tolerance, nurturance, deference, and succorance

I wouldn't see most of those as great ideals worthy of aspiring to! Empathy, caring, compassion and tolerance for example, seem like the basic requirements of being a decent person in the modern world - and I mean that: those are the basics. Some of those traits (if generalised) are somewhat contemptible - deference and succorance for example. And I mean, come on, traits like "sweetness" and sensitivity don't inspire admiration. We might like sweet people but we don't aspire to be sweet. We don't write stories or watch movies about sweet and tolerant heroes.

Meanwhile the traditionally masculine traits - courage, honour, leadership, assertiveness, independence - are admirable. Stories with those kinds of characters inspire us. They give us something to live up to. What tradition has done is label the best and most admirable character traits 'masculine' and label the lesser virtues 'feminine'. Then people were encouraged to conform. When they did, it was 'evidence' that supported that gender theory. And then people reflected that men were better than women because they displayed more heroic characteristics...like courage etc.

There are a few passages in the wiki article you link to that hint at this

Traditional avenues for men to gain honor were that of providing adequately for their families and exercising leadership.[22] Raewyn Connell has labelled the traditional male roles and privileges hegemonic masculinity. This is the norm, something that men are expected to aspire to and that women are discouraged from adopting. According to Connell: "Hegemonic masculinity can be defined as the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees the dominant position of men and the subordination of women"

In answer to your question, I don't think we need to be androgynous. I think we need to redefine the terms 'masculine' and 'feminine' because the traditional definitions suck

expatinator

' It's not as if there's no fiction out there with strong female leads that they could adapt for film. I'd personally *LOVE* to see Maisie Williams as Vin in a film version of Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy and I'd suspect it'd be a hit.'

*Blink*

How have I not thought of that before.

endacl

nc19 wrote: »

Female McGyver!!! FML

McGyna?

The Strawman Argument

smash wrote: »

who were trying to promote gender reversal on popular TV shows.

It's such a poorly thought out solution to the clear problem of a lack of deep female characters in television and mainstream film that it always bothers me hugely when I hear feminist groups actually advocating for it as if it were the solution rather than some kind of lazy attempt by studios to appease people without really changing anything.

You want more and better female characters in shows, advocate for networks to hire more female writers and to produce more pilots based around female characters rather than using the whole gender reversal thing as some kind of embellishment to an existing franchise or type of show. HBO have been really good about it in recent years despite only having one true commercial hit out of their efforts so far (Girls, Olive Kitteridge, Enlightened, Getting On and Mildred Pierce spring to mind).

eviltwin

Amica wrote: »

I wouldn't see most of those as great ideals worthy of aspiring to! Empathy, caring, compassion and tolerance for example, seem like the basic requirements of being a decent person in the modern world - and I mean that: those are the basics. Some of those traits (if generalised) are somewhat contemptible - deference and succorance for example. And I mean, come on, traits like "sweetness" and sensitivity don't inspire admiration. We might like sweet people but we don't aspire to be sweet. We don't write stories or watch movies about sweet and tolerant heroes.

Meanwhile the traditionally masculine traits - courage, honour, leadership, assertiveness, independence - are admirable. Stories with those kinds of characters inspire us. They give us something to live up to. What tradition has done is label the best and most admirable character traits 'masculine' and label the lesser virtues 'feminine'. Then people were encouraged to conform. When they did, it was 'evidence' that supported that gender theory. And then people reflected that men were better than women because they displayed more heroic characteristics...like courage etc.

There are a few passages in the wiki article you link to that hint at this


In answer to your question, I don't think we need to be androgynous. I think we need to redefine the terms 'masculine' and 'feminine' because the traditional definitions suck

I think men see strength as a physical thing, maybe women see it more as a mental thing. When I think of strong, brave people I admire its those who have had to fight injustice or who have spoken out and so on. Anyone can have that and I think its something we can all aspire too.

A_Sober_Paddy

Potatoeman wrote: »

You should look into the creation of wonder woman its pretty interesting. The outfits are just a result of comic books aimed at young people so muscular men and attractive women. The whole gritty thing is new and only suits a few characters not everyone.

In the comics

Batman is a schizophrenic who likes to kill people

Iron Man is drunken man whore with serious anger issues

A bit of actual substance from these two superheros

RedJoker

Amica wrote: »

I wouldn't see most of those as great ideals worthy of aspiring to! Empathy, caring, compassion and tolerance for example, seem like the basic requirements of being a decent person in the modern world - and I mean that: those are the basics. Some of those traits (if generalised) are somewhat contemptible - deference and succorance for example. And I mean, come on, traits like "sweetness" and sensitivity don't inspire admiration. We might like sweet people but we don't aspire to be sweet. We don't write stories or watch movies about sweet and tolerant heroes.

Meanwhile the traditionally masculine traits - courage, honour, leadership, assertiveness, independence - are admirable. Stories with those kinds of characters inspire us. They give us something to live up to. What tradition has done is label the best and most admirable character traits 'masculine' and label the lesser virtues 'feminine'. Then people were encouraged to conform. When they did, it was 'evidence' that supported that gender theory. And then people reflected that men were better than women because they displayed more heroic characteristics...like courage etc.

There are a few passages in the wiki article you link to that hint at this


In answer to your question, I don't think we need to be androgynous. I think we need to redefine the terms 'masculine' and 'feminine' because the traditional definitions suck

Wow, really? Some of the most inspirational people in history are aspirational because of the depth of their empathy, caring, compassion and tolerance. Mother Teresa, Gandhi, etc., etc. had courage and leadership but they're not aspirational because of those traits.

Conversely there are historical figures who embody a lot of the masculine traits who aren't aspirational. Genghis Khan, Hitler, etc., etc. had loads of courage, leadership, assertiveness and independence.

I can certainly admire positive masculine traits but I also have immense admiration for people who embody the positive feminine traits listed.

Changing labels doesn't change anything for obvious reasons.

strobe

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

To be honest, I'd rather see these 4 ladies star in an original IP than see a classic dredged up. Alan Moore put it best regarding Watchmen when he said that DC must be desperate for ideas if they had to dig up something he wrote 25 years ago.

What's an IP?

Pat Mustard

Amica wrote: »

I wouldn't see most of those as great ideals worthy of aspiring to! Empathy, caring, compassion and tolerance for example, seem like the basic requirements of being a decent person in the modern world - and I mean that: those are the basics.

Decent people don't have to live up to all of those standards.

Some people just aren't empathic. That's just the way that they are. And some people who are inclined to get a volume of work done can be impatient and perhaps intolerant of people who don't share the same work ethic. That doesn't make them bad people. On the contrary, it is often good that those impatient people exist because of the simple fact that they get things done that need to get done. Different people have different character traits and lack of one or two of those traits does not mean that somebody is not a decent person.

Amica

RedJoker wrote: »

Wow, really? Some of the most inspirational people in history are aspirational because of the depth of their empathy, caring, compassion and tolerance. Mother Teresa, Gandhi, etc., etc. had courage and leadership but they're not aspirational because of those traits.

Conversely there are historical figures who embody a lot of the masculine traits who aren't aspirational. Genghis Khan, Hitler, etc., etc. had loads of courage, leadership, assertiveness and independence.

I can certainly admire positive masculine traits but I also have immense admiration for people who embody the positive feminine traits listed.

Changing labels doesn't change anything for obvious reasons.

that's a good point about Gandhi actually. However, it has to be said that a big part of what makes him admirable is his ability to make a change - in other words, he wouldn't have been somebody to aspire to for so many people without his courage and leadership. I also wouldn't call Hitler a courageous or good leader :eek: Just two examples: he sent millions of his own people to their deaths (and worse) in the pursuit of his own agenda (I would think good leadership is prioritising the needs and wellbeing of the group rather than using the group to serve your own agenda), and when the Allies took Berlin and the country was in chaos, he hid himself away and shot himself rather than face the music. Not particularly courageous either.

About changing labels, I've already shown why...

What tradition has done is label the best and most admirable character traits 'masculine' and label the lesser virtues 'feminine'. Then people were encouraged to conform. When they did, it was 'evidence' that supported that gender theory. And then people reflected that men were better than women because they displayed more heroic characteristics

Decent people don't have to live up to all of those standards.

They don't have to achieve every one of them every moment of their lives (we all have slip ups) but in general of course they need all of them. How can somebody be a decent person without a shred of compassion? How can they get on with others in a multicultural society if they're intolerant?

RedJoker

Amica wrote: »

that's a good point about Gandhi actually. However, it has to be said that a big part of what makes him admirable is his ability to make a change - in other words, he wouldn't have been somebody to aspire to for so many people without his courage and leadership. I also wouldn't call Hitler a courageous or good leader :eek: Just two examples: he sent millions of his own people to their deaths (and worse) in the pursuit of his own agenda (I would think good leadership is prioritising the needs and wellbeing of the group rather than using the group to serve your own agenda), and when the Allies took Berlin and the country was in chaos, he hid himself away and shot himself rather than face the music. Not particularly courageous either.

The courage and leadership might have helped Gandhi but that's not the main reason he's admired. Likewise, Hitler displayed courage and leadership (although also some uncouragous traits I'll agree) and he's not admired.

Amica wrote: »

About changing labels, I've already shown why...

What tradition has done is label the best and most admirable character traits 'masculine' and label the lesser virtues 'feminine'. Then people were encouraged to conform. When they did, it was 'evidence' that supported that gender theory. And then people reflected that men were better than women because they displayed more heroic characteristics

The labels are descriptive tools, they happen after the fact, not before. Describing broad shoulders as masculine didn't suddenly change men's biology. Likewise men and women's psychological predisposition toward masculine and feminine personality traits caused those traits to be associated with their respective gender.

I agree that it can then have an additional effect, nature effecting nurture which then has an additional effect on people. We're seeing the nurture effect already where women are encouraged to be more masculine and end up androgynous while men are being encouraged to be more feminine and are also ending up androgynous.

I don't know why this is a good thing though. In Self Made Man by Norah Vincent the author, who would have been described as a masculine woman, disguised herself as a man. She ended up appearing like a feminine man and had to work very hard on her mannerisms to be convincing, and even then she was still very much on the feminine side. Which gives a hint into how much of behaviour might be nature vs. nurture. By the end of the experiment she had a nervous breakdown which isn't surprising. We're also seeing a rise in anti-depressant use among women.

From what you're saying I get the impression that it's a type of self-hatred among women. They don't appreciate the positive aspects of their own gender despite having character traits which are just as admirable.

Amica wrote: »

They don't have to achieve every one of them every moment of their lives (we all have slip ups) but in general of course they need all of them. How can somebody be a decent person without a shred of compassion? How can they get on with others in a multicultural society if they're intolerant?

It's interesting that you consider these traits essential for being a decent person when they would have been traditionally associated with women rather than men. As in, more women than men were decent people in your opinion.

But also more men were heroic and therefore better?

In a way it seems that what you're describing is the fact that men tend to have more diverse outcomes than women. They're the experimental gender and have a wider distribution in terms of height, IQ, etc., etc. than women have. More men end up as CEOs but more men also end up in prison. So it makes sense that more men would end up having heroic outcomes while more women would be decent people because large portions of the male population didn't reach that threshold.

ancapailldorcha

strobe wrote: »

What's an IP?

An Intellectual Property. Also referred to as a brand or a franchise.

cloudatlas

Katnis Everdeen of the Hunger Games fame is the example I think of most as she protrays what we would think of masculine heroic qualities stoical, sacrificing, strong etc.,

But I remember a female athlete being asked 'And what do you do to feel feminine?' to which she replied 'Why can't feminine mean strong?'

DoYouEvenLift

cloudatlas wrote: »

Katnis Everdeen of the Hunger Games fame is the example I think of most as she protrays what we would think of masculine heroic qualities stoical, sacrificing, strong etc.,

But I remember a female athlete being asked 'And what do you do to feel feminine?' to which she replied 'Why can't feminine mean strong?'

Because for a woman to be strong, as in actually strong and not just above average 'strong', (physically) she needs to have more lean muscle and lean muscle is generally viewed as masculine and it's biologically as a result of high testosterone, which of course is masculine.

Amica

It's interesting that you consider these traits essential for being a decent person when they would have been traditionally associated with women rather than men. As in, more women than men were decent people in your opinion.

But also more men were heroic and therefore better?

I don't think those traits are more common in women than in men at all. I think that's your presuppositions leading you

In a way it seems that what you're describing is the fact that men tend to have more diverse outcomes than women.

No I wasn't going there at all. You've just made a massive leap to a different issue.

The labels are descriptive tools, they happen after the fact, not before. Describing broad shoulders as masculine didn't suddenly change men's biology. Likewise men and women's psychological predisposition toward masculine and feminine personality traits caused those traits to be associated with their respective gender.

I agree that it can then have an additional effect, nature effecting nurture which then has an additional effect on people. We're seeing the nurture effect already where women are encouraged to be more masculine and end up androgynous while men are being encouraged to be more feminine and are also ending up androgynous.

Biology is obviously different to behaviour. You can't make your body change to fit a prescribed ideal. Behaviour is infinitely more malleable.

From what you're saying I get the impression that it's a type of self-hatred among women. They don't appreciate the positive aspects of their own gender despite having character traits which are just as admirable.

I think you're trying to put words in my mouth there. I never mentioned anything about self-hatred or self-respect. I actually said that the traits you refer to as 'feminine traits' are the basic requirements for being a decent person...not really compatible with self-hatred

I think your strong belief in innate gender personality differences has led you to misunderstand what I've said and to twist "women are capable of more than that" into "self-hatred". If you believe so strongly in innate gender personality differences, maybe you should give some arguments for why...but we may also be in danger of derailing the thread

Amica

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Because for a woman to be strong, as in actually strong and not just above average 'strong', (physically) she needs to have more lean muscle and lean muscle is generally viewed as masculine and it's biologically as a result of high testosterone, which of course is masculine.

I don't think she meant physically strong...more strong in character, strong-willed, determined etc

This is the whole point. It's about re-defining those terms. Women aren't trying to be more masculine. We're just trying to express more aspects of who we are - to break out of the narrow cage of traditional femininity. Aren't modern men trying to do the same with redefining what it means to be a man?

RedJoker

Amica wrote: »

I don't think those traits are more common in women than in men at all. I think that's your presuppositions leading you

No I wasn't going there at all. You've just made a massive leap to a different issue.

Biology is obviously different to behaviour. You can't make your body change to fit a prescribed ideal. Behaviour is infinitely more malleable.

I think you're trying to put words in my mouth there. I never mentioned anything about self-hatred or self-respect. I actually said that the traits you refer to as 'feminine traits' are the basic requirements for being a decent person...not really compatible with self-hatred

I think your strong belief in innate gender personality differences has led you to misunderstand what I've said and to twist "women are capable of more than that" into "self-hatred". If you believe so strongly in innate gender personality differences, maybe you should give some arguments for why...but we may also be in danger of derailing the thread

Yes, I was making the "assumption" that descriptions of masculine and feminine behaviour came from observing men and women's behaviour and bodies. Rather than somebody deciding that this is what men and women should be and that somehow causing men and women to change their biology/behaviour. If we disagree on that then we can't really progress I suppose.

Bodies are malleable as well, if a woman injects testosterone to have the same level men naturally have she'll begin to look and feel like a man.

I base my "belief" in innate gender personality differences on:
The fact that men and women have different hormonal profiles.
That these hormonal differences develop before birth.
From the knowledge that hormones effect biology, body and brain development.
That these differences in our brains effect behaviour and personality.

Is there a part of that you don't agree with?

expatinator

In characters, or long standing franchises, I don't believe gender reversal will work. In concepts it could definetly work. Kill Bill is an example of when it worked well. The sandra bullock movie with the woman from bridesmaids is an example of it working badly.

Although, to disregard what I said above, I love gender reversals. I think I've read fantasy books where the whole concept was a bit of a gender reversal. Although, in movies they seem to make the woman 'sexy' whenever they do a gender reversal.

Which I'm fine with too.

tritium

The Mustard wrote: »

Probably an extreme example but Gina Carano looked very convincing in Haywire, apart from one ridiculous fight scene where she ran up a wall.

(I'm aware of her Muay Thai/MMA credentials btw).

Possibly the most ridiculously awful action movie ever, in so many ways. I went to see it based on a positive review on rte.ie, and ended up regretting the two hours of my life I'll never get back.

Not to say that a female action hero won't work, but not there, awful awful movie......

Kill bill on the other hand....

Pat Mustard

tritium wrote: »

Possibly the most ridiculously awful action movie ever, in so many ways. I went to see it based on a positive review on rte.ie, and ended up regretting the two hours of my life I'll never get back.

It was fairly bad alright. Gina Carano can kick ass for sure but she can't act.

I8A4RE

Interesting to see what the reaction would be to doing role reversals with a female versions of Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Jimmy Saville. If people want to portray heroes then they'll have to portray villians.

ancapailldorcha

I8A4RE wrote: »

Interesting to see what the reaction would be to doing role reversals with a female versions of Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Jimmy Saville. If people want to portray heroes then they'll have to portray villians.

What? Why would you change the genders of historical figures for fictional adaptations?

Aurum

Most people have differing ratios of traditionally female and traditionally male characteristics. I'd say only about 20% of the population would fall on either side of the hyper-masculine/hyper-feminine dichotomy. Role reversals in books/films etc. really wouldn't work for the characters who are hyper-male, like Bond, or hyper-female, but there are so many characters who could be either gender, but are usually cast as men. Speaking of Bond, the character Q could easily be female. Judi Dench was a really great M, despite embodying what some people would consider to be traditionally masculine characteristics.

I think that people just want to see a slightly higher ratio of substantial female to male characters in popular culture. It's not that I don't love some of the great films that feature heavily or exclusively male casts, but it can get a bit depressing, particularly as a cinephile, the way in which a five to one male to female ratio is considered the norm, and any reversal of the ratio automatically makes the film a "woman's movie". I think that in a lot of cases men in film/tv are allowed to just be people. Films with an all male cast don't automatically become "men's movies", that have to deal with exclusively male problems. If you look through IMDB's top 250 movies, the protagonists in the vast majority of the films are men. A *really* wide variety of men. Heroes, villains, somewhere in-between, geniuses, idiots, saviours of the world, criminals, cops, archeologists, warriors, businessmen, hit men, musicians, the personification of good or evil, on and on. And they all get to be the star of their own film, it doesn't matter if they're a grifter or a god. Women are, in most cases, the support that influenced the protagonist's journey, but they are so rarely the protagonist. It just gets a bit wearing. And sad.

Sleepy

Aurum wrote: »

Speaking of Bond, the character Q could easily be female. Judi Dench was a really great M, despite embodying what some people would consider to be traditionally masculine characteristics.

Judi Dench was an excellent M, but I have to say I disagree on Q. There's no reason a woman couldn't be the techie genius who provides Bond's gadgets but it'd be changing the gender purely to be seen to change the gender.

Wibbs has posted some studies here before that show that while average IQ between men and women are roughly equal, men tend to dominate the outlying ends of the bellcurve whilst women group more towards the middle (i.e. there are more competent women but more male geniuses and idiots). Given that Science, Technology and gadgetry in particular are areas that tend to be of more interest to men, and that the highest performers in these areas are more likely to be men, it makes sense for the character to be male.

I have to admit, I was irritated by the latest incarnation of M. Desmond Llewelyn always portrayed him as a highly capable "boffin" who had a soft-spot for Bond (and in later movies hinted that he'd been something of a father figure to the orphaned Bond, a plot-line I'd loved to have seen explored further) despite the fact that he was regularly exasperated at Bond's lackhis lack of care for his inventions. Cleese followed suit in terms of the capable and exasperated but lost the soft-spot and the latest Q is following the modern media stereotype of "the bumbling man" who despite being a "tech genius" was stupid enough to plug a laptop into MI5's network :rolleyes:.

desertcircus

As pointed out in one of the first responses, the idea that gender-swapping a character doesn't work has a Starbuck-shaped hole in it. It may not always work (although I'd actually quite like to see a female Bond; if done right, it could be fascinating), but it can. There are issues with it in terms of originality, but given the sheer scale of unoriginality in cinema in particular at the moment, I don't see why this should be the trend we draw a line in the sand for.

Also: the best person on earth to play the next incarnation of the Doctor is Tilda Swinton, gender be damned

Dravokivich

Doctor Who is open for gender switching. If he's regenerated as a different person, there's no reason he can't be regenerated a woman. As gender is never really an issue for the doctor

But it makes no sense to do it with an established character who has an established gender. Sure rustle up a savy female spy inspired by James Bond, but don't make it Jane Bond.

have you seen how broken a character Watson is on Elementary?

Sleepy

Nno, no, no, no, no, just NO! The Feminazis can't have the Doctor.

He's about the only male hero who doesn't use violence to solve the problems he's presented with and that's something I don't want the boys of this world to lose in a world where they're already being treated as second rate citizens in their schooling.