Gender Reversal. Does it work?

ancapailldorcha · 27-02-2015 01:29PM

eviltwin wrote: »

I suppose it depends on what your having yourself. I don't personally go in for movies where there is a lot of physical stuff, I prefer my action heroes to use their brains as much as their brawn. I think one of the reasons Bond has had such a successful reboot is that it had to compete with the Bourne franchise which was excellent, you take a normal looking guy and put him in an action role and it worked. Who would ever have thought Matt Damon would make a plausible action man? Someone mentioned the Angelina Jolie movie Salt, I didn't enjoy it myself but many of my male friends loved it. Maybe age plays a part too, its refreshing to see a lot of the teen movies action flicks have male and females equally as skilled as each other, the Hunger Games and Divergent series in particular. Its good to see.

I've not seen Salt though I love the Underworld films. They're no classics but they're a lot of fun and I loved Selene as the protagonist. Kill Bill's been mentioned which I'd also agree with.

Would definitely love to see more brains than brawn but that might alienate the American focus groups.

smash · 27-02-2015 01:36PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Would definitely love to see more brains than brawn but that might alienate the American focus groups.

Have you seen Scandal? It's a good TV show, the cast contains a lot of female leading roles and one in particular that she show revolves around. Smart, astute etc etc. But then behind all the sub plots, she's just a sex toy for the president. It's kind of bizarre as to why they've done it. It just takes everything away from the character who would otherwise appear strong.

ancapailldorcha · 27-02-2015 01:52PM

smash wrote: »

Have you seen Scandal? It's a good TV show, the cast contains a lot of female leading roles and one in particular that she show revolves around. Smart, astute etc etc. But then behind all the sub plots, she's just a sex toy for the president. It's kind of bizarre as to why they've done it. It just takes everything away from the character who would otherwise appear strong.

Hmm... Might look into that.

Unfortunately, sometimes when shows and films attempt to create believable and strong female leads, the male characters end up being terrible and broken. The Big Bang Theory is a good example of this as is Parks and Recreation to a much smaller extent..

eviltwin · 27-02-2015 01:55PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Hmm... Might look into that.

Unfortunately, sometimes when shows and films attempt to create believable and strong female leads, the male characters end up being terrible and broken. The Big Bang Theory is a good example of this as is Parks and Recreation to a much smaller extent..

Games of Thrones, some of the best female characters on tv ever and equally strong males.

ancapailldorcha · 27-02-2015 01:58PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Games of Thrones, some of the best female characters on tv ever and equally strong males.

Read the books. I've not seen the series in case it confuses me when Martin finishes the next book in 50 years.

The_Captain · 27-02-2015 02:01PM

Does it work the other way?

Would guys watch a show about four middle-aged men who do nothing but talk about their relationships and buy shoes?

Would guys watch a film about a young man being tied up and dominated by a powerful, attractive businesswoman?

....actually, I may be onto a best-seller here....

Sleepy · 27-02-2015 02:04PM

smash wrote: »

Have you seen Scandal? It's a good TV show, the cast contains a lot of female leading roles and one in particular that she show revolves around. Smart, astute etc etc. But then behind all the sub plots, she's just a sex toy for the president. It's kind of bizarre as to why they've done it. It just takes everything away from the character who would otherwise appear strong.

Just as McNulty's alcoholism makes him less "strong" in The Wire?

One of the most common mistakes in the writing of strong female characters is the common mistake of turning them into Mary Sue's that are unidentifiable with for the audience and unbearable to watch/read.

pwurple · 27-02-2015 02:26PM

The_Captain wrote: »

Does it work the other way?

Would guys watch a show about four middle-aged men who do nothing but talk about their relationships and buy shoes?

Would guys watch a film about a young man being tied up and dominated by a powerful, attractive businesswoman?

....actually, I may be onto a best-seller here....

There are plen-ty of dumbarse male programs. The inbetweeners? Big bang theory. And don't even get me started on top gear. Scripted codswallop. If that's not the Luxury goods jibber jabber equivalent of the male marketing sphere I don't know what is.

strobe · 27-02-2015 03:07PM

pwurple wrote: »

There are plen-ty of dumbarse male programs. The inbetweeners? Big bang theory. And don't even get me started on top gear. Scripted codswallop. If that's not the Luxury goods jibber jabber equivalent of the male marketing sphere I don't know what is.

The Inbetweeners doesn't belong in there with those other two. It's actually quite intelligently written. They nailed the whole 'being an awkward teenage lad' thing better than anything I've seen on screen.

RedJoker · 27-02-2015 03:19PM

The_Captain wrote: »

Does it work the other way?

Would guys watch a show about four middle-aged men who do nothing but talk about their relationships and buy shoes?

Would guys watch a film about a young man being tied up and dominated by a powerful, attractive businesswoman?

....actually, I may be onto a best-seller here....

It's interesting that both men and women seem to want more masculine role models. It's almost like they're trying to say masculinity = good, femininity = bad.

Maybe it's indicative that we live in a very feminized culture nowadays and people feel that more masculine influences would improve things, for both genders. That culture itself shouldn't be overly masculine or overly feminine.

I guess it's an extension of the idea that equality is a good thing, that it should be our goal state. "Men and women are different but equal" as people like to say.

Is that a good goal? Should we want androgyny? Should women become more like men and men become more like women so that everything is equal and fair?

What's the alternative? How about "Men and women are different and complimentary"? Would equilibrium instead of equality be a more practical and sustainable goal state? Could things be fair without being exactly the same?

What evidence do we have that this would be a better alternative? Androgyny doesn't tend to survive very long in nature I suppose. It's not impossible though, I'm sure there are examples. The scientific literature I've come across seems to suggest that men and women report being happier when fulfilling their traditional gender roles. That's certainly been the case in my anecdotal experience as well. Self reported studies aren't always accurate though and we can't rely on anecdotal evidence. Evolutionary psychology seems to suggest we evolved to be complimentary, that it furthered the survival of the species. That our biological drives predispose us to traditional gender roles and we're physically and psychologically better suited to fulfill them. Evolutionary psychology is a very young field though, they're making a lot of assumptions and science has been wrong before, better not to jump to conclusions. Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'.

From my anecdotal experience conversations such as the following aren't uncommon:
Me: Would you describe yourself as feminine?
Her: Oh, I'm not like that, I'm independent, etc., etc.
Me: So you prefer being masculine?
Her: Well, no.
Me: Oh, so you're trying to be androgynous?
Her: Eh...hmmm.

Are more masculine role models for women really what they want? Have they been convinced this is something they should want without putting much thought into it? Do women need more feminine role models and men more masculine role models? Would this allow culture to be more balanced and happier overall?

Tricky topic, I'm going to remain on the fence for now. Might rewatch kill bill, I enjoyed that movie.

eviltwin · 27-02-2015 03:26PM

Just to clarify I don't have a problem with women being feminine, I'm pretty feminine myself but I do like my women to be independent and self sufficient. I tire of the usual boy rescues girl format that seems to be the norm these days. I like the idea of women doing it for themselves, men rescuing men as well as women, women being more than just the love interest or the eye candy. If they do all that in a skirt with great hair and a full face of slap on so be it

Dravokivich · 27-02-2015 03:31PM

RedJoker wrote: »

Are more masculine role models for women really what they want? Have they been convinced this is something they should want without putting much thought into it? Do women need more feminine role models and men more masculine role models? Would this allow culture to be more balanced and happier overall?

Tricky topic, I'm going to remain on the fence for now. Might rewatch kill bill, I enjoyed that movie.

Hmm, I wonder what that is meant to mean. Not that you said it, just picking up on the general idea. A female character doesn't need to be masculine if they were to get in on some action or to be an interesting slueth. Which would be two typlically masculine roles off the top of my head.

eviltwin wrote: »

Just to clarify I don't have a problem with women being feminine, I'm pretty feminine myself but I do like my women to be independent and self sufficient. I tire of the usual boy rescues girl format that seems to be the norm these days. I like the idea of women doing it for themselves, men rescuing men as well as women, women being more than just the love interest or the eye candy. If they do all that in a skirt with great hair and a full face of slap on so be it

You may want to watch Agent Carter so.

the_syco · 27-02-2015 03:39PM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Don't forget too that it was tried with Picard and we ended up with Janeway

And also got her to go in the opposite direction...

pwurple wrote: »

There are plen-ty of dumbarse male programs.

But that wasn't the point. The point was doing a male version of a female program.

IMO, it's almost as if they can't think of a program or film with a strong woman lead, so they must rip off a program or film with a strong male lead, and somehow think it'll be good, when any time they've done so in the past has sort of bombed, or have had the "strong female lead" in a skimpy bikini outfit, which kind of undermines the entire thing?

The_Captain · 27-02-2015 03:43PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Just to clarify I don't have a problem with women being feminine, I'm pretty feminine myself but I do like my women to be independent and self sufficient. I tire of the usual boy rescues girl format that seems to be the norm these days. I like the idea of women doing it for themselves, men rescuing men as well as women, women being more than just the love interest or the eye candy. If they do all that in a skirt with great hair and a full face of slap on so be it

Sad that feminine and independent seem to be opposites here

Pat Mustard · 27-02-2015 03:45PM

The_Captain wrote: »

Does it work the other way?

Would guys watch a show about four middle-aged men who do nothing but talk about their relationships and buy shoes?

The general idea seemed to work in Frasier. :pac:

harry Bailey esq · 27-02-2015 03:47PM

Sleepy wrote: »

non-British, non-white, non-male James Bond is not James Bond. Make up your own story, it worked pretty well for the "Modern American Man" version of Bond when they made the Bourne movies.

This

RedJoker · 27-02-2015 03:59PM

Dravokivich wrote: »

Hmm, I wonder what that is meant to mean. Not that you said it, just picking up on the general idea. A female character doesn't need to be masculine if they were to get in on some action or to be an interesting slueth. Which would be two typlically masculine roles off the top of my head.

Yes, a woman could certainly have predominantly feminine characteristics and hold those two masculine characteristics as well. It would make her less feminine but not necessarily masculine or androgynous overall.

eviltwin · 27-02-2015 04:00PM

RedJoker wrote: »

Yes, a woman could certainly have predominantly feminine characteristics and hold those two masculine characteristics as well. It would make her less feminine but not necessarily masculine or androgynous overall.

How would it make her less feminine?

RedJoker · 27-02-2015 04:02PM

The_Captain wrote: »

Sad that feminine and independent seem to be opposites here

And on wikipedia as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculinity

Don't know why that's a sad thing though. Masculine and feminine are traditional attributes, behaviors, and roles generally associated with boys/men and girls/women respectively. It's like describing where you line up on a myers-briggs personality test, being extroverted or introverted isn't a sad or happy thing, it's a personality trait.

RedJoker · 27-02-2015 04:07PM

eviltwin wrote: »

How would it make her less feminine?

Because she held certain masculine traits? As in, if there was a spectrum running from

feminine

androgynous

masculine

then the holding of what Dravokivich said were masculine traits would move her further to the right of the spectrum. If she held mostly feminine traits then she'd still fall on the feminine side but would be less feminine. Similar to how an introvert going out for a drink with friends every now and then might be described as less introverted but not necessarily extroverted.

Amica · 27-02-2015 04:18PM

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.

eviltwin · 27-02-2015 04:21PM

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.

As you say it depends on what you see as masculine/feminine. Personally I don't know a single woman who could be described as dependent and subservient. Quite the opposite in fact. And I know a fair few men who aren't natural leaders and would defer other people. Its just a personality trait. I don't see it as being either/or really.

smash · 27-02-2015 04:33PM

Amica wrote: »

It seems (so far) that we're saying leadership and independence are masculine traits, and the opposite (dependence and...subservience?) are presumably feminine traits.

I don't think the thread's come across like that at all. If anything, it's just that there are certain male stereotypical persona's portrayed in movies (action heroes) that haven't come across too well in movies where the role has been adopted by women. And it's down to the writing and casting really.

Amica · 27-02-2015 04:39PM

The women I grew up with were strong-willed, smart, talkative, and intensely protective. They organised the people around them and fought for what they believed in. That jibes a lot with the traditional view of femininity as weak and soft and subservient and passive. Probably most of us get our view of what it means to be masculine and feminine from our life experiences more so than from a prescribed ideal or definition. I don't think the old traditional definitions hold true anymore, simply because they don't describe the majority of us nowadays (if they ever did)

edit: @ smash, there has just been talk in the last page or so of the thread about masculine and feminine characteristics without defining what we mean by those terms. Then somebody seemed to contrast femininity with independence ("I'm feminine but I like independent women") and somebody else linked to a wiki article of 'traditional masculinity', which stated that leadership courage etc are traditionally masculine traits. That's where I got that from.

endacl · 27-02-2015 04:48PM

eviltwin wrote: »

I will be interested to see what the all female Ghostbusters is like.

It'll most likely be shyte. Because Bill Murray most likely won't be in it, and Harold Ramis definitely won't be in it. Nothing to do with gender.

Also, it's not the 1980s. Ghostbusters 3 would have been great in the 80s. In 2015 it's a sad reflection on a movie business that hasn't had a good original idea in years...

ancapailldorcha · 27-02-2015 04:51PM

endacl wrote: »

It'll most likely be shyte. Because Bill Murray most likely won't be in it, and Harold Ramis definitely won't be in it. Nothing to do with gender.

Also, it's not the 1980s. Ghostbusters 3 would have been great in the 80s. In 2015 it's a sad reflection on a movie business that hasn't had a good original idea in years...

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.

endacl · 27-02-2015 04:52PM

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.

Although, if Harold Ramis was in it as an actual ghost, that would be exceedingly cool.

eviltwin · 27-02-2015 04:53PM

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.

That's what I'm hoping for, something inspired by the original rather than a straight remake.

ancapailldorcha · 27-02-2015 04:56PM

eviltwin wrote: »

That's what I'm hoping for, something inspired by the original rather than a straight remake.

I'd rather a fresh IP with new ideas rather than an update of the forumla. I'd say it'll be quite similar to the original though it's not that they might just keep the brand and do the same.

endacl wrote: »

Although, if Harold Ramis was in it as an actual ghost, that would be exceedingly cool.

1 gag along with 89 minutes of "Was this really necessary?"

nc19 · 27-02-2015 05:04PM

smash wrote:

But anyway, do you think gender reversed roles on popular TV shows or movies would work? I'm of the opinion that 90%+ of the time they wouldn't. They're popular for a reason, and changing them just wouldn't have the same outcome.

Female McGyver!!! FML

Gender Reversal. Does it work?

Comments