I don't think it's unfair at all; it's simply out of the scope of this post. While non-combatants have their place in a story and there's every reason to consider their contributions to a story, the clearly stated scope of this post is combatants, specifically female characters who have been designated, by the story/author, as combatants.
First, it's much easier to delineate the lines where an author is sabotaging (intentionally or unintentionally) a female character. Second, the argument that non-combatants are, to paraphrase/summarize, "just as good, but in their own way" reads to me as a form of "separate but equal," and I have definite issues with anything that smacks of that.
Not to mention it's considerably harder to analyze, because you're effectively comparing apples to oranges (the standards applied to each type of character, male vs. female). When you add in the propensity for defensiveness on the part of a story you really like, it can really muddy the waters, very quickly. Does the fact that she cooks mean she's a nurturing type and thus stereotypically girly? Or does it mean that she's resourceful and unafraid to be mistaken for being a nurturing stereotypical helpful female? Those kinds of subjective questions are additional muddying, and the lines I was considering, therefore, were limited to situations where I could compare apples only with apples.
no subject
Date: 27 Sep 2010 06:19 am (UTC)First, it's much easier to delineate the lines where an author is sabotaging (intentionally or unintentionally) a female character. Second, the argument that non-combatants are, to paraphrase/summarize, "just as good, but in their own way" reads to me as a form of "separate but equal," and I have definite issues with anything that smacks of that.
Not to mention it's considerably harder to analyze, because you're effectively comparing apples to oranges (the standards applied to each type of character, male vs. female). When you add in the propensity for defensiveness on the part of a story you really like, it can really muddy the waters, very quickly. Does the fact that she cooks mean she's a nurturing type and thus stereotypically girly? Or does it mean that she's resourceful and unafraid to be mistaken for being a nurturing stereotypical helpful female? Those kinds of subjective questions are additional muddying, and the lines I was considering, therefore, were limited to situations where I could compare apples only with apples.