"Girly Books/Films, Twilight/Hunger Games et al.

[Daerve]

Feeling brave so thought I'd dip my toe in here.

I hate the whole hype around Twilight and Hunger Games for the simple reason that they are utter crap and IMO demean Women. Films such as Hunger Games and particularly Titanic reduce absolute tragedies to nothing more than a gushing pile of love mush.

I find it incredibly patronising towards Women and having read half of Twilight have no idea why it's sold so incredibly well when the writing is so utterly awful.

What are feminists views on this? I personally think it does women no favours at all but then I am seeing it from the angle of having a penis.

There you go, not sure what response will be forthcoming but I'm ready....

You are completely wrong about the hunger games. I won't repeat what's already been said, but I echo it.

The books are incredibly feminist forward, but even the movies score incredibly high on the bechdel test.

TheDoctrineOf2014, I can see exactly why you dislike that phrase and understand what you're saying but the sad fact is that Women are, in some areas still fighting for equality.

If they weren't there would be no reason for this thread, feminists or groups lobbying for equal rights.

Perhaps the whole thread is simply a way of venting my frustration at the lack of progress in advancement of these rights and the ultimate goal of equality.

Ok, but do you see how that phrase and phrases like it don't help? As it implies one group has status only as a favour from the dominant group and that the dominant group is entitled to draw conclusions about the whole subordinate group from the actions or products or characters of individuals within the group?

"She gives working women a bad name"
"She was as good at her job as any man, if not better."
"Wow, I'm surprised how well she did at that, given she's a woman."
"Women don't have the lung power to play the tuba." - dispr

..disproved by blind auditioning at a German orchestra that hadn't previously admitted any women.

And my peachiest favourite - "Women are their own worst enemy."

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree. While I totally see your point and agree that use of language in some contexts can reinforce negative stereotypes and behaviour, it's use in this context was a comment on the furtherance of women's rights and fight for equality.

It wasn't a comment aimed at "women" it was a comment aimed at the marketing and consumption of popular media by women and consequently the damage and stagnation it can do to women's rights.

While your examples are a great demonstration of poor use of language and it's connotations, they are all aimed at or generally women or a woman where as my comment was not. It was aimed at the way the media market and portray certain films and books.

A subtle difference but I believe a crucial one.

So is your question, "why are movies so limited in the way they portray women?"

I suppose that's ultimately my gripe yes.

For example, Catkniss in Hunger Games is a fantastically strong female lead but despite this (and obviously popular opinion in here) I still felt she was compromised to a point by the film makers and it left me severely disappointed.

I think twilight more than anything else is the straw that has broke the camel's back. I've watched the film and read half the book until I was so infuriated I had to stop. It's utter garbage and I simply feel that there's so much more out there than this utter crap, it just doesn't get the attention it deserves.

If I may pop in my 2 cents worth here.... Twilight and Hunger Games are nowhere near as damaging to the feminist cause as those bloody Shades of Grey books! ( ok I admit I only made it through the first one .... Perhaps she stops saying," oh my..." and allowing herself to be repeatedly abused by a psychologically damaged weirdo by the 2nd book...??)
I am pretty amazed at the frenzy whipped up by the marketing of the series and seriously worried at the incredible number of women who lapped it up and go all swoony over the idea of Mr Grey.
The message being sent is that all women secretly wish to be controlled, coerced into S&M , have their clitoris horse whipped , blah blah and it doesn't matter if the guy is an emotional retard , as long as he's got squill ions of dollars and his own helicopter!!!
Jeez.... And I bring this up with some reasonably bright female friends and they all get sort of silly and giggly while insisting that Chrissschin is just such a softy "deep down"
Etc etc..... eye roll
Sorry... I'm getting ranty!! Just glad to be able to get that out to a possibly more like-minded audience than those I've had so far !
As you were

Probably a good thing but I never got round to shades of grey.

However, my wife and a lot of my friends did and no doubt that after discussing it's contents with them I'd be foaming at the mouth just as much if I had read it.

If you haven't already seen or read it, OP:

Joss Whedon

And this from TV tropes - 27 % film writers are female; 19 % of TV writers.

Tropes

I think the bit I'm objecting to here is the idea that either of these are books for 'women' - they're books for teenagers (I suppose 'young women') and are written fairly simply to reflect that, and so whilst Katniss is a strong character, and there are some important themes they are often pretty loudly signposted.

Women are perfectly capable of reading books written for adults, judging that the books demean 'Women', as though that's all we're capable of reading feels rather more demeaning to me.

Chunky, I remembered last night after posting that both were teen fiction books.

Twilight isn't the only 'Teenage Girl Thinks "OMG The Two Hottest Bad Boys in Town Fancy Little Old Me" ' book out there, for sure!

The Host was written for adults by the Twilight author and the female protagonists aren't starry eyed.

I think it's really interesting that in the Hunger Games books Katniss does not concern herself at all with what the men in her life think of her or her decisions. How many female lead characters base all of their actions on other factors, with zero regard for how it may affect their romantic life?

Twilight is a different kettle of fish, but I did like the fact that, for once, a female character was portrayed as wanting to have sex while the male character was putting the brakes on. Again this is something that rarely happens. It was refreshing to see a portrayal of men as actually being capable of self control. So often fiction goes to reinforce the stereotypes of the out-of-control man being kept at bay by the sensible woman, who is thereby made responsible for the 'moral' success (or failure) of them both. Whatever you think about the nature of the relationships in twilight, that aspect at least was interesting and new.

I read a "feminist take-down" of Hunger Games which said that Katniss never makes any decisions. I disagree. There is something in it, in that the plot never requires her really to turn on her friends in the way that the Games are set up to do. But she does make decisions and she does have agency.

spoilers alert

In the third book, after the Revolution, when there should be no more Games ever again, the new leaders take a vote on whether the children of the previous Imperial rule should be forced to play in a Games, as revenge. Katniss' vote is key in the ultimate "yes" to this. You could see this as a lack of agency in the "cycle of abuse" sense. But actually she makes key decisions throughout all the books

I don't think they are the most feminist things I have ever read but they really are not about love. But if they were - why is love so "sappy"?

Really interested that the debate was centred round two books/films which actually have women in them. Why criticise these two in particular OP? Why not one of the hundreds of films made every year which ignore, belittle or reduce female characters to nothing more than love interests or beverage carriers?

I'm not, of course, saying these two are perfect in fact I hate Twilight but, you know, it's a really, really wide goal mouth, why take shots at these two in particular?

Really, Dusk? She decides not to kill Peeta when she could, she decides to help the girl who reminds her of her sister, she decides about being the Mockingjay and she makes a startling decision at the end of the third book.

Excellent point, Wilson.

I don't think Katniss was compromised in the film. The romance was a fake, put on for the cameras, the same as in the book.

The hunger games is far superior to twilight in every way , mostly so I think in that katniss is far stronger emotionally and sometimes physically than the two male leads . Catching fire is far better in book form , the film made her look much more in love with gale than the book does . Significantly more id say .

Doctrine, I know, it's a very thin argument. I will see if I can find it.

right, here it is. I am posting it for discussion, I don't agree with it

thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/04/whats_wrong_with_the_hunger_ga_1.html

I think the romance angle, to the extent that it exists, is interesting because instead of her relationships or desires being all hearts and flowers, there is an uncompromising analysis of having your potential partnership tightly bound up in the pragmatic business of survival - which is a very unromantic way of looking at what has been the case for women for much of history. And looking at this head on is not really allowed and is in that sense at root feminist (even though you might think an ideal feminist position would be an unwillingness and capability not to trade your heart in that way)

And, although I am lucky enough not to have a first hand view on this, I have heard that Katniss' post-Games 1st person writings are very clear accurate descriptions of PTSD. This is interesting as some people would say that the traditional view of women as weak or easily deranged or lacking in logic perhaps comes from a view of women in which many of them are survivors of violence (panic attacks = "the vapours" etc - in a world in which women were physically vulnerable and knew it)

I don't agree with that article either Dusk. To take agency for one thing: clearly her agency is curtailed by the society she lives in/the mechanics of the Games itself. Is that not the point of the story?

And wrt appearance, appearance is everything for all the tributes - one of the most 'feminist' parts of the book imo.

Really should be doing something else so only skimmed, but that was two points which crossed my mind. And yy with the PTSD.

I've read it now.

Katniss deliberately causes several deaths, IIRC. And a strategy of hiding away until everyone else has killed each other makes a lot of sense..,

Katniss took a game designed for the physically elite to win & beat them by using her brains. She used cunning, guile and good PR (faking the relationship with Peeta). Overall she's a strong, independent character - I don't think that's a bad message.

SPOILERS

Dusk

In the third book, after the Revolution, when there should be no more Games ever again, the new leaders take a vote on whether the children of the previous Imperial rule should be forced to play in a Games, as revenge. Katniss' vote is key in the ultimate "yes" to this. You could see this as a lack of agency in the "cycle of abuse" sense. But actually she makes key decisions throughout all the books

She doesn't mean it though. She says "yes" in order to set up the situation that comes next. She sees that President Coin will perpetuate the "cycle of abuse" (good phrase) and needs to convince her (Coin) that she (Katniss) is not a threat, in order to be able to end it.

Katniss does not actually think that punishing the adults and children of the Capitol is a good idea. You can see this in her reaction to the treatment of her prep team. She sees them as being like children, as having no responsibility for their own actions. She might be a bit overly forgiving of them, if anything!