And Then There's the Girl: "Women Characters" vs. "Characters that are Women"

For the Blog Against Sexism Day...because I'm a crowd following sheep. :-)

Women Characters vs. Characters that are Women.

I have a confession to make. I tend to dislike women characters.

Give me a moment to explain.

It's not that I don't like women. It's not that I don't like characters that are women.

But I don't like "women characters".

And there *is* a difference.

Ever see a group of male characters, all representing different aspects of humanity. Race, culture, personality, stage of life? And then there's one woman?

THAT is a "woman character". A character who's sole defining characterization is as "the woman".

Like Thundercats, for example. I loved that cartoon as a kid, still do, but let's look at it more closely.

You have one old ghost guy who's the elderly mentor/grandfather figure in Jaga. You have one architect/intellectual/wise older brother figure in Tygra. You have one young, brash, heroic but kind of dim main character in Lion-O. You have the token black guy as the strong gruff mechanic in Panthro. And you have the two cheerful "Thunderkittens" in the kids, Wiley-Kit and Wiley-Kat.

And then you have Cheetara. What the hell was Cheetara's purpose? To be the woman and look hot in the leotard while being vaguely maternal? She could run fast and was dimly, conveniently psychic. But where the male characters at least had some stereotypical, shallow quality to serve as their personality (grandpa/big brother/brash hero/gruff strongman/playful kids), she had *nothing* but feminity to define her.

Why is there one woman (well, technically two, but Wiley-Kit was a child, and thus intrinsically genderless in portrayal), where is the "intellectual" woman? Where is the brash leader woman? Where's the pseudo black or asian or hispanic woman?

Why does this *one* single, pseudo-white woman represent my whole damn gender? And why doesn't she get one sole other defining personality trait besides "being a woman".

It's stupid. Because, and this might get my ass kicked, feminity is *not* all that we are. It's one part, but that's it. Our sex isn't even that important to our DNA.

We have forty six chromosomes containing all of our genetic material. Forty six. Forty four of these chromosomes are autosomal. They're the same for men and women. Two chromosomes are sex-based. Two. Out of forty-six. That's one pair out of twenty three. And of that pair, barring anomalies, one is always an "X". Men and women differ by *one* chromosome out of forty-six.

So why is this one chromosome so important in terms of characterization then?

Why not define other traits first and *then* pick the gender? I'm not saying gender shouldn't affect the characterization. Gender/sex is important in our society, we're raised in ways that encourage certain traits and behaviors and that shouldn't be ignored. Like race/ethnicity, they *are* important to the character.

That's the point. They are *important* to the character, they are not the character in and of themselves. They are one of many facets to a person.

It is possible to create interesting characters while starting with a gender concept, many female characters of DC Comics came about through wanting to create a female counterpart to male characters. Like Supergirl in her first appearances. But what made Supergirl a good character wasn't that she was a female version of Superman, it was her kindness and bravery. It was how she chose to live at an orphanage for a long time, helping make things better for the orphans she lived with. And that's more than just being "the girl".

But too often people just think that being "the girl" of the group is enough. And it's *not*.

I blame the Justice League and Justice Society in one sense. As they're groups with only one woman. The Justice League/Superfriends made for a very corny, cheesy, but entertaining show for kids. And people watched that and thought, okay, it's enough to have a group with only one woman.

But they missed one important fact. The Justice League could afford to have this token woman because she was an iconic character with years of characterization behind her. Whether one likes her or not, she had many years of her own comic book (as well as a tv show. :-P) to establish/develop her personality beyond just being the "token woman".

If you have characters that are only established in a group setting, you need to do things differently. You shouldn't have just one woman. You have to give your women characterization beyond just "the woman".

While I tend to prefer early X-Men to later, I have to admit, there's one thing that they definitely improved on over time. When the X-Men started, it suffered from Thundercats Syndrome. It had the sarcastic leader, the rich pretty boy, the scientist, the kid, and the woman. But the team expanded, gained more women, the female characters became more evolved. Storm, Rogue, Kitty, Jubilee and so on and so forth are very strong, developed characters in their own right. Even the original token girl, "Marvel Girl" herself, evolved into a more complex character.

That needs to happen more often. And characters should be created as whole beings, gender, race, and everything as part of a *whole*.

No more "Women Characters", let's have more "Characters that are Women".