Click here for lightsabers
  • Home
  • Help
  • Login
  • Register
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
Author Topic: Can of worms: female protagonists in (un)believable situations  (Read 4476 times)
Oramac
Knight Commander
*

Force Alignment: -256
Posts: 2204


Dark Side, please. I like the cookies.


« on: April 30, 2013, 06:00:59 PM »

I'm taking this as a point of discussion from the following posts:

EDIT: apparently quotes-within-quotes don't work.  Sad

Quote from: Oramac
I generally agree.  As I said, they did a spectacular job in The Hunger Games of not putting her in unbelievable situations (going toe to toe with a guy twice her size in the open field, for example).  That's my main pet peeve with female protagonists.  The only one I can enjoy in an unbelievable situation is Black Widow, since she's basically the Russian version of Captain America.

But I digress.  You make a good point about the bow as well.  I enjoyed seeing something its use in the film, though it was predictable.

Quote from: Waxman
I never really understoond Black Widow in the Avenger's other than for fan-service.  Actually, that was kind of the few moments where I found her to be a pointless character and, in addition, I thought it was superfluously ridiculous that she can take on an alien army in flying tripods with nothing more than a Glock .9mm and a couple of well-timed round-house kicks.
I understand she's supposed to have all of this "white T-blood cell / Super-Soldier Serum" mambo-jumbo, but just like the Expanded Universe of Star Wars, unless they bring it up in the films or at least reference it, then I usually don't pay attention to it.

The same can be said about Hawkeye who is firing a bow and arrow at aliens with plasma rifles, and a flying mecha-dragon; and winning.
...All the while the United States military, which has over 300 fighter planes on the East Coast alone, mind you, thousands of surface-to-air missiles / air-to-air missiles, and the most powerful military in the world in general, does absolutely nothing but fire a nuclear missile as the first and only solution, but probably because they spent all of their money on the flying aircraft carrier, which get's disabled by nothing more than a well-placed bomb... Say what you want about Transformers 1/2/3, but at least the U.S. Military was as effective with taking on 50 foot Decepticons as the Autobots were... /End of rant.
But yes, I most certainly digress and am getting off-topic.  

I guess I just like the Action Girl trope in general, like Michonne, Samus, and Meryl.

Now, please understand this is specifically relating to the characters and their being put into situations that some might find either believable or unbelievable, for whatever reason.  

This is not for bashing films or women.  

I'll give a couple examples from my perspective.  

Believable:
The Hunger Games
Haywire

Unbelievable (but still quite entertaining):
Tomb Raider (generally speaking)
Kill Bill 1&2

A brief example explanation:

The Hunger Games:  They always put Katniss in a spot that allowed agility, size, or speed to give her an advantage.  She was never in a place that required brute strength to kill an opponent.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to Waxman, I agree for the most part.  Knowing Black Widow's and Hawkeye's history makes their parts more believable for me (considering they're surrounded by demi-gods, aliens and The Hulk).   But your point is quite solid: without a definite backstory, they are not as believable as they could be.  This is one of the reasons I've been on a soap box about Disney/Marvel making a Black Widow/Hawkeye film.

One interesting note to consider: it's actually relatively rare for women (and to a lesser extent, men) to be in a "hero" role without having some sort of fictional augmentation being done to them.  

One final request: let's keep it civil.  We're all part of the sabering community and we all have a common interest.  Let's remember that.
Logged

I give stealth points.  You may get one without ever knowing it! Muwahaha!

Dark War Glaive - Blazing Red/AS FOC [or FO/VA FOC]
Initiate v3 with Obsidian - Blazing Red
Initiate v3 - Consular

Master Bluespike74
Guardian Prime
Vanguard of the Azure Order
Knight Commander
******

Force Alignment: 977
Posts: 4666


As long as there is light, I will be here.


« Reply #1 on: April 30, 2013, 06:06:47 PM »

For anyone that believes the female to the weaker of the species, do the following:  Take a female to a log cabin in the dead of winter in which your only heat source is blankets.  Sleep in the same bed.  When the female steals the covers, attempt to steal them back.  It is IMPOSSIBLE!!!  Always keep a spare blanket handy gents or we will freeze.

As for keeping characters believable, I wholeheartedly agree.  The reason Batman was so loved is because anyone with enough money and inventions could become him. 
Logged



Guided by the Aing Tii Monks

Shodan in Shaolin Kempo Karate/Kung Fu/Jiu Jitsu

Yes, I am a color:  BLUE

Aurentis
Knight Arbiter
*

Force Alignment: 31
Posts: 261


« Reply #2 on: April 30, 2013, 07:29:56 PM »

Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark are popular heroes because, like Blue said, they are "regular" people on the field with meta-humans and demigods.  There is an extremely important disconnecting factor, though: not only do they both have ludicrous amounts of wealth, but both are super-geniuses.  (Recently Bruce Wayne has been made an "ultra-genius," but that's part of the reason I don't like him.  Being the world's top mind in a thousand fields makes him a supremely boring character whose only flaw is that he's pretty emo.)  This is done so that the viewer/reader knows that, while they are people without powers, they are still watching a movie or reading a comic book, and these sorts of things are simply not practical or possible.

Iron Man is my favorite comic hero, but even I will admit the absurdity.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the point about the U.S. military.  Bear in mind, I am absolutely not insulting the military in any sense, but the issue being presented is kind of an invented one -- in superhero comics, the military is simply not equipped to fight extraplanar/extraterrestrial beings.  It's not a commentary about the military, it's just to keep the focus on the heroes.
The military in Transformers is a little too effective against the robots, and that's something that was never REALLY a thing in the original series.  It was about the robots and their civil war, not soldiers and agents having screaming matches to assert operational control over one another.  Transformers may as well have been called "SPECIAL FORCES VS. CIA - featuring the Transformers."  In every single movie, Michael Bay found or invented some military technology, had some ridiculous action shots with it, and turned the tide of the battle shortly afterward.  That's not "making the military effective," that's belittling and trivializing your intended subject matter (the Transformers and their internal conflict).
If you need examples of what I'm speaking of, watch the encounter with Scorponok in Transformers, the rail cannon and ruin battle scenes in Revenge of the Fallen, and the entire third act (post-rocket launch) of Dark of the Moon.

Black Widow was overtly sexualized in one scene in The Avengers.  The key here is that it was only one scene, and it was in line with the theme and background of the comic version of Black Widow.  Not once after that scene did she reveal anything more than her neck.  I will concede that she was wearing a pretty tight bodysuit, which does highlight her physical form, but again, it's in keeping with the designs from the comics, which was actually one of the more conservative outfits for a female Marvel character.  Plus you can't really blame Scarlett Johansson for being attractive.
You are right, though -- without the background knowledge that she and Hawkeye are super-soldier subjects, a lot of the impact is lost.

I'm all for strong female characters in entertainment media, but sometimes people make too much of a big deal out of it, for whatever reason.  My ex was a women's studies major, and despite her admitted opinions on gender equality, she would always try her hardest to find some reason the female heroes were not equal to the male characters, even if they pretty clearly were.
Logged

Emotion, yet peace.

Crimson Reaper: SRD
Shock LE Staff: DVA/AS
Aeon v3: CG [Stunt]

Waxman
Knight Commander
*

Force Alignment: 114
Posts: 696



WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 30, 2013, 08:21:25 PM »

I wholeheartedly disagree with the point about the U.S. military.  Bear in mind, I am absolutely not insulting the military in any sense, but the issue being presented is kind of an invented one -- in superhero comics, the military is simply not equipped to fight extraplanar/extraterrestrial beings.  It's not a commentary about the military, it's just to keep the focus on the heroes.
The military in Transformers is a little too effective against the robots, and that's something that was never REALLY a thing in the original series.  It was about the robots and their civil war, not soldiers and agents having screaming matches to assert operational control over one another.  Transformers may as well have been called "SPECIAL FORCES VS. CIA - featuring the Transformers."  In every single movie, Michael Bay found or invented some military technology, had some ridiculous action shots with it, and turned the tide of the battle shortly afterward.  That's not "making the military effective," that's belittling and trivializing your intended subject matter (the Transformers and their internal conflict).

Okay, right, but on the argument of "coming out with inventions on the fly", the same could be said about the flying aircraft carrier.  It serves no purpose other than to hold the Hulk, Loki, and as a base of operations.  The only problem is that it fails at those 3 because the Hulk escapes, Loki escapes, and it gets disabled by a bomb.
Heck, the same could be said about Iron Man.  How did he come out with free / clean energy?  Where does he get all of these suit additions?  How is he able to build everything?

I guess an argument could be made that "he made them because he's a genius".  Okay, so what's the difference exactly?  One's more plausible because the character-in universe did it?  Why is Transformers so different then?  The Autobots gave the humans ideas and technologies [off-screen], like the flying aircraft carrier in Avengers, on where to attack and how to attack, e.g. hit the joints, eyes, use a rail-gun.  They don't explain it in Transformers just as Tony Stark doesn't explain it in Avengers.  Why is there a flying aircraft carrier in the first place?  Because Tony Stark is a genius?  Because he made it?  Or, maybe just because it looks cool?  As the rail-gun did in Transformers 2.
Heck, look at Iron Man 3.  I wouldn't be surprised if they don't explain why or how the other suits are able to function remotely.  They're just there to look cool, most likely, such as the squirrel-suits in Transformers 3.

Hey, what about that gun that one guy used [forgot his name] on Loki.  Where did he get that?  How did he get that?  Why was it even made?  And don't tell me Tony Stark made it because he's a genius.  Yeah, that guy just pulled it out of nowhere and used it on a Demi-God.

Also, I disagree about humans not being effective against transformers in the series.  Look at Beast Wars for example.  Early humans were quite defenseless against the Predecons until the Maximals, namely Dinobot and Cheetor taught the humans how to make weapons and where to hit, namely the joints.  And those were primitive humans mind you.  And don't say it's a kids show because Transformers, in general, is a kids show with a massive toy following.  Now, I realize you could argue that Beast Wars is considered "non-canon", but almost every Transformers series is non-canonical to one another considering how many reboots they do.  Besides, there is a multi-universe theory which, strangely enough, is apparent and accepted in Marvel and D.C. as well.

I just think it's kind of stupid and unrealistic that with an alien presence with no super-powers you would need "special" people, 2 of which are ordinary humans, to take on the entire army all the while the police and military basically put out fires and escort civilians.  And of course, disregarding human life, an international organization's one solution to it all is FIRE A NUKE on New York City which will decimate billions of people, which Iron Man has to fix.
If the human military would be ineffective against aliens, how do we know that a nuclear bomb would be effective?  They didn't even try any other solution or thought process.  They just reasoned that some protocol was a failure; launch a nuke.
I mean, the aliens have flying dragons and tripods.  That's a fairly easy target to hit.  It's such an easy target to hit that a guy with a bow and arrow and woman with a .9mm can take them down.
Imagine what 10,000 women with .9mm [who conveniently trained in the military] could do to an alien army of this magnitude.
Heck, get rid of the fighter jets and SAM missiles and replace all the male soldiers with bow and arrows.  THEY WILL BE UNSTOPPABLE.

So basically, in the Avengers, if you are a normal person, you are worthless, insignificant, and incompetent, but especially if you belong to an international organization.  The only thing a normal person can do in the Avengers is scream a lot, act helpless, say inspirational speeches, and put out fires / escort civilians.  Embarrassed
Hmm, I don't know, I think I prefer Transformers with all of that said...  Undecided
« Last Edit: April 30, 2013, 08:25:26 PM by Waxman » Logged

Ultrasabers:
Bellicose-VA. Bane-BR. Consular-CG. x2 Initiate V3-SY. Aeon V3-GB. x4 Yari [Pike] Extensions.
Grab-Bag:
Aeon V3-GB. Dark Liberator V3-AB. Dominix V2-AB. Dominix V2-GB. Initiate V2-BR
Wishlist:
Manticore-PO. Dark Catalyst-Emerald. Shock LE-SY. Overlord-BR. Bellicose-VA. Archon-CG. Arbiter-AS.

Oramac
Knight Commander
*

Force Alignment: -256
Posts: 2204


Dark Side, please. I like the cookies.


« Reply #4 on: April 30, 2013, 08:27:08 PM »

Well this got derailed quickly.  lol.



Hey, what about that gun that one guy used [forgot his name] on Loki.  Where did he get that?  How did he get that?  Why was it even made?  And don't tell me Tony Stark made it because he's a genius.  Yeah, that guy just pulled it out of nowhere and used it on a Demi-God.

Actually, they did explain it, if only in a couple lines.  The guy was Agent Phil Colson, and he said something to the effect of "we built this after you sent the Destroyer", which is a reference to the big silver bad guy at the end of Thor.  Clearly the inference is that they took the remains of the Destroyer and turned it into a gun.
Logged

I give stealth points.  You may get one without ever knowing it! Muwahaha!

Dark War Glaive - Blazing Red/AS FOC [or FO/VA FOC]
Initiate v3 with Obsidian - Blazing Red
Initiate v3 - Consular

Aurentis
Knight Arbiter
*

Force Alignment: 31
Posts: 261


« Reply #5 on: April 30, 2013, 10:35:49 PM »

Aside from the suits and the arc reactor, Tony Stark made none of the other technology you mention.  He did not make the original Helicarrier -- in the comics, he proposed the idea and drew up plans with Reed Richards, while Forge built it.  In the movie, its origins are unclear, but it's implied that SHIELD developed it internally.  He also did not make the Destroyer cannon, nor did he have anything to do with the Tesseract weaponry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicarrier for a little extra reading, if you're so inclined.

Beast Wars is independent canon, and they did teach primitive man how to fight their own kind, but you kind of missed the point of what I was getting at -- the military isn't effective against the Transformers because they're well-trained and equipped with advanced technology, they're effective against the Transformers because Michael Bay has an unbelievably massive thing for a) the military, and b) explosions.  He can't stand to have the military lose, or even come close to losing.  While he's hyper-sexualizing Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, a woman who is not a strong character and does exactly what you just said (run and scream uselessly), he's got to have the military come in with automatic weapons and grenade launchers and save the day against alien robots the size of buildings that should be able to handle their own business.  People refer to Battle: Los Angeles as "Marines Are Awesome, the Movie," when in reality Michael Bay had basically created that movie already in the first Transformers.
The bottom line is that the military was completely technologically-outclassed in the first movie, did not have the information necessary to fight, and we saw more of the humans beating Decepticons than we did Autobots beating Decepticons.  Also, Megatron should have shown up sooner. :p

Having the military not intervene when the Hulk is involved is fairly typical for Marvel stories.  They're pretty paranoid about him.
Regarding the police, if something like the Chitauri invasion actually happened, they pretty much would be trying to evacuate civilians, not actively fighting.  SWAT would step in for something like the bank scene, but the primary goal of any law enforcement personnel in times of crisis is to evacuate civilians.
Another thing worth noting, I think, is that it wasn't the military that fired the nuke.  It was the Council, which has direct authority over SHIELD.  Yeah, that means SHIELD is armed with nuclear weaponry, which has always been a disturbing thought, because Nick Fury is a super paranoid dude.  It's a fair guess to say they probably kept the military out of the theater because their primary concern (and plan) was to immediately sanitize the zone.

I feel like there might be a little too much anger up in here.  I'm not calling you names or kicking your dog, Wax -- are we good?  Wasn't trying to rile anyone up.

On topic! 
Tomb Raider was mentioned in the OP.  Thoughts on the new, less-sexualized, "gritty" action-hero Lara Croft?
Logged

Emotion, yet peace.

Crimson Reaper: SRD
Shock LE Staff: DVA/AS
Aeon v3: CG [Stunt]

Waxman
Knight Commander
*

Force Alignment: 114
Posts: 696



WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2013, 12:32:56 AM »

Aurentis, we're totally good.  Grin

Most of it was intended to be sarcasm anyway but I realize it's really difficult to portray sarcasm through writing unless I add /sarcasm, but then it makes it seem like I wasn't being serious, which I wasn't... sort of.  Smiley

In the end, it's pointless to get mad over fiction and really, other than the music and maybe a few scenes, moments, and characters, Transformers 2 & 3 was pretty lame.

Also, I love Avengers.  But one thing that you need to understand about me is that I am extremely critical of most everything.  Even Transformers annoys me, but especially in how they portray the lead females in the movies.

But yes, onward to the main topic.

I don't mind the new Lara Croft although I did find it funny that she as a character and that game, unsurprisingly enough, is following in the same mainstream media culture of including bow and arrows in each and every new production, like Crysis 3 and a few others I haven't mentioned or have slipped my mind.

The only thing that kind of annoys me is when people mistake "gritty" for mature.  Or in other words, unless a game is dark and gritty, then it's not a good game.  Kind of like Batman Arkham Asylum/City or Ocarina of Time or Final Fantasy 7/8.  Everyone I talk to when I ask "why do you like that game?" Nearly everyone replies with "It was dark and gritty and it had Batman"...

The same could be said with Majora's Mask, which is one of my favorite Zelda games in general, but for different reasons in that it improved upon the design of the OoT but added new elements to it and... well, I'm not going to lie, I liked it because it was dark, gritty, and mature...  Cheesy

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that having a game be "gritty" only works if the previous installments were not.  Majora's Mask wouldn't work on its own unless OoT established the world previously.  The same with Tomb Raider.  By giving us a more "gritty" world and situations, it's a comparative difference from previous installments.

However, being "gritty" is a double-edged sword because the moment a game or show is no longer "gritty" then fans usually tend to reject it or hate it excessively, such as Wind Waker for it's cartoony graphixx.  This is actually one of the main reasons Nintendo made Twilight Princess the way it is, to appeal to western-audiences in making it dark, brown, gold, blurry, monochrome, and giving it lots and lots of bloom.  In other words, "gritty" colors.

Basically, things shouldn't be gritty just for the sake of being gritty or dark.  There should be a reason for it.  That's the main problem I had with the new Tomb Raider.  Was it being gritty to improve Lara as a character, or attract "mature" gamers, or both?  Does being gritty = maturity?  Undecided
I just don't think a game necessarily has to be gritty to be mature or good.
Logged

Ultrasabers:
Bellicose-VA. Bane-BR. Consular-CG. x2 Initiate V3-SY. Aeon V3-GB. x4 Yari [Pike] Extensions.
Grab-Bag:
Aeon V3-GB. Dark Liberator V3-AB. Dominix V2-AB. Dominix V2-GB. Initiate V2-BR
Wishlist:
Manticore-PO. Dark Catalyst-Emerald. Shock LE-SY. Overlord-BR. Bellicose-VA. Archon-CG. Arbiter-AS.

TheHobbitofDune
Knight Commander
*

Force Alignment: 473
Posts: 6097


« Reply #7 on: May 01, 2013, 12:54:31 AM »

As for keeping characters believable, I wholeheartedly agree.  The reason Batman was so loved is because anyone with enough money and inventions could become him.  

...And years and years of martial arts training Grin

But back on topic, I do agree with Oramac. A female character has to be put into believable situations. Of course, it also depends on the character herself. I would never expect -or want- to have Lara Croft battle a demigod; that is a job for women such as Supergirl or Wonder Woman.

On topic!  
Tomb Raider was mentioned in the OP.  Thoughts on the new, less-sexualized, "gritty" action-hero Lara Croft?

I haven't had a chance to play Tomb Raider yet, but from what I've seen, the new Lara Croft seems okay.
Logged

Aurentis
Knight Arbiter
*

Force Alignment: 31
Posts: 261


« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2013, 02:37:53 AM »

Okay, cool.  I just wanted to make sure we weren't about to have ourselves an old-fashioned internet fight.  Tongue

I'm in the same boat with you on the whole "gritty" thing.  I've actually reached a point where I'm utterly tired of hearing it used to describe entertainment media, because it feels like such a cop-out word for when you can't actually describe the reasons you like something that's...  well, a notable departure from the norm, shall we say.  I think we all know which direction these departures take.
Also, I kind of think "Batman" implies "gritty," these days.  So it makes me double sad whenever someone is like 'ARKHAM CITY IS SO GRITTY IT'S AWESOME."  Well, great job describing what makes it good, chief.

I had more I wanted to say on-topic, but man, I'm too tired to really put my thoughts in order.  I'll try to say something tomorrow if I can remember.
Logged

Emotion, yet peace.

Crimson Reaper: SRD
Shock LE Staff: DVA/AS
Aeon v3: CG [Stunt]

Jabari
Knight Major
*

Force Alignment: 57
Posts: 358



« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2013, 04:28:33 AM »

As to believable situations... are you talking "is it believable as this particular character doing this" or "can I believe a woman might be able to do this"? because they are different things.  Has the audience been given a reason to believe the character has this ability, or is it your pre-existing ideas of "what women/men can and can't do" ?

A friend of mine is a very small woman, with no big muscles or anything that would betray her martial arts prowess.  She is a black belt in taekwondo and I have seen her flip a man twice her size.  So on the one hand, I have no problem believing that a small woman could beat a much larger man in hand-to-hand combat in real life...

On the other hand, to use the Hunger Games example, Katniss has NOT had years of taekwondo training.  It has been established in the book/movie that her skills are stealth, archery, and hunting.  I would not expect her to win in a hand-to-hand fight with a big guy like Thresh, because she simply doesn't have the skills, or the size necessary for sheer brute strength.

Whether or not any character, male or female, is 'believable' in a fictional setting should depend on their backstory.  If it is consistent that the character has the skills necessary for the situation, then for that character the situation is believable.  Katniss is a teenage girl whose only martial skill is archery, and she fights like it.  Wonder Woman is a superhero so of course she can hold her own against superpowered villains.  Frodo is a guy who can take nobody in a fight, not even the several-hundred-year-old Gollum.

Male characters also have to be put in 'believable' (meaning internally consistent) situations.  It's simply good storytelling.  Tony Stark was a regular guy, but give him an arc reactor and throw him in a superpowered suit... the gender of the character shouldn't be the definition of what is or isn't 'believable'.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DoubleStandard
Logged

Oramac
Knight Commander
*

Force Alignment: -256
Posts: 2204


Dark Side, please. I like the cookies.


« Reply #10 on: May 01, 2013, 05:45:43 PM »

As to believable situations... are you talking "is it believable as this particular character doing this" or "can I believe a woman might be able to do this"? because they are different things.  Has the audience been given a reason to believe the character has this ability, or is it your pre-existing ideas of "what women/men can and can't do" ?

Short answer: both.  

Backstory is a big part of it, but other factors come into play as well.  I have no doubt that a properly trained woman could take on a properly trained man.  But that's not really the point.  The point is the overarching situation presented.  Katniss does well because she takes advantage of her strengths.  Namely, archery, agility and size (or lack thereof), and purposefully puts herself in an environment where those skills can give her the most advantage.   I'm guessing here, but I'd bet this is why/how your female friend takes out her male counterparts: she uses her size, leverage, flexibility, and agility to avoid and redirect the mans (generally) superior strength.  

My thoughts, as far as believable situations go, is when they put a woman in a position that requires her to physically overpower (rather than outmaneuver) an obviously stronger opponent.  These are the things I find unbelievable.  It's also one reason (I suspect) why we rarely see women in hero roles that are not augmented in some way.

Consider real life: could Rhonda Rousey take on Anderson Silva or Jon Jones and win?  Sure, there's a chance she could.  But it's very unlikely given the roughly equal training and the vastly different physiology of the fighters, and the environment they fight in.  That last one is really my main concern as far as believability goes in film.  The environment makes far more difference than filmmakers seem to think it does.

As for the new Tomb Raider, I've not played it yet so I can't say for sure.  What I've seen of the trailers makes me think it leans towards the believable, though without playing it I can't be sure.  I can be sure that it sounds like an awesome story, whether it's believable or not though!

EDIT: on the point of story, it can be good enough to suspend belief and just go with the film too.  As you said, story/backstory makes a big difference.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2013, 05:52:13 PM by Oramac » Logged

I give stealth points.  You may get one without ever knowing it! Muwahaha!

Dark War Glaive - Blazing Red/AS FOC [or FO/VA FOC]
Initiate v3 with Obsidian - Blazing Red
Initiate v3 - Consular

Master Rel
Game Master
Knight of the Consular Order
Knight Commander
OVER 9000!!
******

Force Alignment: 1884
Posts: 12894


Martial artist, fabricator, chef, resident Ortolan


« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2013, 07:50:41 PM »

On topic, we are referencing a comic lol superhero in Black Widow.

She is exceptional as is the intended comparison to DCs Canary and by proxy Batman.

Let us be clear here, Batman is not who he is because he an Everyman with billions...he is the exception to the rule of the product of complete obsessive motivation.

In Widow's case we are assume the Batman non-powered adventurer standard holds true...she is exceptional to the highest degree of potential, then trained, and unique.

Speed that rivals nearly anyone, reflexes off the chart, and the will to do what needs to do.

She is believeable if taken in context, it is not like she is nerve pinching Thor...but let Thor or Hulk try anything dealing with security or tech...falls back to Thor or Hulk smash.
Logged



Light side points please Smiley

TheHobbitofDune
Knight Commander
*

Force Alignment: 473
Posts: 6097


« Reply #12 on: May 01, 2013, 08:21:40 PM »

Going off what Oramac said...

There is a reason why only 4% of firefighters are women. Women and men are just built differently. Its not a stereotype, its not some dastardly way of thinking, its just a plain and simple fact. If you were to take a man and a woman who are both equally trained and have them compete against each other in some sort of physical competition, it is more than likely that the man will win. I'm talking about simple sparring, weight-lifting competitions, etc, not some battle royale in a jungle. There are some exceptions to the rule, as there are with anything, but it is still unlikely. Oramac said it best:

I'm guessing here, but I'd bet this is why/how your female friend takes out her male counterparts: she uses her size, leverage, flexibility, and agility to avoid and redirect the mans (generally) superior strength.  

Men and women have different strengths, different weaknesses, etc. We are not the same, nor will we ever be the same. There is a reason why men hunted, and why women stayed at home. There is a reason why even the toughest of women will go googly eyed over a cute little baby. There is a reason why our bodies were built differently. There are reasons for everything. None of these things are bad things, okay? We were made to COMPLEMENT each other. We are like Yin and Yang; we are different, but together, we create a whole, and thus create balance and harmony.

What I'm trying to get at here is that there are a ton of factors and variables to be considered when you try to hyper-analyze a character, be it male or female. Once again, there are reasons for everything. I'm not saying that as a cop out to justify stereotypes, no, I'm simply saying that men and women are complex, multifaceted creatures.

Basically, I'm trying to help put things into perspective.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2013, 08:25:13 PM by TheHobbitofDune » Logged

Jabari
Knight Major
*

Force Alignment: 57
Posts: 358



« Reply #13 on: May 02, 2013, 01:44:13 AM »

Sometimes the differences between men's and women's "strengths and weaknesses" are societal reasons, not physical reasons...

In the Victorian Era, society considered women to be fragile and fairly incompetent.  I can say from experience that wearing an 1860's style corset and hoops makes it nearly impossible to do certain things - bend over to pick something up, lift things, get dressed by yourself, etc.  Women didn't have the same schooling opportunities as men either.  Those women really were physically and mentally handicapped by society.

As for hunter/gatherers...hard to hunt when you're carrying a baby around.  However, there were societies that didn't follow this pattern.  Young Scythian / Sarmatian women were allowed to be warriors until they got married, and 20% of the warrior graves found so far by archaeologists were women warriors. (They were probably the inspiration for the mythical Amazons.)  Because, on horseback, a male archer has no real advantage over a female one.  Even today, Olympic equestrian sports do not have separate divisions for each gender.

Male ultra-marathon runners also lose their gender advantage once the distance gets long enough.  Apparently women generally have a higher threshold for physical fatigue.  With more female athletes, we are finding how to better train them, instead of treating them like small men.

In the sparring match I was referring to, yes, the guy probably could have picked up my friend with one arm, something she certainly couldn't have done to him.  But...that seems like a good reason for a woman to use her brains and skill in a fight, and not rely on brute strength to win!  Nothing at all wrong with using superior agility to make up for being less strong.  Fight smarter, as they say.  Cheesy

I feel like one reason we see mostly superpowered women in films is perhaps male writers don't always understand this.  If you're hung up on the strength factor, it can be hard to understand (and therefore write) the mentality of how to fight physical strength with some other skill, without resorting to "cheating".  Smiley
Logged

BenPass
Knight of the Consular Order
Knight Commander
*

Force Alignment: 690
Posts: 6031


Jedi Consular


WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 02, 2013, 02:01:35 AM »

Going off what Oramac said...

There is a reason why only 4% of firefighters are women. Women and men are just built differently. Its not a stereotype, its not some dastardly way of thinking, its just a plain and simple fact. If you were to take a man and a woman who are both equally trained and have them compete against each other in some sort of physical competition, it is more than likely that the man will win. I'm talking about simple sparring, weight-lifting competitions, etc, not some battle royale in a jungle. There are some exceptions to the rule, as there are with anything, but it is still unlikely. Oramac said it best:

Men and women have different strengths, different weaknesses, etc. We are not the same, nor will we ever be the same. There is a reason why men hunted, and why women stayed at home. There is a reason why even the toughest of women will go googly eyed over a cute little baby. There is a reason why our bodies were built differently. There are reasons for everything. None of these things are bad things, okay? We were made to COMPLEMENT each other. We are like Yin and Yang; we are different, but together, we create a whole, and thus create balance and harmony.

What I'm trying to get at here is that there are a ton of factors and variables to be considered when you try to hyper-analyze a character, be it male or female. Once again, there are reasons for everything. I'm not saying that as a cop out to justify stereotypes, no, I'm simply saying that men and women are complex, multifaceted creatures.

Basically, I'm trying to help put things into perspective.

Completely agree with you Hobbie! We're made to complement each other. We aren't the same, and we shouldn't expect for us all to be the same. That said, the same standard of realism should be held in movies etc. for men and women. I don't want to see men doing impossible things, or women doing impossible things. I don't want to see the average person with no training (male or female) doing something that doesn't work (say, beating Ali in his prime). If you go into the superhero idea, then yes, it makes sense to beat the impossible. As normal humans though, keep it realistic.
Logged

May the Force be with me? Sure! It can come along!
"Lux triumphat super obscurum" - "Light triumphs over darkness"

Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
Send this topic | Print
Jump to: