A couple of years ago, my family and I watched the entirety of Avatar: The Last Airbender. It's a really well done cartoon from Nickelodeon that still has a pretty strong following, despite the second series, Korra, not quite catching my interest in the same way.
During LTUE this year, there was a paper by an undergrad from BYU whose thesis was "Feminism and Avatar: The Last Airbender." The paper he was presenting wasn't finished, and his primary conceit was really just being explored at this point, rather than being polished and ready for presentation. As an educator, it kind of bothered me that he had come to present a really interesting idea, but hadn't finished the exploration in any depth. While I didn't mind the request for feedback and the general discussion--in fact, I enjoyed that quite a bit--it felt slipshod to have an unfinished product presented at a writing conference.
But the conversation definitely got me thinking. The audience was positive and supportive of the concept of feminism, though there were some strange sticky points that crept up. On the whole, of course, bringing a shouldn't-be-controversial-but-this-is-the-world-we-live-in topic like feminism to one of the reddest cities in the state was a bit of a risky move. Especially since one of the presenters (who didn't come to this presentation, though it was at the end of a long weekend and perhaps he was elsewhere) is the founder of the Sad Puppies voting bloc that jacked up the Hugos. I mean, I guess I shouldn't judge his politics (on his website, he says he's a libertarian), but it strikes me that the kind of person who relies on people who lean alt-right probably has an issue with feminism? But, that's just an assumption. Anyway, it's hard to say 'feminism' in Utah County and not expect a lot of misunderstanding--and even disregard--of the movement be the topic of the conversation, rather than whatever the lens of feminism is being applied to.
So the fact that we had an open admission of feminism as the lens for analysis on a beloved cartoon franchise was exciting. There were nearly twenty people there, by the end, and that, too, was exciting. Again, it was sad that the presentation wasn't a little better prepared.
Earlier the day before, I'd attended a panel talking about "how to write strong female characters", and there I got a lot of analyses about Whedonverse women, differences between strong and weak female characters, and even another shakedown of the Bechdel Test. During that panel, one of the women in the audience said, her tone filled with indignation, that she didn't appreciate the idea of anyone telling her what to do and that she was perfectly happy with her life choices as a mother and housewife, thank you very much. The presenter agreed with her, then proceeded to insist that feminism should support people who live that way.
That's the thing: Feminism does support that. The entire thing about feminism isn't simply equality--it's the equal ability to choose as an independent human being that which is most personally satisfying. In order to choose, one has to be given the freedom and the tools to think clearly and critically about the decisions one is making. In other words, feminism's critiques of the patriarchal system feel as though they're constantly pointing out the flaws (which is true--the flaws are there, they're real, and they have real effects), when the pointing out of the flaws is to help the viewer make a choice for herself: Is this what I truly want? So long as the woman (and, thanks to the excellent efforts of intersectional feminists, this has taken on a broader sense of anyone at all, regardless of color, orientation, or background) has made that decision of her own free will and choice, feminism is down with that. What feminism isn't down with is the idea that there's a right way of forcing women to live that isn't in line with her beliefs and core self. It's intensely individualistic--which is another one of the ironies of its widespread maligning in the intensely individualistic American psyche--and supportive of those who make their choices only after considering where they are.
The presenter obviously didn't mean to make it sound as though that wasn't the case, but it felt like she was conflating the slight minority within feminism that uses the philosophy as justification for misandry and the broader, more important spectrum of feminist thinking. When one is talking about the radicalism within a movement, I find it essential to bring out the fact that we're looking at a minority. Islam's radicalism, Christianity's radicalism, political radicalism...the fringes of a subculture--even one as large as a religion--aren't representative of the subculture and ought not to be conflated. Yet that fringe seems to dominate the discussion whenever the topic is broached. If you don't believe me, try talking about Islam--not jihadists, just Islam. See how quickly your audience bristles, gets uncomfortable, or starts to point out something horrid that ISIS did. Odds are good it'll degenerate pretty quickly, usually after a preface of "I don't want to get political, but..."
My point is, unless the panel were specifically about radical feminism, bringing it up is bad form. I have never given a presentation about...well, anything, I guess, except at school once in a while, so I can't say what it's like to be in her shoes. Maybe she wanted to explore that topic more, but had run out of time, rushing to get something in at the end? Perhaps the comment took her by surprise? I don't really know, but it's always frustrating to me when a worthwhile conversation about important aspects of any concept gets hijacked by extremism.
Returning to where I started: There was someone who made the accurate-but-irrelevant point that men have more testosterone and are, therefore stronger than women. He said it in a way that wasn't meant to sound condescending, but the fact that it's sooooo not even pertinent to the conversation was maddening.
If we're talking about the hiring practices of a fire department in real life, then maybe physical strength should be a criterion. But when it comes to fantasy/fictitious worlds, that barrier is moot. The presenter pointed out that none of the Fire Nation's guards appeared to be female--the police force was entirely male. The reason this participant's argument is pointless is because, in the world of the Avatar, people are able to "bend" one of the four elements using their talent in that area of "bending". One of the characters, Katara, is a waterbender, who gets so good at manipulating water, she learns how to bloodbend--essentially taking over the water in a person's blood and controlling the victim. In a world where your blood can be used against you, it doesn't matter how physically strong you are.
Indeed, that's what the female characters of the series demonstrate again and again: Their skills and resourcefulness matter, not their strength. In fact, the main characters are all kids--none of them has enough strength to do hardly anything without their magical abilities. Yet they save the world. It's not because of strength that they do that, but the magic they wield that equalizes the battlefield--and then the characters within them that they rely upon to overcome their challenges.
Stripping the character down to her (or his) core self is where we get a strong character. Growing out from there, the character can be female (or male), with attributes that correspond to (or don't) to that gender. That's how we get strong women characters. It has nothing to do with their strength and everything to do with who they are.
During LTUE this year, there was a paper by an undergrad from BYU whose thesis was "Feminism and Avatar: The Last Airbender." The paper he was presenting wasn't finished, and his primary conceit was really just being explored at this point, rather than being polished and ready for presentation. As an educator, it kind of bothered me that he had come to present a really interesting idea, but hadn't finished the exploration in any depth. While I didn't mind the request for feedback and the general discussion--in fact, I enjoyed that quite a bit--it felt slipshod to have an unfinished product presented at a writing conference.
But the conversation definitely got me thinking. The audience was positive and supportive of the concept of feminism, though there were some strange sticky points that crept up. On the whole, of course, bringing a shouldn't-be-controversial-but-this-is-the-world-we-live-in topic like feminism to one of the reddest cities in the state was a bit of a risky move. Especially since one of the presenters (who didn't come to this presentation, though it was at the end of a long weekend and perhaps he was elsewhere) is the founder of the Sad Puppies voting bloc that jacked up the Hugos. I mean, I guess I shouldn't judge his politics (on his website, he says he's a libertarian), but it strikes me that the kind of person who relies on people who lean alt-right probably has an issue with feminism? But, that's just an assumption. Anyway, it's hard to say 'feminism' in Utah County and not expect a lot of misunderstanding--and even disregard--of the movement be the topic of the conversation, rather than whatever the lens of feminism is being applied to.
So the fact that we had an open admission of feminism as the lens for analysis on a beloved cartoon franchise was exciting. There were nearly twenty people there, by the end, and that, too, was exciting. Again, it was sad that the presentation wasn't a little better prepared.
Earlier the day before, I'd attended a panel talking about "how to write strong female characters", and there I got a lot of analyses about Whedonverse women, differences between strong and weak female characters, and even another shakedown of the Bechdel Test. During that panel, one of the women in the audience said, her tone filled with indignation, that she didn't appreciate the idea of anyone telling her what to do and that she was perfectly happy with her life choices as a mother and housewife, thank you very much. The presenter agreed with her, then proceeded to insist that feminism should support people who live that way.
That's the thing: Feminism does support that. The entire thing about feminism isn't simply equality--it's the equal ability to choose as an independent human being that which is most personally satisfying. In order to choose, one has to be given the freedom and the tools to think clearly and critically about the decisions one is making. In other words, feminism's critiques of the patriarchal system feel as though they're constantly pointing out the flaws (which is true--the flaws are there, they're real, and they have real effects), when the pointing out of the flaws is to help the viewer make a choice for herself: Is this what I truly want? So long as the woman (and, thanks to the excellent efforts of intersectional feminists, this has taken on a broader sense of anyone at all, regardless of color, orientation, or background) has made that decision of her own free will and choice, feminism is down with that. What feminism isn't down with is the idea that there's a right way of forcing women to live that isn't in line with her beliefs and core self. It's intensely individualistic--which is another one of the ironies of its widespread maligning in the intensely individualistic American psyche--and supportive of those who make their choices only after considering where they are.
The presenter obviously didn't mean to make it sound as though that wasn't the case, but it felt like she was conflating the slight minority within feminism that uses the philosophy as justification for misandry and the broader, more important spectrum of feminist thinking. When one is talking about the radicalism within a movement, I find it essential to bring out the fact that we're looking at a minority. Islam's radicalism, Christianity's radicalism, political radicalism...the fringes of a subculture--even one as large as a religion--aren't representative of the subculture and ought not to be conflated. Yet that fringe seems to dominate the discussion whenever the topic is broached. If you don't believe me, try talking about Islam--not jihadists, just Islam. See how quickly your audience bristles, gets uncomfortable, or starts to point out something horrid that ISIS did. Odds are good it'll degenerate pretty quickly, usually after a preface of "I don't want to get political, but..."
My point is, unless the panel were specifically about radical feminism, bringing it up is bad form. I have never given a presentation about...well, anything, I guess, except at school once in a while, so I can't say what it's like to be in her shoes. Maybe she wanted to explore that topic more, but had run out of time, rushing to get something in at the end? Perhaps the comment took her by surprise? I don't really know, but it's always frustrating to me when a worthwhile conversation about important aspects of any concept gets hijacked by extremism.
Returning to where I started: There was someone who made the accurate-but-irrelevant point that men have more testosterone and are, therefore stronger than women. He said it in a way that wasn't meant to sound condescending, but the fact that it's sooooo not even pertinent to the conversation was maddening.
If we're talking about the hiring practices of a fire department in real life, then maybe physical strength should be a criterion. But when it comes to fantasy/fictitious worlds, that barrier is moot. The presenter pointed out that none of the Fire Nation's guards appeared to be female--the police force was entirely male. The reason this participant's argument is pointless is because, in the world of the Avatar, people are able to "bend" one of the four elements using their talent in that area of "bending". One of the characters, Katara, is a waterbender, who gets so good at manipulating water, she learns how to bloodbend--essentially taking over the water in a person's blood and controlling the victim. In a world where your blood can be used against you, it doesn't matter how physically strong you are.
Indeed, that's what the female characters of the series demonstrate again and again: Their skills and resourcefulness matter, not their strength. In fact, the main characters are all kids--none of them has enough strength to do hardly anything without their magical abilities. Yet they save the world. It's not because of strength that they do that, but the magic they wield that equalizes the battlefield--and then the characters within them that they rely upon to overcome their challenges.
Stripping the character down to her (or his) core self is where we get a strong character. Growing out from there, the character can be female (or male), with attributes that correspond to (or don't) to that gender. That's how we get strong women characters. It has nothing to do with their strength and everything to do with who they are.