Random Thoughts 3: A Little Bit of This, and a Little Bit of That...

[Zkribbler]

In some of the supplementary lore, there are some indicators that the xenomorphs are actually capable of switching their gender as needs dictate. For example, if a hive loses its queen, one of the "drones" can transform into a female and become a new queen.

I read about this decades ago. The problem is they can't lay eggs which create workers, only more drones.

 

[Commodore]

Thought for the Day: Who cares what a bird in the hand is worth? The more important question is "why do you have a bird in your hand?"

 

[Zkribbler]

Because it can lay golden eggs, ye dang fool!

 

[Snerk]

Also it's delicious.

 

[EgonSpengler]

In some of the supplementary lore, there are some indicators that the xenomorphs are actually capable of switching their gender as needs dictate. For example, if a hive loses its queen, one of the "drones" can transform into a female and become a new queen.

That makes sense. Aren't there real insects that can do that? And we know that the xenomorphs are adaptable; in the 3rd movie, we saw that they take on some of the characteristics of its host, with the one that hatched out of the dog. I haven't seen the recent movies - I've heard they all sucked anyway - but wasn't there an especially nasty Alien that hatched out of a Predator?

 

[Broken_Erika]

Thought for the Day: Who cares what a bird in the hand is worth? The more important question is "why do you have a bird in your hand?"

So the Bird is the Word?

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Queen Bees are not born, there are no special queen eggs. Rather, one larvae is fed a different diet which radically alters her DNA and makes her turn into a queen. Not really that similiar, but still really cool

 

[EgonSpengler]

Thinking about Jessica Jones over in the television thread, there's another awesome example of a woman playing a traditionally male character, with no alteration to make her a woman, and it's friggin' awesome. Almost none of her behavior is (stereo)typically female - a couple of times she even satirizes it - and it works perfectly. And, in fact, the story might not work as well if the character had been its traditional, male version. If this story were about Mike Hammer or Sam Spade, the victim would be his client, not him. Just that scene in the first episode - written & directed by women, incidentally - where Jessica bodily carries Hope, kicking & screaming, out of the hotel room would be completely different if the Jessica character were its traditional male version. The more I think about it, the more I realize how much the character couldn't have been a man. Anyway, Ripley wasn't the hot mess that Jessica is, and Jessica Jones isn't the same kind of sci-fi, but it's easy to see the shared DNA between the characters.

 

[MaryKB]

My feeling is we're so used to seeing sexist depictions of women in movies, television, and literature, that you start thinking that's what a woman really is, but really she's only being portrayed from a perspective of male sexual fantasy, which isn't real (and why you so desperately need more women writers!). So when you see a woman played as a normal human being, you start thinking "she's behaving like a man!", when really no, she's just acting like a real person who happens to be female. I totally agree how Jessica Jones is very refreshing and well done, she's still very feminine and relatable as a woman, but her story arc wouldn't be terribly different if she were a male character. My opinion really is women are portrayed very well in all four Marvel Netflix series, and most of the interesting characters are women (like Misty, Colleen, Mariah, Karen, Claire, etc) who have normal motivations and ambitions that don't revolve around men.

 

[Synobun]

What is masculinity and femininity to you, Mary, if there is no actual difference between the two binaries when it comes to behaviour?

My earlier comments were reliant on there being a distinct difference between the two, as that's the only way Ryika's comment makes sense (that Ripley is a true feminist icon as opposed to the "fake" ones who are women with "masculine" traits). That's not really my view (for example, I don't think being physically capable is a "man" thing) but my retort is of course based on how society used to be and, in many respects, still is. The things you describe as "being a normal human being" would in the past be described as a woman being faulty, or hysterical, or outright well above her station.

But your description gets tricky because you're still adamant about femininity being present. If we're going to say that characters like Ripley subvert expectations, and if we're going to say that a woman displaying those traits doesn't make them masculine, then what masculinity and femininity are needs to be defined. If this gets boiled down to just "I am a man" or "I am a woman", then Ryika's original observation (and my retort) immediately become meaningless and they're safely ignored.

 

[MaryKB]

I feel to me, my femininity is about how I identify myself as a woman, just like I'd feel your masculinity is your identity as a man. My feeling is many of our traditional masculine/feminine definitions you see are created by men and for the purpose to force women in a subservient role, by defining us as weak, fragile, and delicate, while men are strong and powerful. You can't have weak leaders, right?

I feel if I choose to spend my time playing video games instead of braiding my hair, I'm still feminine. And if I choose to work in computer analytics instead of fashion, then I'm still fully a woman and not being "like a man". And I can wear flats instead of six inch heels and I'm not being masculine, or if I'm going to wear pants instead of a skirt, you know what I mean? And in my mind if you as a man like to cook, or you want to stay home and raise your children, you're not any less masculine or less of a man to me, you know what I mean?

I don't really understand much what traits make Ellen Ripley less of a woman? Is it because she's strong, smart, and decisive? She takes control of her own destiny and she doesn't rely on a man to save her, and I don't believe at all those are masculine qualities, but I do understand it's difficult to see how saying so denigrates women to a lesser role, if I'm making sense?

And I believe Ripley has many strong characteristics, like she's perceptive and sees things those marines don't, like about that reactor, and how she saw through Paul Reiser's scheme. And she's intuitive and logical, like how she wanted to make sure John Hurt (I apologize, I don't remember every character's name, lol) was not allowed to bring his potential parasite on board before her captain overruled her. She's practical and decisive, it's her idea to nuke that whole colony and destroy the Nostramo. She's empathetic and caring, like how she bonded with Newt and she made sure to rescue Jonesy. She's strong and intelligent, she saw Gormun for what he was and she wasn't afraid of him, and everyone really looked to her as leader and respected her.

My feeling is I can identify with her character, I see things about myself in her, and I can easily imagine myself as her in ways I don't naturally do with male heroes. I guess it's sort of hard to explain how it feels, how when almost every movie you watch you see male action stars dominating everything, and characters you're supposed to identify with are pretty much useless except for looking pretty, then you see someone like Ellen Ripley or Sarah Connor and you just feel like "YES!", you know? And then it's just a little hurtful to see someone say "Well she's really a man".

 

[Farm Boy]

Preach it!

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Thought for the Day: Who cares what a bird in the hand is worth? The more important question is "why do you have a bird in your hand?"

Because it's dinnertime? (KFC priced itself right out of my budget, so it actually does matter what the bird is worth)

Or maybe you're one of these strange people who like having birds as pets?

My feeling is we're so used to seeing sexist depictions of women in movies, television, and literature, that you start thinking that's what a woman really is, but really she's only being portrayed from a perspective of male sexual fantasy, which isn't real (and why you so desperately need more women writers!).

And directors. When The Handmaid's Tale became a TV series, TPTB made sure to have plenty of women writers and directors. One of them did a YT video in which she explained the how and why of directing the 2nd season episode following the one in which the Mayday terrorists bomb the new Rachel and Leah Centre and a lot of Handmaids are killed (the real targets were the Commanders). The episode includes a funeral for the Handmaids that's quasi-military... since the Handmaids are seen as part of the army whose mission is to bear children to the Commanders. One of the lines is taken directly from the Act of Remembrance that we (in RL) perform on November 11, and I recall being a bit annoyed about that... until I really started thinking about the symbolism.

Anyway, that funeral scene is a tearjerker, partly because even in death the Handmaids aren't granted the dignity of being buried with their real names.

I feel if I choose to spend my time playing video games instead of braiding my hair, I'm still feminine. And if I choose to work in computer analytics instead of fashion, then I'm still fully a woman and not being "like a man". And I can wear flats instead of six inch heels and I'm not being masculine, or if I'm going to wear pants instead of a skirt, you know what I mean? And in my mind if you as a man like to cook, or you want to stay home and raise your children, you're not any less masculine or less of a man to me, you know what I mean?

Why not both? There are computer games on the theme of fashion design, computer games with cooking themes (I finally learned how fortune cookies are made! ), and so on.

That said, I still remember my early times on CFC, when some of the guys (who might be among those still posting in OT; I don't recall at this point) said, "You can't be a girl. Girls don't play Civ."

Well, yeah, we do. As I've mentioned, it was a woman 20+ years older than me who taught me how to play Civ II. There was a large number of people in my local SCA group who were also into gaming - board games, computer games, D&D, etc. Nobody praised me for "acting like a man" the night I clobbered the rest of the players at Civilization (the original board game that came out long before there was a computer game). I was just congratulated for winning.

Actually, the SCA is good for cutting through sexist BS. In the Current Middle Ages, women can make armor, learn to fight, and become Queen in their own right, if they're the last one standing during a Crown Tournament. If a man wants to learn embroidery and autocrat a feast, nobody makes fun of him for that.

 

[MaryKB]

I've never seen The Handmaid's Tale, for me I feel it's subject matter is too difficult, especially with my own history suffering domestic abuse, but I can totally appreciate how symbolic it is from what I've read other people say. Would you be willing to share that line you mention from Remembrance Day celebration that you found to be interesting?

Oh definitely both, I was just talking academic there, lol! I myself spend a lot of time playing The Sims and just using it as a virtual dollhouse, I'll spend hours just playing with my characters' outfits, but my object was to sort of say if you're a man and do that same thing as myself, I wouldn't view you as being less masculine, if I'm making sense? I believe that sort of attitude is often called "toxic masculinity", where femininity is defined as being traits of weakness and submissiveness which are only for women and not for men, and it hurts everyone, right?

I'm very glad your SCA is like how you describe, that sounds just so wonderfully liberating for everyone, women and men both. Oh but it's ever so much fun to do things like kick butt in Starcraft, then go paint your toes, lol.

 

[Synobun]

I feel to me, my femininity is about how I identify myself as a woman, just like I'd feel your masculinity is your identity as a man. My feeling is many of our traditional masculine/feminine definitions you see are created by men and for the purpose to force women in a subservient role, by defining us as weak, fragile, and delicate, while men are strong and powerful. You can't have weak leaders, right?

I feel if I choose to spend my time playing video games instead of braiding my hair, I'm still feminine. And if I choose to work in computer analytics instead of fashion, then I'm still fully a woman and not being "like a man". And I can wear flats instead of six inch heels and I'm not being masculine, or if I'm going to wear pants instead of a skirt, you know what I mean? And in my mind if you as a man like to cook, or you want to stay home and raise your children, you're not any less masculine or less of a man to me, you know what I mean?

I don't really understand much what traits make Ellen Ripley less of a woman? Is it because she's strong, smart, and decisive? She takes control of her own destiny and she doesn't rely on a man to save her, and I don't believe at all those are masculine qualities, but I do understand it's difficult to see how saying so denigrates women to a lesser role, if I'm making sense?

And I believe Ripley has many strong characteristics, like she's perceptive and sees things those marines don't, like about that reactor, and how she saw through Paul Reiser's scheme. And she's intuitive and logical, like how she wanted to make sure John Hurt (I apologize, I don't remember every character's name, lol) was not allowed to bring his potential parasite on board before her captain overruled her. She's practical and decisive, it's her idea to nuke that whole colony and destroy the Nostramo. She's empathetic and caring, like how she bonded with Newt and she made sure to rescue Jonesy. She's strong and intelligent, she saw Gormun for what he was and she wasn't afraid of him, and everyone really looked to her as leader and respected her.

My feeling is I can identify with her character, I see things about myself in her, and I can easily imagine myself as her in ways I don't naturally do with male heroes. I guess it's sort of hard to explain how it feels, how when almost every movie you watch you see male action stars dominating everything, and characters you're supposed to identify with are pretty much useless except for looking pretty, then you see someone like Ellen Ripley or Sarah Connor and you just feel like "YES!", you know? And then it's just a little hurtful to see someone say "Well she's really a man".

I personally do not disagree with your position, but it makes any distinction about masculinity and femininity pointless. I'm not opposed to that being the case at all; it is just difficult to incorporate that position when the "stage" set, so to speak, involved there being a distinct difference between the two based on traits and behaviour.

I could see Ripley being a feminist icon in the sense you describe, that she didn't need a man to save her and she didn't revolve around a man. This doesn't require masculinity or femininity. Ryika, however, was very specific in distinguishing a difference between Ripley and other female leads who, as they describe, are just women with masculine traits. That position only makes sense if you assume there's differences between the binary genders. And if you assume that, then you also need to be able to pinpoint what is specifically masculine and what is specifically feminine.

"Femininity is whatever I want to do while being a woman" is a fine enough position but it kind of doesn't work in the discussion being proposed. Which is fine, I guess. It does make it difficult to talk about it though because everyone is working off of a completely different assumption.

Put differently: the argument being set forth is that a character is actually feminine as opposed to the fakes who are just women with masculine traits.

Your position is that Ripley is feminine because she is a woman. Anything she does is feminine by virtue of that being the case. However, you said that you agree with the argument in your first post.

This doesn't make sense because the argument is making a very specific point about women exhibiting male traits. Ripley is a true feminist icon because she isn't a fake, she isn't exhibiting male behaviours. If femininity and masculinity are indeed whatever someone of that respective gender is doing, the comparison being made in the original argument should be bankrupt/oppositional to what your position is. There can't be a woman who exhibits male behaviours because they aren't men, and anything a woman chooses to do automatically makes her feminine because she's a woman.

 

[Lexicus]

Would everyone laugh at me if I said that I don't believe in 'inherent' masculinity and femininity at all, and that's it's more or less purely socially constructed, and you can probably find ethnographic examples of societies in which the supposedly biologically-determined masculine traits are actually coded onto a female gender construct?

 

[Synobun]

Would everyone laugh at me if I said that I don't believe in 'inherent' masculinity and femininity at all, and that's it's more or less purely socially constructed, and you can probably find ethnographic examples of societies in which the supposedly biologically-determined masculine traits are actually coded onto a female gender construct?

It's a social construct, yes.

 

[Lexicus]

It would follow that it only makes sense to talk about femininity and masculinity in historical space and time. So you could say that Ripley is a big deal because she exhibits behaviors and traits coded as masculine in our particular society.

To be clear I'm not trying to 'gotcha' or anything here, I get what you're saying above and I'm just trying to square the circle in my own mind.

 

[Synobun]

It would follow that it only makes sense to talk about femininity and masculinity in historical space and time. So you could say that Ripley is a big deal because she exhibits behaviors and traits coded as masculine in our particular society.

To be clear I'm not trying to 'gotcha' or anything here, I get what you're saying above and I'm just trying to square the circle in my own mind.

I'd largely agree with that. I mean, my whole point with saying Ripley fits the model of a tomboy is that the claim of her being 'real' as opposed to the fakes doesn't make sense. She subverts the rigidness of the binary specifically by exhibiting traditionally male traits and behaviours. She claims those things for women, making it clear that they are just as capable as men. That's great. But then it sort of raises a big question mark when the argument goes on to say that other women leads are just "women who act like men".

 

[Lexicus]

Well, my read on that would be that it's an issue of authenticity, or organic-ness, probably to do more with the subtleties of performance and direction than anything else. Does that make sense at all?