Posts Tagged ‘women’s rights’

Yesterday I visited my advisor’s office in the English department and discussed doing my senior thesis in the fall. Normally I would talk to her about this after spring semester had started, but I wanted to get a jump on things before I was busy with homework from five different classes. Plus I had the day off yesterday so I thought to myself, why not?

During the course of our meeting, I was outlining what I’d like to do for my senior thesis, mainly to write a novel. For this novel, I chose five different ideas for stories from the list of novels I keep on my flash drive and gave a brief synopsis of each one to my advisor Ruth. Around the third idea, Ruth noticed a trend with two of the stories I’d mentioned: they both involved young girls as protagonists in the story (one was a story based on Alice in Wonderland, the other involved demons). She then asked me, “Why young girls? Why are they used so much in horror?” To my surprise, I realized I hadn’t thought of it much, and at that moment I didn’t have a very good answer for why, when children are used so much in scary stories, young girls are more dominant than young boys (notable exceptions include Danny Torrance from The Shining and six out of seven protagonists in Stephen King’s IT, the two boys from Monster House, and Hansel from Hansel and Gretel).

And guess what? The question’s been bugging me since that meeting yesterday. So between writing, work, applying for scholarships, and my household chores, I thought I’d take a moment to examine why young girls are more dominant in these sorts of stories. First, we need to examine why children in general are used so much in horror stories:

1. Children are very innocent creatures. It’s the most obvious reason, but it still needs to be stated. Children are very innocent human beings. They still believe that good usually wins against evil, that bad guys get beat up and thrown in jail by superheroes and cops, and the world is a safe place where they are loved and are protected from evil, at least until they’ve been warped by some of the harsh realities of the world. In horror stories, that innocence is tested and sometimes completely broken by the events of the story, whether it be monsters under the bed, abusive parents/teachers/bullies, or whatever else you may be using as the antagonist in a story.

Even the man/child/sponge has more imagination than most adults.

2. Let’s face it, kids are more imaginative. As we grow older, we tend to think less in terms of the fantastic and more in terms of what is real and reasonable. But as children, we really believe in Santa, the boogeyman, fairies, aliens and ghosts with little doubt that they are actual, concrete beings. This means that kids are usually the first to come to the realization that something evil is at work. They don’t realize it through any leap of logic or reason, but through gut feeling and belief. This is also usually why they are more likely to survive than that one guy in every horror film who insists with fatalistic stubbornness that there’s a logical reason for everything and then when they realize something’s up, they still insist on handling it themselves as men, even if it leads to their heads getting bitten off.

3. Kids are dependent on others. Until sometime between ten or twelve, children are dependent on adults for most of their basic needs, and even when they start to become independent, they still require a good portion of help from adults. When in a horror story, most likely a child can’t recieve help from an adult because they’re less likely to be believed by adults. This means they’re basically adrift in a metaphorical sea that wants to kill them painfully and mercilessly. How they survive without the security of an adult is something that keeps the reader drawn into the story.

4. Children are also not as resourceful. Or to be more specific, it’s rare for children to have access to the knowledge or tools they need to defeat the enemy of the story. They wouldn’t know how to set up a trap for a mutant monster, or how to draw a vampire into the sunlight without being totally obvious of their intentions, or even how to set a windigo on fire with nothing but a set of matches (which they shouldn’t be playing with anyway). If the characters are adult, all they need to do is get out their smartphone and Google “How to make a molotov cocktail” or “how to set up a tripwire alarm system”. Kids wouldn’t even have a smartphone, and even if they did they probably wouldn’t know what to Google. How do they survive with nothing to really help them? That is another draw of a horror story.

Look at that face! You know that hotel gave that kid some big therapy bills.

5. Children are easily influenced. Lastly, children are easy to influence, for better or for worse. Has anyone seen Friday the 13th Part IV? Right at the very end we see just how the events of being around Jason have influenced and hurt little Tommy, who will be dealing with his issues for the next two films. A horrific event can stay with a child for a very long time, corrupt their innocence or make them aware of their own abilities. Either way, the events of the story will stay with the child likely throughout their lives. From what I hear, the Overlook Hotel certainly stuck with Danny Torrance (I haven’t read Doctor Sleep yet, though it’s on my reading list).

Okay, so we’ve established why children in general are used so much in scary stories. But still the answer of why young girls are used in the stories has still to be answered. Often, like Carol Anne from Poltergeist, they are persecuted and kidnapped by beings we can’t really understand. Or, like Samara from The Ring, they are the stuff of our nightmares. And occasionally they are both (anyone watch The Exorcist recently?).

This morning I spent some time trying to figure out and I think a lot of it has to do with socialization and the roles we assign to the female gender. In other words, what we expect from young girls and how we believe they should act, behave, and think are why young girls are so popular in horror stories.

Please note that the suggestions I’ve listed below are for fictional girls and are just based on my own reading and viewing of many different horror novels, comics, TV shows, and movies. There may be several stories featuring girls that are the exact opposite of these reasons, I just have yet to be exposed to these stories. The reasons I’ve listed do not necessarily apply to real girls either, as I’ve made clear below. Here are the reasons I was able to come up with and which back up my beliefs on gender roles making female characters popular:

1. Fictional girls are more prone to sweetness, harmony, and nonviolence. Most boys when they’re young like to get wild, scrap a bit, use their fists and compete with each other through acts of physical prowess and aggression (when my cousin was younger, you could not stop him from acting like this). Young girls though are often portrayed as preferring to be friends rather than fight. They like doing cute stuff and they don’t like to get their hands dirty or do anything too wild. The only exceptions I can think of are Beverly Marsh from IT and my sisters, but then again my sisters are from my crazy family, so go figure. So since these fictional girls are less likely to use their fists and more likely to try to harmonize, they’re at more risk for whatever evil is after them in the story.

2. Young girls have yet to enter into the realm of maturity and sexuality. A lot of criticism with horror comes with how it sexualizes its female characters (please see my article Sex and Horror for more on this topic).However young girls have yet to reach that stage where people begin to see their sexuality. There’s an innocence in this lack of sexuality that young boys don’t get from their ignorance of sexuality, though that might have something to do with the fact that, like I said, a lot of women in horror are defined by their sexuality, whereas men don’t usually receive this sort of sexualized image no matter what age they are.

3. It’s adorable when young girls cry. Because of the pre-assigned roles that differentiate between boys and girls, at some point boys are taught that crying is not a manly thing to do, so they stop crying if they want to retain whatever form of manhood a young boy can have. On the other hand, it’s considered okay for girls to cry throughout their lives. And instead of pitying these girls or questioning their maturity like we would with boys, our hearts go out to the girls and make us want to hug them. This contributes to the popularity of young girls in horror stories.

And if these points haven’t hammered home my belief on gender roles playing a major role in the popularity of young girls in horror, here’s my final point:

In the end, the princess mentality takes a toll.

4. Young girls want to be princesses. It’s no understatement that plenty of girls in our Western society want to become princesses when they grow up and have a handsome prince rescue them from evil so they can live happily ever after, and our media perpetuates this to no end  (even Once Upon a Time and Frozen couldn’t leave this cliché out of their storylines, though they both do something rather original with the trope in each their own way). In horror stories, typically it’s up to a female character to either rescue herself from her predicament or to let a strapping young man save her and then sweep her off her feet. With young girls, that choice isn’t always available, and often the writer will write the story so that we wish for someone to come and save the little girl, while holding us with baited breath to see if she will be saved by a dashing prince…in the case of horror stories, most likely an older male relative with an axe or baseball bat.

So the reason why young girls are so popular in horror stories, as I’ve listed above, is that they fulfill certain gender roles that we’ve come to expect and work nicely into not just the plot of the story, but certain preconceived notions we unconsciously have in their minds. However, not all young girls fall into these roles. Beverly Marsh from IT plays a big part in stopping the demon clown when she’s a little girl by being the more aggressive fighter of the Losers Club. Coraline from the book of the same name is able to release the souls of the eaten children and save her parents all on her own. And even creepy Samara coming out of the TV is an exception, as she doesn’t fulfill any traditional roles, not even the one about needing saving. She’s the freaking villain!

Yeah, don’t mess with her.

So I think I’ve answered the question Ruth posed to me yesterday in her office. I’m not sure it’s the best answer or the right answer, but it’s what I was able to come up with. If you have any ideas about why young female characters are so popular, examples of girls who buck the trend, or any other points relevant to the discussion, please let me know.

Also, in a somewhat related note to children and horror, I finally watched the film version of Battle Royale. It was actually much better than I expected, almost as good as the novel. However there were a couple of creative choices I disagreed with, and that’s why it’s not on equal footing with the book. I also won’t see the sequel, because apparently it’s not based on the original story, its anti-American message goes beyond criticism of America to full-on attack mode, and nearly every reviewer who’s seen it has hated it, apparently.

All for now. Write on you later, Followers of Fear.

Looks like someone in Texas is actually looking out for its women.

You may recall a few months back that Governor Rick Perry of Texas called in two special sessions of the legislature to put forth numerous restrictions on women’s access to abortion by regulating everything from specifications on what sort of room an abortion can be performed in to restrictions on the doctors themselves in performing the abortions. Pro-life activists claimed that the legislation was to protect the lives of women, while pro-choice advocates said that the laws would shut down all but six of Texas’s abortion clinics.

If you ask me, the move was just another attempt for politicians to thrust their noses into places they don’t have any right to be in, and apparently a large number of Texans agree with me. During the first special session, state senator Wendy Davis went on a 13-hour filibuster that ended when the legislature forced her to step down on account of some really stupid technicalities. The outrage was so terrible that the booing crowds kept the legislature from voting before the end of the deadline, giving Texan women a reprieve. However the second session they weren’t so lucky, as the restrictions were passed.

However now a judge in Texas is calling the restrictive legislation unconstitutional and has blocked the measures from going into effect tomorrow.  District Judge Lee Yeakel wrote that his decision was based that he couldn’t find a rational relationship between the measures and protecting both the lives of women and the fetuses they’re carrying, and therefore the measures have been halted. Texas’s AG says he plans to appeal the ruling as soon as possible, but for now it seems that women’s rights and bodies in Texas are safe.

And to those who will comment on this blog and say the judge is overstepping his bounds or that these measures will help women, I have this to say: the judge in question was given the power by the federal government to determine whether or not the measures were constitutional. Therefore he was doing his job when he blocked the measures, so he’s not overstepping any bounds, he’s just disagreeing with you. And these measures don’t help women, they just make it much more difficult to get a safe abortion in the state of Texas, which will cause many women to look for alternatives, sometimes unsafe alternatives. Who exactly is that helping?

And by the way, James Holmes, Son of Sam, and several killers were all legal owners of guns. If you believe we should make abortion clinics more heavily restricted because this one clinic in Virginia was unsafe, shouldn’t you also agree that guns should be more heavily restricted along the same lines because of how many people die of guns every year?

Think about it.

I first heard about this film from my boss at work. Her fiancé apparently was a cop in Alaska back in the eighties, and a certain case he’d worked was being made into a movie. It was the story of Robert Hanson, a serial killer who had taken several girls up to the woods in his plane and then killed them. The girls he took were prostitutes, whom he raped and murdered, and then took trophies from. He’s now serving 461 years plus life for his crimes.

Did I mention that the movie stars John Cusack as the killer, Vanessa Hudgens as the prostitute who escapes him and later identifies him, and Nicholas Cage as the cop who takes him down? If I haven’t, than I think I just did.

This movie is only available through select theaters and on-demand, but it could be good enough for a national release. Watching it, I find it hard to tell what’s Hollywood BS to spice up the story and what’s actually happened. It’s done so convincingly. You see actual emotions, characters who feel so real to the point that you forget you’re watching actors. Hudgens especially pulls off the role of a prostitute with a hard life very well. As she says at one point to Cage’s character, “I’ve had things happen to me…things no little girl should have happen to them.” For many girls on the street, that’s how they start out. Bad things happen to them, and it warps them, putting them into a role they don’t want but can’t shake. And the whole instinct of survival at any cost drives a lot of their actions, which is why Hudgens’ character does a lot of what she does, even if it defies logic sometimes.

At least, the logic of you or me.

The Frozen Ground also gains points for its dark and realistic portrayal of the police process back in the eighties. It’s a tough job, with sometimes very few leads and several roadblocks to getting justice. You can feel the frustration mounting as at certain points, these cops find themselves blocked in trying to take down Hansen. It’s like Law & Order, but only deeper and with even less Hollywood crap.

My few complaints is that many of the characters are undeveloped. We don’t really get a chance to understand Hansen or Cage’s character, and many of the other characters, especially characters on the force, don’t get their names used once in the movie (so I could not tell which character was my boss’s fiancé, sadly). It’s a cop drama, so not a lot of room to get into character development when a killer’s out on the loose, but still, could you spend a few hundred dollars filming some scenes that show us what motivates some of the other characters in this story? The only other characters whose heads I can get into is the pimp character played by 50 Cent, and that’s such a stereotype, it’s not even funny. Because hey, the black pimp has been used so much it’s a cliché.

Anyway, I was going to give The Frozen Ground a 4.3 out of 5, but Hudgens’ performance and the realism of the movie elevate it to a 4.8. If you get a chance, do go check out the movie. And stick around after the closing shots. You’ll see the captions “This film is dedicated to all the victims, known and unknown”, followed by photos of some of the known victims of Hansen.

And one more thing before I wrap this review up. The next time you see a girl on the streets turning tricks or you hear some pundit make some comment about prostitution on TV or the radio, remember that these girls aren’t doing what they’re doing, with little or no legal protection, health insurance, retirement plan, or guarantee of safety, just for the fun of it or the money. Many are forced into it for a variety of reasons. The least you can actually do is show these girls some compassion, and remember they are real women too.

Yesterday I saw a video on a Freshly Pressed post on pregnancy in science fiction and fantasy, particularly the “mystical pregnancy”. The full video is below:

This video got me thinking. First I started thinking about all the instances not mentioned in this video: Nymphadora Tonks in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Scully once again in the seventh-eighth seasons of The X-Files, Amy Pond in the sixth series of Doctor Who, Ruth Gallagher in the second book of The Age of Misrule trilogy, Lady Gaga in the Born This Way music video and live performances, Padme Amidala in Revenge of the Sith–you can stop me anytime, you know.

Then it got me thinking about the use of pregnancy in fiction, particularly the TV shows, movies, and books I like. It was a bit of a shock, how transparent and flat these women can become when they are impregnated by their writers. Some are barely there at all as characters. It’s a little sad, and kind of sexist, reducing an entire complex being to the process of pregnancy of birth. And if you need a great example, take a look at Padme in Revenge of the Sith. She gets maybe twenty minutes of screen-time, has very few significant lines, and in the end dies of heartbreak after giving birth. I think her most memorable line from that movie was “So this is how democracy ends: to the sound of thunderous applause.”

To reiterate, this wasn’t what fans were hoping to see.

But after discussing things with the Suspense/Thriller Writers group I belong to on Facebook and sleeping on the subject a bit, I came to a realization that while pregnancies, and mystical pregnancies as well, are used perhaps a bit too much in fiction, it’s the portrayal of the characters that matters the most. For example, Padme’s pregnancy is a very bad example of how badly the subject of pregnancy can be handled. However there are better examples, such as Aeryn Sun from Farscape. According to writer David Lucas: “Aeryn: surrounded by enemies, gives birth. Later, with the baby in a sling, emerges even stronger as a character and as a fighter as she has something even more precious to fight for.” Note this part of a FB comment, so that’s why there’s two colons there.

Two other writers, John Saunders and Annette Wright, points out the character of Sarah Connor in the first two Terminator films. In the first film, Sarah is naïve and has to struggle a lot. But her pregnancy and its aftermath helps hone her into a fierce fighting machine, pun totally intended.

Don’t mess with Sarah Connor, people.

And there are plenty of other examples where female protagonists and other characters have used their pregnancy to grow as characters rather than become one-dimensional breeding machines. For example, Adalind Schade from Grimm becomes even more of a schemer and antagonist, because now she has something over the other characters: the birth of a new prince. Ripley in Alien 3 had a chest-burster growing in her body, but instead of letting the men do the work, she worked proactively to defeat the Dog Alien and kill the Queen growing inside her (and yes, I’m counting that as a mystical pregnancy). And there are probably loads of examples I can’t even think of, showing that portrayal is most important in using pregnancy in science fiction and fantasy.

This was a woman who didn’t let an alien baby get in her way!

So for future reference, I’ll make sure to take a look at pregnancies in fiction and see how it’s portrayed, what works, what doesn’t work, and what can make up a positive or a negative portrayal. I may even write an article on this for Self-Published Authors Helping Other Authors, if I can find the time.

Plus I’d like to check out the other videos in that Tropes vs. Women series. It looks interesting, and I might just learn something important that’ll improve my fiction writing in the future.

As always, thought and comments are welcome on this subject. What is your take on pregnancy in fiction, particularly mystical pregnancy?

Over the past month we’ve seen a great battle going on in the state of Texas, one whose epicenter is in the Texas legislature in Austin and whose influence has far-reaching implications. Twice, Governor Rick Perry has called in a special session of the Texas legislature in order to pass a far reaching anti-abortion bill, which would effectively reduce the number of clinics that provide abortions from forty-two to six by requiring each clinic to be almost like its own little mini-hospital and banning abortions after 20 weeks, despite the Roe v. Wade allowance for an abortion in the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.

The first session the bill was not passed, due to the heroic efforts of Senator Wendy Davis, who stood for eleven hours in a true-to-form filibuster where she talked about how dangerous this bill was to women and how it wasn’t motivated by a desire to actually help Texas’s constituents. When the GOP-controlled legislature forced her to step down because they didn’t believe talking about Planned Parenthood or ultrasounds was related to abortion, the crowds of protestors raised a fury so strong that the midnight deadline passed and the bill couldn’t be passed through all the noise.

This woman’s a hero. She will do great things someday.

That should’ve stopped the bill right there and then. Obviously if a bill is so unpopular that one woman would stand and talk for eleven hours and protestors w0uld scream and shout within the confines of the statehouse to stop it, then it should’ve been put to sleep. But no, Rick Perry called the legislature back again and issued a stern warning to all protestors that they shouldn’t disrupt the legislative process.

The result was the bill was passed. But you know what’s got me really upset? Is that the GOP and the pro-life groups claim that this sort of bill, which makes it near impossible to open an abortion clinic in the state of Texas, is “good for women”. How do they justify this logic? Well, a man named Kermit Gosnell was convicted in Virginia for doing some illegal practices that resulted in the deaths of some fetuses and one woman. Now Gosnell’s a reluctant poster-boy, a symbol of all that is supposedly wrong with the abortion industry and what is needed to “improve” it. “Improve” it.

And that’s what’s crazy. The pro-life factions and their reps in the Texas legislature say they are protecting women from horrible practices that they believe are rampant in every abortion clinic nationwide. The thing is, Kermit Gosnell was a lone example. Yes, he did some horrible things, but that doesn’t mean every abortion provider is the same. You want a whole industry with terrible practices, try the meat industry. The animals are treated terribly, the employees are working in just-barely safe conditions, and the meat is not inspected enough to insure safety, which causes a ton of outbreaks of E. coli and other diseases.

Of course, these same pro-life lawmakers have considered punishing the activists who expose the ugliness of the meat industry through legal means, so I’m not sure what pointing this out will get me from the pro-life groups. But you see the point I’m making, right?

And more interestingly, this bill doesn’t help women at all. All the clinics left after this bill goes into effect are going to be located in East Texas, which will be a pain for people living in other parts of Texas, especially communities where access to running water and electricity, let alone a good car. So these women, the women who could actually benefit from an abortion, can’t go get one, because the nearest clinic is several hundred miles away from home. Doesn’t matter if they don’t want to be pregnant. Doesn’t matter if the pregnancy will endanger their health. Doesn’t matter if the pregnancy was a result of incest, or even rape. Nope, they’re stuck with the baby because the nearest clinic is hundreds of miles away.

Or is that so? We know before Roe v. Wade, women would get abortions through illegal providers or by going through drastic measures (kitchen utensils and hanger wires, anyone?). So despite the fact that what pro-life groups really want is to save as many alleged “lives” as possible, what they are doing is actually putting women’s lives in danger.

All while ensuring that the children they think they are saving are still going to be aborted.

But if you are a woman in Texas, that won’t be a consolation. No, that doesn’t help at all. You feel upset that men in Austin are deciding your fate, and when women and activists who think like you voice their objections, the men just text or play Candy Crush on their computers, and the women who work with these men seem so willfully ignorant of the facts, it hurts.

And I could tell you a few more tales about how Texas doesn’t care about its women–including how a man wanted an escort to prostitute herself and killed her when she didn’t, but wasn’t convicted of murder (crazy, right?)–but I think I ‘ve made things clear. So women of Texas, my heart goes out to you. I’m so sorry that men who are ignorant of your lives are making decisions about your health. And I can only hope that the eventual Supreme Court trial that will occur from this–and believe me, a trial will occur from this–will end with the judges ruling in favor of you women.

God bless, and I hope the best for all of you.