[ SECRET POST #6093 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6093 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.


























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 24 secrets from Secret Submission Post #871.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

When there are that many more male characters who DON'T get bad writing, hell yeah you can bet I'm going be harsher on the female characters getting it than those other male characters who are getting the same kind of bad writing as the female characters, because the ratio of existent female characters getting it is so much higher. And it's not a criticism of the character as a "person," it's about the writing and the way the writing treats female characters and by extension reflects the writer's views on women.

[(Anonymous)]

The ratio is the fucking same.

[(Anonymous)]

This would track if the female character we're talking about was badly written, but she isn't. She's just being given a similar narrative trait, being force-sensitive, that a lot of male characters in Star Wars are given. So what's the difference that makes her so much worse when fans can accept the latter just fine?

[(Anonymous)]

I see people hyping up mid-tier at best male-lead shows all the time that were they led by women would get ripped to pieces or ignored for being 'bad', so nah, the ratio isn't worse, fans are just so much more willing to put up with outright dog-shite writing for male characters.

[(Anonymous)]

All of this. I'm way more willing to overlook shitty writing for a male character when there are three or four times as many male characters as there are female characters in a canon because it makes sense that a certain fraction of them will be badly-written simply due to the number of them there are.

But when you only have four or five major female characters and one or more of them are badly written? Damn right I'm going to criticize that.

[(Anonymous)]

They're not badly written, is the point. People just hold female characters up to astronomically higher standards than male ones, to the point that what are perceived to be 'flaws' or 'bad writing' in female characters are often lauded in male ones.

[(Anonymous)]

Nah, we're just so used to the writing of female characters being shittier that we don't notice it, making our standards for a good character lower when she's female. What you perceive as the same flaws in a male character when held by a female character are often actually in fact worse.

[(Anonymous)]

Having seen far too many perfectly well-written women hit with the same "bad writing" and/or "mary sue" bullshit arguments for why people don't like them, gonna have to agree to disagree here.

[(Anonymous)]

Again, a lot of those women were not as well-written as your unconsciously lower standards made you think they were, that is the entire point.

[(Anonymous)]

And I bet that you laud male characters with exactly the same traits as these 'badly written' female characters more than you think you do.

[(Anonymous)]

oh my god, give me a fucking break with this these wimmins are just bad, you're too simple to see it stuck up your own ass pretentious faux intellectual assery.

no, most women aren't as badly written as you think they are buddy, you're the one holding them to standards you would never expect from men, and that's a you problem.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm willing to bet that most of the male characters you like are not as well written as your unconsciously lower standards for them make you think they are either anon.

[(Anonymous)]

+1000

[(Anonymous)]

So when the ratio is essentially the same (say 1 in 5 characters in a canon are badly written, male or female), male character still get a pass that female characters don't?

Anon who AYRT is replying to

[(Anonymous)]

No. If there are as many female characters as male characters and the ratio of bad to good writing is the same for both of them, that just means not every character is a good character regardless of gender.

Re: Anon who AYRT is replying to

[(Anonymous)]

So when a female character is written in a way you don't like it's bad writing, and when she's written in a way you do like it's 'regardless of gender'.

Yeah, I get where you're coming from, all right.

Re: Anon who AYRT is replying to

[(Anonymous)]

I think what AYRT is trying to say is that if there are twenty male characters and five of them are poorly written, they can just write off the five bad ones, not really notice the loss, and still have fifteen characters to play with.

If there are four female characters and one of them is badly written, it matters more, because you don't have enough female characters total to just write one off without noticing the loss.

I don't know that I agree with their overall thesis about female characters but that numerical bias effect is real in other contexts and makes sense. The same way a billionaire doesn't even notice a 1,000,000 fine but someone on 10,000 a year can't lose 10. The less you have, the more losing even a little bit hurts.