this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2025
115 points (84.0% liked)

Asklemmy

46266 readers
2566 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

One Woman in the Justice League

Just one woman, maybe two, in a team or group of men.

Also watch Jimmy Kimmel's "Muscle Man' superhero skit - "I'm the girly one"

The Avengers:

In Marvel Comics:

"Labeled "Earth's Mightiest Heroes," the original Avengers consisted of Iron Man, Ant-Man, Hulk, Thor and the Wasp. Captain America was discovered trapped in ice in The Avengers issue #4, and joined the group after they revived him."

5 / 6 original members are male. Only one is female.

Modern films (MCU):

The original 6 Avengers were Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Hulk, Hawkeye, and Black Widow.

Again, 5 / 6 original members are male. Only one is female.

Justice League

In DC comics:

"The Justice League originally consisted of Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter, and Aquaman"

6 / 7 original members are male. Only one is female.

In modern films (DCEU):

The members were/are Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Flash, Cyborg. (+ introducing Martian Manhunter (in Zack Snyder's Justice League director's cut))

5 / 6 main members in both versions of the Justice League film are male, with appearances by a 7th member in the director's cut who is also male. Only one member is female.

The Umbrella Academy (comics and show)

7 members:

  1. Luther (Number One / Spaceboy)
  2. Diego (Number Two / The Kraken)
  3. Allison (Number Three / The Rumor)
  4. Klaus (Number Four / The Séance)
  5. Five (Number Five / The Boy)
  6. Ben (Number Six / The Horror)
  7. Vanya (Number Seven / The White Violin) Later becomes known as Viktor and nonbinary in the television adaptation after Elliot Page's transition but that's not really relevant to this.

Here, 5 / 7 original members are male. Only two are female. Only slightly better than the other more famous superhero teams, and they had to add another member (compared to Avengers' 6 members) to improve the ratio (maybe executives still demanded to have 5 males).

Now let's look at some sitcoms and other stories.

It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia:

4 males, and 1 female slightly less prominent character who is abused constantly. The show claims to be politically aware and satirical but gets away with a lot of misogynistic comedy, tbh, that I'm willing to bet a lot of people are finding funny for the wrong reasons.

Community:

Jeff, Britta, Abed, Troy, Annie, Pierce, Shirley. This one is a little better, 3/7 are female. Notice it's always more males though, they never let it become more than 50% female, or else then it's a "chick flick" or a "female team up" or "gender flipped" story. And of course the main character, and the leading few characters, are almost always male or mostly male.

Stranger Things:

Main original group of kids consisted of: Mike, Will, Dustin, Lucas, and El (Eleven). 1 original female member, who is comparable to an alien and even plays the role of E.T. in direct homage. When they added Max, I saw people complaining that although they liked her, there should be only one female member. 🤦

Why is it 'iconic' to have only one female in a group of males? Does that just mean it's the tradition, the way it's always been? Can't we change that? Is it so that all the men can have a chance with the one girl, or so the males can always dominate the discussion with their use of force and manliness? Or so that whenever the team saves the day, it's mostly a bunch of men doing it, but with 'a little help' from a female/a few females (at most), too!

It's so fucked up and disgusting to me I've realised. And men don't seem to care. I'm a male and this is really disturbing to me now that I've woken up to it. How do women feel about this? Am I overreacting?

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

It's because they're used to male perspective being the default focal lense for all media they consume. Male gaze is more about perspective than it is about aesthetics, something that has seemingly failed to translate into current online discourse.

In essence, all media in a genre they deem belongs to them must see them as their primary audience and must reinforce the perspective they feel is theirs. It's a kind of patriarchal social egocentrism. Women can exist in those pieces of media, but they have to be defined in relation to a male perspective. This can be a male character within the same work, or it can even be the audience itself by presuming the audience is male.

It's been so pervasive throughout media over the years that they think of this as being "just how media is". When media deviates in really any way that media becomes the aberration of the norm. It can be as simple as one of the female characters having a side plot about her that doesn't involve any of the men, or a female character who isn't sexually appealing to what the current male psyche desires. The media in question becomes inherently an act of political activism. A transgression.

It's notable that media from genres deemed not "belonging to the male perspective" is not judged the same way. Men do not become outraged at chick flicks or romcoms or romance novels. They don't become outraged at drama TV shows made for women about women. Because those things are socially permitted to exist outside of men's perspectives. It's usually seen as unique when a man enjoys media that has a female perspective. It's assumed that he won't. This essentially means that female perspectives in genres they do see as belonging to them comes across as an explicit attack on them. They avoid the female perspective as much as possible, they denigrate it and demean/belittle it constantly. They do not want to be forced to see the female perspective and will actively resist it.

There's lots of examples that go beyond this. Lots of media over the past hundred years has broken the rules and been lauded instead of denigrated. But we live in a time where an organized effort exists specifically to promote patriarchal thinking among men and those efforts mean that more scrutiny is being applied to this than ever before. There are entire content engines driving constantly to produce as much patriarchal outrage content as possible, all the time. And it works.

These problems existed long, long before the modern far-right movement started. It's partly why it works so well. This male egotism in media existed before, and less resistance to it also used to exist. That change in social atmosphere means that men can be manipulated into further and further misogynistic beliefs. All it takes is dogwhistles and a loud, angry, entitled male gamer, and you can radicalize thousands of people into misogyny. And they will repeat that cycle with more or less any boy or man they know.

To make a long story short, anxiety about their perspective not being the default in their favorite genres of media presents a great opportunity to turn young men into fascists. The far right has capitalized on this, and that's why you see so much outrage about it online. It's also likely that algorithms have picked up on you being male and will probably show you more of this exact type of outrage content.

[–] gift_of_gab@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

These problems existed long, long before the modern far-right movement started. It’s partly why it works so well. This male egotism in media existed before, and less resistance to it also used to exist. That change in social atmosphere means that men can be manipulated into further and further misogynistic beliefs. All it takes is dogwhistles and a loud, angry, entitled male gamer, and you can radicalize thousands of people into misogyny. And they will repeat that cycle with more or less any boy or man they know.

I'm sorry you've written so much here I want to underscore and shout to the heavens, yet there is so much and I fear I won't do it justice. Fascism is on the rise, and young men-- just as last time--are carrying it forward. Misogyny has become an assumed character trait in huge swaths of men, to the point you see insane arguments online about how men 'have it harder' than the gender held in captivity less than a lifetime ago. It wasn't until the 1960's in Vancouver, BC that women could get a loan without a man co-signing (and it was a credit union, not even a large bank.) I grew up and lived as a male, white, for over 40 years, and right now is on par, if not worse in many cases, than it was in the 90's. Men now rail at the idea they can't always be 'the default.' That the reason for these pronoun-forward changes is because it's always been man-first, from not even bothering to test drugs on women to 'room temperature' being what a bunch of middle aged white men, such as myself, find comfortable. To men being the vast majority of main characters, to the goddamn Bechdel test being oh-so-relevant.

So I wanted to add a quote about just how long this has existed, and the sheer length of fight women have had just to exist unchained. I have not gone through the fight you have, yet I hope you'll allow me at your side.

"You see, when I was growing up at the time of the Wars of the Medes and Persians and when I went to college just after the Hundred Years War and when I was bringing up my children during the Korean, Cold, and Vietnam Wars, there were no women. Women are a very recent invention. I predate the invention of women by decades. Well, if you insist on pedantic accuracy, women have been invented several times in widely varying localities, but the inventors just didn’t know how to sell the product. Their distribution techniques were rudimentary and their market research was nil, and so of course the concept just didn’t get off the ground. Even with a genius behind it an invention has to find its market, and it seemed like for a long time the idea of women just didn’t make it to the bottom line. Models like the Austen and the Brontë were too complicated, and people just laughed at the Suffragette, and the Woolf was way too far ahead of its time.

So when I was born, there actually were only men. People were men. They all had one pronoun, his pronoun; so that’s who I am. I am the generic he, as in, “If anybody needs an abortion he will have to go to another state,” or “A writer knows which side his bread is buttered on.” That’s me, the writer, him. I am a man." -Ursula K. Le Guin, 1992

[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 3 weeks ago

Being a woman is "marked" while being a man is just the default, so anything that strays from the "default" sticks out and it seems reasonable that it requires justification. This goes in reverse in some cases, like the need to refer to someone as a "male nurse" - why do we feel we need to say this? Because the default nurse is assumed to be female.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 weeks ago

I mean, look at the news; there's a LARGE number of anti-DEI people out there who would say exactly what you're complaining about.

That said, Hollywood is trying Wanda and Agatha were both very diverse. She Hulk was pretty diverse, and Wednesday was pretty mixed. Even captain marvel and ms marvel tried to fill out the stands better.

Of course, it's hard to tell what's going to happen now. Will government force the hands of the show runners to reverse the trends?

[–] samus12345@lemm.ee 3 points 3 weeks ago

Because when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I'm a woman. Yeah it's bothered me my whole life. I used to be really angry about it. Now I just accept it as the status quo. In the last few paragraphs of your post you are basically describing the Smurfette Principle, Two Girls to a Team,and other tropes. Also the Bechdel test.

I heartily recommend Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Season 1 is rough, but it's got good gender equality.

Nowadays though, you get a lot more racial diversity on western TV than you used to. I think that's something which has improved quite a lot.

Sometimes I do get what they mean though when there are women or other minorities when coupled with bad writing. I can kind of understand why people complain about "woke" media when I see shows like Supergirl or Star Wars: The Adept. Meanwhile, - Andor, Rogue One, Alien are great and have diversity, and people don't complain about these being "woke" so much. So, I guess, shitty writing can score an own-goal.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 weeks ago

Insecurity.

[–] BoxOfFeet@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't know. I live a good female lead. Ripley, Furiosa, Marge Gunderson. There's so many, that's just the first three that come to mind. Half the time when I'm playing Fallout, it's female characters.

There are definitely bad female leads in things, too. Just like there are bad male leads. Like, Borderlands 3, basically unplayable. I never finished it. And I really want to be clear, the characters aren't bad because they are women, they are bad due to poor writing. That game had such potential, but it felt like the script was written entirely by highschoolers.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] S13Ni@lemmy.studio 3 points 3 weeks ago

I'm man and one of my favorite type of stories are historical stories with women who defy the gender roles of their time. Also in general historical stories from perspective of someone else than white guys. I find them empowering even though they are not about my empowerment. Also I just find the stories more interesting than watching just another historical war movie with almost all men except main characters wife at home or smth.

Although there is this "girlboss" archetype I see in movies I really hate. Kind of one that feels like a committee wrote feminist character because it sells. Well we are likely to see less of those with all the anti DEI stuff, so I guess monkey paw wish came true.

[–] 3dmvr@lemm.ee 3 points 3 weeks ago

All YA books for a while targetted woman, boys get progression novels and litrpgs, but those didnt show up on book stores

[–] ThirdConsul@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

I complain about popularity of fantasy romance vis a vis non-fantasy romance, and that now most published (or advertised) fantasy books are fantasy romance.

That genre is typically written for women, with female lead and is heavy in certain tropes.

That genre isn't for me.

Am I a person that you're ranting about OP? If not, could you point me to an article or opinion piece that you're talking about, so I can read it and come back here?

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] psud@aussie.zone 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (9 children)

Who complained about the female led movie Alien (93% audience rating on rotten tomatoes)?

I think the issue is that the movies aren't written well. Rey in the third trilogy never saw a challenge she couldn't master on the first attempt. A story about a character born perfect and never faltering isn't fun

[–] joshcodes@programming.dev 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'd say the latest star wars movies were shit. It had nothing to do with Rey being a woman or even naturally gifted. Finn, Grumpy Luke, Swolo Ren (other poorly written characters), the writing team and the plot points (a spacecraft the size of a city needs to refuel but a lightsaber that can cut through anything has an infinite energy source) the writing team chose, should all share the blame. If your criticism is levelled at Rey alone, your argument isn't worth hearing.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] ArchRecord@lemm.ee 2 points 3 weeks ago

Because when the norm to these people is media that exclusively panders to them, even one single piece of media that doesn't represent them is a zero-to-100 change. Going from even 0 to 1 piece of inclusive media is startling, new, and scary to them, because they're simply not used to it.

It's the root of the entire conservative mentality (which is why you'll primarily see conservative men talking about this) since all conservatism is based in a desire for things to remain the same. Change is just scary to these people, no matter how benign the change may be.

[–] Kanzar@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (5 children)

Once female speaking time reaches 30% or more, males believe that the females are dominating the speaking time.

Female encroachment on what has traditionally been considered male spaces is not taken well. Female empowerment is considered taking from deserving males.

Essentially the general male population don't like females, and only tolerate them as a subservient subclass who should be seen and not heard.

EDIT: This should probably annoy you a little too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt2qCjL6-n4

And it may also explain why people complain that there should only ever be one female character - it minimises the chances of males having to watch two females interact, because that would be excluding the male experience and they couldn't possibly relate to two females interacting.

EDIT2: comments in that video do claim there are more scenes... whether or not that really adds much is up to you.

[–] Murple_27@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago

Female encroachment on what has traditionally been considered male spaces is not taken well. Female empowerment is considered taking from deserving males.

The problem is that in the context of a "winner-take-all" society it does do that though.

Obviously the general solution is to make a society that is overall more equitable between those who succeed & those who don't.

But if you aren't going to do that then you will get a reaction from those who are losing ground, even if that happening is the morally progressive outcome.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›