In The Quiet Man, which is one of my favorites, I like that although John Wayne is still the quintessential man’s man, Maureen O’Hara is still fiesty and lively, even willing to stand up for herself (though unfortunately against her husband, and not her bully of a brother). It still lets John Wayne be the man and Maureen O’Hara the woman, but it lets them step out of their gender roles in acceptable ways.

This is interesting. I think the pattern you describe can be at least as frustrating for girls as the old-fashioned kind with demure female characters who need protection. It sends the message that no matter how strong, bright, etc. you may be, as a girl you’ll still be just a sidekick in the end. There are a lot of what one might call token strong women in films nowadays.

@Apple Pie: “Token strong women” perfectly encapsulates a lot of what I was trying to say. I wish I’d come up with it myself. Certainly I’ll be using it in the future. Thanks for putting a handle on it!

Couldn’t some of these films, particularly Lion King and Incredibles, speak to the complementarity between the sexes? Nala and Elastigirl are both independent, quick-thinking, action girls, but if it weren’t for them going out and taking matters into their own hands then the men, Simba and Mr. Incredible, would never have had the motivation to spring into action and save the day. And in the Incredibles in particular the point of the film was both the man and the woman working together to protect their family. I could just be biased as these are two of my favorite films.

@Artsy Writer: The Incredibles is one of my favorite films too; in fact, I’m a fan of nearly all the films mentioned above—Wall-E, Ratatouille, Kung Fu Panda, How to Train Your Dragon—almost the only exceptions being Monsters vs. Aliens and (sorry) The Lion King. I even enjoyed the Harry Potter films for the most part.

It’s the pattern as a whole, more than any one individual film, that I’m concerned about. I don’t mean to say that each and every film that in any way relates to the pattern I’m describing is pernicious or problematic.

I love the relationship between Mr. I and Elastigirl. It’s incredibly insightful and well done. At the same time, The Incredibles is significantly about a flawed man who makes poor choices, abuses his wife’s trust and needs to repent of it. (Elastigirl’s missteps—overly trusting her husband, being somewhat passive about signs of trouble, and showing momentary weakness when confronted with the issue—are comparatively minor.)

All this is valid fodder for a film, even a family film, but I don’t want every family film to follow a similar trajectory. Can’t a man ever be worthy of a woman’s trust and respect out of the gate, or perhaps even be the one to help her find the way, rather than the other way round? Or is that automatically deemed sexist or patriarchal today?

I agree with the Artsy Writer. I don’t necessarily find a strong, independent woman somewhat dependent on a hero offensive.
Also, the common theme of passive men and aggressive women is just a theme as ancient as the Garden of Eden. After all, Eve forged ahead and ate the fruit, but Adam was right there with her doing just going along. Conversely, Adam, even in his perfected state just couldn’t go it alone. He needed a helper. So, how much more appropriate that a fallen man could need a helper to motivate him to do better.

I like Nala’s and Mrs. Incredible’s traditional portrayal. Nala did everything she could, in the confines of her natural role, to help her family. Mrs. Incredible, did the same.

How often though, are women taught, whether on purpose, or through osmosis, that even though they are capable of doing *something* they shouldn’t. Some women I know would’ve ended “The Incredibles” at the scene of Mrs. Incredible crying that she “let this happen.” The end. Now just wait and see, hope for the best.

Thankfully, this attitude isn’t shown much in children’s films, (although I’ve read it in quite a few Christian marriage books). But I’m not grateful for the other extreme of women forging ahead and ridding themselves of those useless, no-good men, either.

“Can’t a man ever be worthy of a woman’s trust and respect out of the gate, or perhaps even be the one to help her find the way, rather than the other way round? Or is that automatically deemed sexist or patriarchal today?”

There would probably always be someone who complains if the woman needs a man’s help, but yes, if the woman in question is portrayed as a fully fleshed out character rather than just a collection of traits Hollywood writers think are currently “hot,” that could be a good story that is not sexist or patriarchal.

The real issue is, as Apple Pie nailed it, the presence of token strong women and corresponding the absence of women who are actual protagonists in the movies.  Linda Holmes of the NPR Monkey See blog wrote a great essay about this when Up came out (a movie both she and I adored):

http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2009/06/dear_pixar_from_all_the_girls.html

@Sara: Just to reiterate, I haven’t called anything “offensive,” and again I like nearly every movie I’ve mentioned here. I said above that more female protagonists would be a good thing, and I’m very happy that Pixar’s first female protagonist is finally coming with Brave. I would also like to see male heroes actually embodying strength and virtue more often.

I found Lion King to be true to the roles of the pride - female/hunter and did not look at it as a put down on the male counter part. So Nala should be able to pin down Simba and that is why they are the hunters generally although as he aged his weight would give him more dominance.  I guess we watch so many nature films that this aspect was a relief in a way.  There are a lot of men who are indecisive as in Monsters vs Aliens and I found it funny.  You have all types of personalities as are depicted in literature too.  I will leave it to the experts as to how often they are cast in this stereo type.

I think the films of Hayao Miyazaki stand out as good examples, in particular 2 films: Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind and Princess Mononoke. In those films, the women are “liberated” and “empowered” as has been put, being that Miyazaki is a “feminist” of sorts, but neither does he write the lead male characters as weak, snivelling or subservient (with some exceptions *Iron Town*). Lord Yupa in Nausicaä is easily a match in valour as the title character. Ashitaka and San both take turns rescuing each other without any focus on a competition of supremacy. Or am I mistaken in my views?

The problem with women protagonists is the amazon effect: any strong male characters that exist will either be enemies or offscreen. It’s very hard to write a male character that is passive without making him hard to respect as a character. Wall-E is one way: make the male characters clowns (one woody allen robot, one man-baby). Tired mentioned UP, but for all the time the wife was actually onscreen, as a child or adult, she dominated the movie, and her death was needed to free the main character to act.

The strong woman protagonist dominates the film in the way a strong male one doesn’t. A strong male ironically is a cardboard cutout without a woman to relate to-women humanize them. But men don’t fill any such role in the reverse.

Mrs O: Yet Nala and the other females must wait helplessly for Simba to decide to come back and liberate the pridelands—when he’s told to, of course. I don’t think it’s a matter of pride dynamics. It’s just weak drama.

FWIW, male lions are much bigger and stronger than females. Within prides, females do the hunting, but males protect the pride from enemies. Also, young male lions are exiled from the pride and travel as nomads until they win a pride of their own. As nomads, they are successful hunters and take down bigger prey than females.

@ Viktor Müller: Good call on Hayao Miyazaki, whom I love, and have written extensively about. Miyazaki’s penchant for strong female protagonists—and the contrast to the boy-centricity of Pixar’s oeuvre to date—is one of the themes my essay touches on.

My comments here apply to Hollywood family films; Miyazaki is from outside Hollywood, and doesn’t reflect these patterns at all.

But surely the problem of confused and hyperbolic sexual roles in romantic adventures (romantic in the traditional sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_(genre)) has been endemic since pagan times. There’s something about an action-adventure story that makes writers write stupidly or at least cartoonishly about the relationship between the sexes. A few examples: Helen and the Trojan War in The Iliad, Aeneas and Dido in The Aeneid, Guinevere using chivalric norms to tyrannize Lancelot in Chrétien de Troyes’ poem, the “Me Tarzan, you Jane” stuff in the films, etc. I’m not suggesting that all examples—or even all of *these* examples—put forward bad or dangerous moral norms, but the romance genre has never been about a calm and reasonable approach to what we call romance today. As such, any demands that our filmed romances be balanced or realistic simply won’t work. Demands that women be better-represented end in feminist bullying; demands to fix that bullying against men end either in pseudo-chivalric silliness or macho posing. The only way to avoid any of this silliness in our action-adventure movies is to remove the sexual element altogether, but who wants that? As Nietzsche wrote, “The war between the sexes is eternal,” and any artistic representation of man-woman relations is going to mirror that. The war is part of the fun.

Behind every great man…

Okay, that phrase is a little hackneyed, but still…

I guess, more than anything, I would like to see a movie where the woman/female is in the title role. And the only males are friends—no love interest required. Men and women working side by side without falling madly in love would be kind of nice for a change.

Because, it does happen. Men and woman can work together and be companions without a deep burning romantic love *eye roll*

Romance gets shoved down your throat in ever movie. I mean, romance is nice, but does every character have to have a love interest? Especially in kids movies? I mean, can’t they just be good friends and compatriots?

Viktor, Yupa is 4 times Naussica’s age, and barely does anything-Nausicca rescues both male characters (including the brother of the princess who died on the airship.) and most of the men are father figures and uncles. The second most complex character is the female leader of the invading forces in terms of power and response to act.

In Princess Mononoke Ashitaka comes across as genderless, and the film would have been actually better if he was written as a woman. You’d then have three “princesses” representing the three responses to nature: total surrender, coexistence, and domination. As a man, he is too calm and placid, and San fills a male role better than he does. Ironically too if you reversed the genders, it would make the film a much more powerful experience-if Ashitaka were FEMALE when she would get angry to stop the fighting, only to get shot while leaving, it would have been as powerful as the scene where Nausicca’s foot is burned by the acid. If San were male, the feralness and hatred would have been sharper. It’s a case where the director’s style works against him, imo.

In both films the woman dominates. In Nausica it’s to be expected because she is the Messiah after all-everyone is in her orbit. In Princess Mononoke I think it’s because Ashitaka goes against type to show feminine values (he resolves conflict peacefully, abhors violence, tries to co-exist with nature, and is a very atypical male protagonist) in between two very masculine-valued female characters (Eboshi as a daimyo of a town of outcasts, San as a feral woman at war with her.) That’s my own take on it-Miyazaki is still guilty of traditional dynamics, but he subverts the roles now and then. Castle in the Sky is probably a better match for your ideas.

@Jonathan: Aeneas, Lancelot and Tarzan were all strong, capable, confident heroes. Whatever their foibles and the particulars of their relationships with the women in their lives, they possessed evident strengths and virtues respected by both men and women. They were not diffident, awkward, clueless men who needed women to tell them what to do or help them find their mojo.

Again, I don’t object to countervailing stories of the sort described above, in principle. It’s the pattern, and the absence of more traditional heroic males, that I’m writing about (on the male side; on the female side I have different concerns).

Hm, I wonder if I’m missing your point, but in my experience men sometimes need women to be the “risk meter” of the family. We are usually the ones who deal with the day-to-day operations of our kids, budget, house and extended family, while our husbands have jobs that take them away for most of the waking hours. Therefor we are often in a better position to see the problems that are on the horizon or have additional information that will determine big decisions. While Hollywood might portray that as the woman steering the ship while the man bumbles along until his big “Man Up” moment, I see it as being a good navigator for the pilot.

As for the Everybody Love Raymond male archetype, I hate, hate, hate that. Real women love men and all that comes with maleness.

The thing I always most hated from the time I was a child onward was any female character created by feminists to say here is a strong role model you must relate. I think characters should be characters first and gender second. In that the character has strengths as well as flaws in addition to being male and female. Otherwise they become “my personality is gender” as in past films and cartoons where there is the smurfette principle. (female characters being essentially a girl version of the male protagonist). This made way for the affirmative action-girl of the 90’s and 00’s which seems to be sticking around. However now there is also the awkward, curious, and bubbly girl character which is a bit more refreshing. (Rapunzel, Knives Chau, etc.)
Male characters today suffer from this as well. There is what my brother terms the “Mickey Mouse Syndrome,” where they suffer from “my personality is protagonist.” Or there is the theme found in more mature films, where male characters will be either the uber-macho man who nowadays often is shown to be a chauvinist pig who loses out to the hopelessly nerdy (and often jobless) man-child usually played by Seth Rogen or Michael Cera. Can’t men be allowed to be men in films? With interests, personality and flaws? As others have said, both girls and boys would benefit.

@SDG: I don’t believe I said otherwise.

@Jonathan: That’s fine. I’m just clarifying my point vis-a-vis your point.

Mr. Greydanus:  Even though Nala would not have waited for the the male to save them, if the females do not like the male he would almost have to kill them to even mate with them let alone them hunt for him, I did think it was a nice touch that we do need men and their role as leaders.  That wasn’t missed.  Of course, he would have killed all cubs, had this been the real deal, when he returned.  It isn’t uncommon for the pride to have more than one male especially the bigger prides.  It would have been natural for Scar to kill Simba, being a cub of another male, instead of driving him out though.

Also, I think Simba’s choice of vegetarian diet was peer influenced and not realistic.  I took it at a funny jab at the vegetarians.

Mrs. O: Insectivore. Not herbivore. :-)

You are right! Ug!  I must have forgotten that on purpose!

I had a conversation about this topic with my sister recently as I was trying to form the heroine of my own script. The challenge I came across as a writer was to make her a strong protagonist without somehow emasculating her male counterparts - in order to make her drive the action of the plot (as any good protagonist should), I had to take action and initiative away from the men in the story. It’s a conundrum I can’t quite figure out. How do I create heroines who drive the story with distinctly feminine virtues?

I think the whole point of “Monsters vs. Aliens” was to spoof the sci-fi films of the 1950s. In those movies, as you know, the female characters were often relegated to someone for the uber-macho hero to rescue. This scene just switched the two stereotypes.

@Quid est Veritas: Stereotype role reversal, certainly, but in the context of the running theme of male inadequacy and “shortchanged” women it’s not only a genre spoof. There is a gender feminist polemic underlying the genre spoof. See my full Monsters vs. Aliens review for more.

For another example of the same thing, see my lady’s guest review of Disney’s Enchanted, specifically where the villainess sneers at the hero, “I guess that makes you the damsel in distress.” Stereotype reversal? Certainly. Mere genre spoof? No.

“The challenge I came across as a writer was to make her a strong protagonist without somehow emasculating her male counterparts - in order to make her drive the action of the plot (as any good protagonist should), I had to take action and initiative away from the men in the story. It’s a conundrum I can’t quite figure out.”

But why is it a conundrum?  If you had a story with two men, the actions and initiative by the one who is the protagonist don’t automatically make the second male character weak or emasculated, right?  It’s just not his story.  Why not the same if a woman is the protagonist?  I don’t see this as a zero-sum game, where if one (female/male) character is strong and active, the second (male/female) character must be weak and passive.

I don’t know if she’s already been mentioned, but how about Belle in Beauty and the Beast?  She is certainly a strong female character, and the Beast is a strong male character, especially after he reforms.
Although the antithesis of a family film, Jodie Foster as Clarice Starling is certainly a strong female character.  Other recent films with strong female leads would be True Grit, Winter’s Bone, and The King’s Speech.

I think that there need to be more movies that decipt boys and girls like in Kiki’s delivery serivce. Kiki is tough and intependent, but she’s still a girl with female weaknesses. Tombo is goofy and geeky, but towards the end, you come to respect him. i like movies like that.

“I think that there need to be more movies that decipt boys and girls like in Kiki’s delivery serivce. Kiki is tough and intependent, but she’s still a girl with female weaknesses. Tombo is goofy and geeky, but towards the end, you come to respect him. i like movies like that.”
-
I don’t know why, but that description immediately reminded of Zoe and Wash from Serenity. Actually, the sci-fi genre seems to have avoided SDG’s problem fairly well, giving us a lot of strong males and females: Han & Leia, Ripley & Hicks, Ed & Winry, John Carter & Dejah Thoris (please let them get this right in the film). The problem is that only two of the pairs I’ve listed are from family films.

Frontline did an hour-long spot on this about 10-years ago, or maybe it was longer ago. It’s called “The Oof and the Midriff”. And, it discusses a Viacom advertising strategy.

They said in the coming years girls are going to be heavily sexualised and masculinised while the men will become stonger and stupider.

In my opinion, Tangled bucks this trend very well. :) I consider that one of the best animated films made in years, and certainly Rapunzel is among the best female characters that we’ve seen lately.

I wonder if some of these patterns aren’t the product of male screenwriter’s unconscious fantasies. Real mean do want strong, capable, intelligent women—but still want to be needed, still want to be the one’s that saves the day. Moreover, as long as their describing the women they want rather than getting inside a character’s head, these women will always be sidekicks and helpmeets.

Same with the awkward, diffident men eventually earning the love of out-of-their-league women. Surely there’s an element of wish-fulfillment here.

The scene in Monsters vs. Aliens brings to mind another scene where a girl carries a guy, from Ever After, where Drew Barrymore’s character carries the Prince on her back in order to free him from the gypsies (they said that she could have whatever she could carry away from their camp.  She’s a female and she’s smart!).  The “grrrl power” of that movie had not a trace of subtlety, however, to her credit I do think Barrymore’s acting was very endearing.

One of my favorite depictions of a female in Disney animation is of Jane in Tarzan.  She’s smart, brave, and empathetic, and still very feminine.  I like how she isn’t a stereotypical tough girl either, which to me makes her more sympathetic.  Few things annoy me more than all those “butt-kicking chick” stereotypes.  In real life, they would be the sort of girls who would only get along with guys.

You miss the boat when you reduce the Lion King to gender roles.  The Pride lands are in need of their true King.  A usurper sits on the throne through a dual crime of fratricide and regicide, as such the land suffers and so do its people (er animals).  Simba is the key because, as Mufasa says, he is “the one, true king”.  The sacred bond of king and land needs to be restored.

@Baron Korf: You miss the boat when you think I “reduce” The Lion King to gender roles. :)

The best example that came to mind for me while reading this is Miyazaki’s “Castle in the Sky Laputa.” Some critics say that Sheeta and Pazu are bland as heroes, but I don’t see it that way. Their relationship is entirely harmonious from beginning to end, and one of my friends (a father of three) appreciates the movie for exactly this reason.

From the time they meet, the two leads like and respect each other. Both are courageous, repeatedly demonstrate concern for the other’s well-being. While Pazu engages in more of the action scenes, Sheeta doesn’t hesitate to fight either when the opportunity arises.

Thanks, Daniel H. I think that Sheeta and Pazu come off a bit bland myself, possibly because of the English dub casting, but I agree with everything you say about them.

What Particularly strikes me about all these ‘strong female characters’ is how they aren’t allowed to have real flaws.  They have faults, of course, but they’re usually faults without consequences, and it’s consequences that move a plot.  Strong female characters are being, if you’ll excuse the term, emasculated by their very portrayal as ‘strong’.  And if they can’t move plot, they can’t be main characters.

Jane Austen didn’t have this problem.  All her heroines had to face the consequences of their mistakes.  Charlotte Bronte had this problem a little, but makes up for it by making Jane more externally active, which also provides plot moving consequences.

Tired of user names, not many stories have two equal men. The second man is usually in a passive, side kick mode and tends to not shine, but react. Lethal Weapon is a good example, Mel Gibson dominates, while Murtaugh is just there to play off of him and to act as a foil. The second man is usually the butt of humor as opposed to the pranskter, beta to alpha male. You can get away with it with an ensemble cast, but even then the dynamics emerge: this is why in Star Wars Luke is passive whenever Solo or Vader are on the screen, and active when they aren’t. Notice how when Luke is a hero, Solo is either on another part of the deathstar, or in carbonite?

When that alpha is a woman, a lot of the ways a beta character can establish identity are taken away. Women don’t play practical jokes, or are loose cannons, or are amoral. A beta male can play the straight man to establish identity, but the alpha woman usually is the straight man, so that reduces men to pranksters. But they can’t torment the female character, so either they fill a clown role, or just not do so at all. The options to establish identity as a passive male to a strong women are just less compared to a strong man to a passive woman.

Men also can’t have rivalries with women: it comes across as petty, and is often the setup for them doing a face heel turn. A lot of the tropes just aren’t there, and its often easier just to rewrite the man into a woman if no romantic banter is needed. A male character can easily throw off a “God, I hate you” to another male-if he did so to a woman it comes across often as completely different in tone.

You know what, we should all just boycott all that “C.” The 20th began the visual/audio blitz which has been used mostly to propagandize and corrupt the masses. I guess it all started with the invention of the printing press. But it has just become an ever present danger. We lived without it before and we can do it again. So why not. I believe the Amish and the Mennonites manage to live without it, why not us!!

@Linus: You realize the irony of writing that in a blog combox, yes?

Twobaglife, you are right about the role the second man often takes—buffoon, or wild card, or straight man, or foil, etc.  But my point is that while the secondary character pretty much by definition has to take a more passive role at least sometimes, he does not have to be portrayed as less masculine or less active as a whole.  Think Boromir, or Wolverine (or rather Cyclops, now that Wolverine is so popular)—Boromir was no Aragorn, but he was also no emasculated manboy.  Or to use your Star Wars example, Luke and Han—yes, usually one dominated a scene and was the leader, but no one would argue that the other one therefore became emasculated and powerless and buffoonish (by which I mean perpetually buffoonish, not just temporarily comic relief). 

As for the rest of your points, I disagree that women cannot play practical jokes, or be loose cannons, or be amoral—I’ve seen and read plenty of female characters like that (Starbuck leaps immediately to mind).  I’ve seen and read women and men being credible rivals.  Yes, the average alpha woman is a straight man, but that’s not because of a trait inherent in all women everywhere, but rather that too many writers don’t know how to write a woman with an actual personality, let alone lots women with lots of different personalities. 

It can be done, however—the Battle Star Galactica writers came up with a bevy of female characters who were all different from each other, with different strengths and flaws and moralities and levels of likability, even different levels of “hotness” (shocking, I know).  In fact, I think Adama and Roslin (who is my absolute favorite female tv character ever) illustrate quite well that you can create two powerful characters without one ruining or “passifying” the other.

At American universities, liberals began imposing political correctness to prevent recognition of differences among gender, religion, belief system, sexual orientation and nationality. In the 1960s, feminists began to demand that the neutral pronouns he, him and his be replaced with expressions like “he or she”, “him or her”, “them”, etc. They argued that no one would be able to understand that the masculine gender included the feminine gender in neutral contexts. But this was just part of their campaign to redefine the social roles traditionally associated with masculinity and femininity.

Gender differences between men and women have been described throughout history. Not only are our physical bodies different, but there are significant character differences as well. This makes sense, because God made men and women “in his image” (Genesis 1:27) so as to reflect his divine nature. (Romans 1:20)

Many languages have adjectives to describe attributes thought of as characteristic to men (“masculine”) or women (“feminine”).

Modern feminists refuse to accept the innate differences as an explanation for the underrepresentation of women academics in math and science.

Home is the true wife’s kingdom. There, first of all places, she must be strong and beautiful.

How can it be a large career to tell other people’s children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one’s own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No; a woman’s function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute. I will pity Mrs. Jones for the hugeness of her task; I will never pity her for its smallness.”

There is no spectacle on earth more appealing than that of a beautiful woman in the act of cooking dinner for someone she loves.

God protect us from the efficient, go-getter businesswoman whose feminine instincts have been completely sterilized. Wherever women are functioning, whether in the home or in a job, they must remember that their chief function as women is a capacity for warm, understanding and charitable human relationships.

“There is no spectacle on earth more appealing than that of a beautiful woman in the act of cooking dinner for someone she loves.”

So…what do you call an *unattractive* woman cooking dinner?

When it comes to the depiction of strong, flawed, feminine, and three-dimensional girls in family entertainment, I always recommend “Avatar: the Last Airbender”. NOT the horrendously bad M.Night Shymalan adaptation (what on earth was he thinking?!) but the original three-season animated TV show.

@Raye: There are no unattractive women cooking dinner for someone they love.

I haven’t seen it for many years, but I remember 101 Dalmations (the animated one) being balanced and favorable to both genders. Roger and Anita are both respectable and goofy. Roger stands up to Cruella without Anita’s urging, and then she praises him. Pongo and Perdy set out together to rescue their children and then readily accept the rest of the puppies—a tenderness that I felt strengthened Pongo’s masculinity. And they support each other in front of their children, each getting a line of “Better do as your mother/father says.” Perdy’s is especially noteworthy because it’s an act of trust in Pongo’s plan. Haha, now I need to watch it again!

@Raye: There are no unattractive women cooking dinner for someone they love.

I agree; I was wondering why the adjective “beautiful” was necessary at all.

I think some issues that have been raised generally stem from the need of a plot. The plot in the Lion king is about stepping out of the man-boy stage the Simba falls into with his exiled buds and bringing harmony and balance (it could also be seen as a Christ metaphor along with Lord of the Rings…the returning of the true king).

I agree that stereotypes have become laboured and boring in film and television. However, even in the Production Code days of the 40’s with Hollywood beds, women were often only short in parts, which according to many film historians and theorists claim this makes women objects to be looked at rather than people. I tend to believe them.

For a list of fairly good father movies (i.e. movies that relate to fathers) check out the Art of Manliness: http://artofmanliness.com/2011/06/17/12-best-movies-about-fatherhood/ Not all would be appropriate for all people, and some may disagree with others on moral grounds, but I generally think it is a pretty well rounded list.

For a new film coming out that we see another strong female, Disney is releasing Brave about a Scottish “princess-warrior” type. We’ll see how this one works.

Wow, do I have a lot to say! Personally, I don’t care that Pixar hasn’t (with the exception of Brave) had a female protagonist. The male protagonists just worked better in the context of those stories.

I prefer to view films as I do people—individually. I’d prefer to take a film on its own terms instead of looking at it in the context of an entire genre or company (with the exception of films which are based off of books because I usually like those films to be accurate to the books. I realize that sometimes details need to be accomodated in the context of a film though.)

Since when does there need to be a certain quota of how often there is a female protagonist? Does it need to be 50/50 every year and if it is 60/40 then feminists get up in arms because it isn’t equal? I generally like how male protagonists are portrayed in Pixar films.

I’m also trying to figure out what it is that people on here seem to want in a film…You’d like men to be portrayed as strong intelligent and definitely not passive yet you don’t like the trend of a woman being the side kick, but would like it if she was the protagonist more often. The role of a woman as a protagonist is either going to be a girl power warrior princess film, a films about a tomboy, or a chick flick.

I definitely see the problem of a man not being good enough for a woman or basically on par with her, but at the same time I wonder if maybe these films are addressing something that I know my female peers and I have complained about—good worthwhile men really are hard to find. Our culture, especially since the sexual revolution and advancements in technology, doesn’t promote masculinity in a positive light without coming off as your stereotypical macho man who is ultimately a selfish jerk.

In fact our culture doesn’t seem to understand femininity for that matter. It generally doesn’t like traditional male and female roles. Just ask most women who are intelligent and college educated—even to the graduate level, choose to become stay at home moms while they’re husband is the breadwinner. Many people look down on them thinking that they “shouldn’t be dependent on their husband” and “wasted their education” when they could have “a fulfilling career.” They may even accuse the husband of making her do this when these women honestly WANT to stay at home with their children. Another example of this is when people get up in arms about a man being the head of his household. People generally see him as selfish and abuse, yet authentic Christian patriarchy is anything but. Check out this link to find out why. http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1200

I honestly don’t have a problem with men and women being portrayed in traditional and truly Christian ways (whether directly or indirectly.) I’m not expert, but from what I have learned from studying Theology of the Body and related material, the essence of a man is strength and the essence of a woman is beauty. (I got that from reading Captiviating, Wild at Heart, and Jason Evert’s Theology of His Body/Theology of Her Body. The first two books I mentioned by the Eldgridges have their imperfections but at times they I thought that what they had to say was really interesting.)

Men and women by God’s design are to be a team, but these team members don’t contribute in the same ways, but compliment each other. Men and women are equal in dignity but are different. Am I advocating for women to be portrayed as helpless? No, but sometimes we just have to have the humility to admit that there are times when men can be really helpful.

I remember reading in Dawn Eden’s The Thrill of the Chaste that men have a desire to be needed. This is not to say that men don’t need women at times, but look at how it is…Some feminists seem to make a big point that they don’t need men for ANYTHING. Why not “have it all”—a career, a kid or two, and come to think of it why even need a father for them? Why not just get artificially inseminated and raise the kid on your own? (Please note that I am aware that that is not the only reason why women seek to become artificially inseminated.) Since so many men are not seen needed why should they step up and become real men?

A woman sticking up to a man or woman for that matter who is mistreating her is certainly courageous, but as it says in Captivating, there’s just something about a man sticking up for a woman that carries more weight. This is not to say that a woman shouldn’t stick up for herself, but she doesn’t need to be rescued from a man authentically protecting her dignity. I’m not sure how to put it but wow, talk about masculine. A woman can influence a man with her femininity-her beauty. The amazing quote from As Good As It Gets via Jack Nickolson’s character to Helen Hunt’s, “You make me want to be a better man.” That’s one of the best compliments a woman can get.

So I see the imperfections in films where the woman is essentially too good for the man, that it demonstrates the special role a woman can have such as Danielle in Ever After to Prince Henry, a woman influencing a man for the better. As Crystalina Evert says, “A guy will be as much of a gentleman as a lady requires.” I’ve been fortunate enough to do this as well with the guy friends in my life, including a time when I broke up with my boyfriend for his disrespectful behavior and didn’t take him back even when he begged me and guilt tripped me to. Some time after the break up and me ignoring his texts, calls, and messages, he realized that he needed to change and with time he truly did. I didn’t get back together with him but now we are close friends.

(Note that I am definitley not advocating what some women do and date and even marry a guy to change his inappropriate behavior.)

I also influenced a guy friend who didn’t use modest of speech and over time he got better, realizing that he needed to talk like a gentleman since I am a lady. He told me that I inspired him to do this. A woman is basically a muse for a man. The referce can be true sometimes, but generally not as much. Tiana being inspired by her father and his philosophy of making her dreams come true with hard work and eventually that even though he didn’t get his dream of a restaurant that he had what he needed with the love he had from his loved ones.

Whew! That was long. LOL, but I was itching to do it.

Call me a crazy woman of the past, but I like traditional male and female roles as long as they are done (whether directly or indirectly) in a Christian context. From my limited study of theology of the body, men and women are different yet complimentary. Women don’t need to be stereotypical passive damsels in distress, but at the same time sometimes a man helping is needed. I am not saying that a woman is helpless without a man, but that she can certainly benefit from men whether they be a husband, love interest, brother, friend, etc. The same can be said about a man benefitting from a woman. It seems as if the our society ever since the feminist movement and sexual revolution advocates for women to be “in controll” by acting like a man, but Pope John Paul II in his theology of the body disagrees. A woman is empowered by being feminine. Perhaps these imperfect film adaptations of the man not deserving of a woman or not being on the same level as her is expressing the need women have for authentic men. As I’ve heard it said and said myself, good men are hard to find. That’s a reality that we can’t ignore in our culture (and others as well.) On the other hand, these stories where the man is less than worthy and his character improves (however imperfectly,) is because the woman inspired him or at least helped to inspire him. The brilliant quote from As Good As It Gets to Helen Hunt’s character comes to mind. “You make me want to be a better man.” As far as Pixar not having a female protagonist until Brave, I honestly don’t mind. I try to evaluate a film like I do people—individually on its own terms and I see the stories that have come out so far to just work better when it comes to having a male protagonist most of the time. This is not to say that if Brave or future Pixar films work with a female protagonist that I would mind that. Also, it’s challenging to create a story where there is a female protagonist without it being a warrior princess in essence movie or a chick flick. I know that there are exceptions to this, but generally it isn’t easy to do unless you’re willing to take the unfortunate bullets of making men be absent, passive, or have them be at least to a certain extent a jerk. In regards to the warrior princess essence, it may work for Elizabeth Swan, but your average woman isn’t that physically strong. Generally, men are physically stronger. Women who are physical matches for men without using their intelligence are the exception, not the norm. As I’ve read it put, the essence of a man is strength. This isn’t limited to physical strength but intellectual, psychological, emotional, and spiritual strength as well. There’s just something about a man sticking up for a woman when her dignity is is under attack. This is not to say that a woman can’t or shouldn’t stick up for herself, but there’s a certain stronger influence on the person being disrespectful when it is a man that does this. Sorry that that was long and that this system seems to not like paragraphs.

Hayao Miyazaki is rightly lauded for his positive portrayals of strong females characters, but I wonder if he has a problem with masculine *men*. His lead “good guys” are either boys (Pazu, Haku, Tombo), boyish (Lupin, Ashitaka), feminine (Howl) or a pig (Porco). This may be less obvious for us because Disney dubbing often uses masculine voices for the heroes. Major masculine men characters tend to villains (Castle Cagliastro, especially, but also Castle in the Sky and Porco Rosso). This is significant since Miyazaki has almost no real villains apart from these men. It’s not that there are no men, but positive men tend to be elderly or minor dad roles (except for Chihiro’s stereotypically masculine and buffoonish dad). Lord Yupa may be an exception, but he seems more of a father figure too. It seems that for Miyazaki women and girls are OK, fathers get a pass, but masculinity is suspect. Also, Miyazaki does not escape the Hollywood convention that only males can be buffoons in the movies.

As for Pixar, I would say that they smartly offered a balance to the princess-heavy Disney offerings. This means boys have something to watch that is neither girly nor romance-oriented. There is room for all kinds of pictures, and if Pixar did not so heavily dominate the industry we would not lament their lack of romance-focused features.

Sorry for posting twice before. The first time I did, something came up saying that I couldn’t comment, so I started over again with that second post.

Excellent post.

@Chris Wong: I dunno, carrying someone a quarter mile while shot through the gut and then lifting a gate that takes ten men to raise with one hand seems a pretty masculine feat to me; not to mention that he is forgiving towards his enemies.