Warrior Women...

[partly]

Here's a question for my flist on the acceptability of women in fight scenes: Can our hero fight a woman and not be seen as misogynistic? For that matter, is it ever acceptable for a woman to be hit/fought against, even if that woman is a bad guy and quite capable of dishing out as well as she receives?

I ask because I just got back from seeing Live Free or Die Hard again and in it Bruce Willis' character of John McClane (our beloved hero) has this incredible fight scene with Maggie Q's character of Mia (a kick-ass bad gal who kills without hesitation). Now I've read a lot of reviews on the movie and quite a few of them, even when they like the movie, thought that the scene was overly violent and unnecessary, some have even went so far as to say that it shows the "misogynistic" side of John McClane.

I've seen this movie twice now. I didn't think it was overly violent the first time I saw it. In fact, I thought she matched up well to any of the villains that McClane went toe-to-toe with in any of the first movies. I wanted McClane to pound her into the pavement -- as I would any worthy bad-guy opponent. This time, after reading the reviews, I specifically paid attention to the fight scenes between them, trying to see if they were a "statement in favor of violence against women". I still didn't see it.

McClane doesn't physically attack her, only fighting after she manages to disarm and attack him. Once she is down, he (foolishly, IMO) leaves her laying there and turns his back on her. When she attacks again, he fights her once more only to end up getting tossed down several floors. It gets more "action movie" after that with McClane taking a car and driving it through the room... it ends up with both of them and the SUV stuck in the shaft of a freight elevator. All the while she is the one who gives out more punishment than she receives (as typical of a Die Hard movie where McClane only wins a fight because he's lucky and too stupid to give up). She dies, not by McClane's hand directly, but because she (and the SUV fall to the bottom of the shaft).

Does the fact that McClane fights this woman, make him less of a hero? Is it ever acceptable to have a woman (evil or not) "beaten" (in a physical fight not in the abused sense of the word)? In shows such as "Buffy", the main hero is woman and because of that, all those who fight her are bad guys. Since they were evil, having them fight a woman only added to their "evilness". Of course, Buffy had special powers that made her physically superior the average human being. Does that make her one-on-one combat with men more acceptable? If McClane would be fighting an "evil Buffy" would that make a difference in whether or not he's misogynistic?

When I write a evil female character can I ever have a good male character fight her without damaging his character? Or is it only possible to have a good female character take her out?

Comments

[imbri6.livejournal.com]

In my world view, women are perfectly capable of being evil and fighting hard. A fight between a man and a woman isn't always a bad thing. Especially if it's an "evil" woman and a "good" man, and it's up to him to "stop her", then he needs to stop her. It's not "violence against women" for there to be a fight. Men have the right to defend themselves when attacked, and if that includes disarming or "putting the woman down", then so be it. To continue to fight or abuse after one's opponent is beaten is where it gets "wrong" for me. To attack without provocation, also wrong in my world view. From your descriptions above (I've not seen the movie) she is a violently attacking woman, and he doesn't attempt to take advantage of her, he fights back, legitimately.

In your own writing I think you can have a good male character fight and win against an evil female character. A good character doesn't seek violence, they don't tend to start fights, but they'll finish them, but with as close to the minimum acceptable amount of violence as is prudent. A good character won't allow themselves to be hurt unnecessarily, but if it's possible to "take a hit" without grievous injury in order to ascertain that their opponent really *is* intending to fight as opposed to surrender, then they will, and then they will fight, and then, with luck, they will win.

I'm not a writer, I'm a reader. And if a writer presents to me a good, honest, moral, intelligent character who will fight when necessary but take no joy in the violence, then I don't care about gender.

it's late and I'm free-associating. I think I remember a q/a session at some sf convention or another, a writing panel. One author advocated that a well-written character is a well-written character, and gender doesn't matter. If you can flip the gender assignments of every character in your novel and it still reads well, then GOOD!

[partly.livejournal.com]

I often think that "readers" have better insight into such things than "writers" do. *grin*

If you can flip the gender assignments of every character in your novel and it still reads well, then GOOD!

I love this and think that it's a very apt way to judge the quality of a character.

[wiliqueen.livejournal.com]

I think the reviewers are erring on the side of knee-jerk PC, and missing the point.

Violence against a particular female character does NOT automatically equal "violence against women." The latter, to me, is defined as the attitude that violent behavior toward women is okay because they are women.

A villain in a knock-down-drag-out with a hero who clearly regards her as an equal and a worthwhile opponent? Is the opposite misogyny in my book.

[alliesings.livejournal.com]

A villain in a knock-down-drag-out with a hero who clearly regards her as an equal and a worthwhile opponent? Is the opposite misogyny in my book.

That's what I was thinking, too. That woman is empowered and recognized as strong, even if she is evil ;) Someone who would insist that she be treated as weaker is really the one who is insulting her.

[donnickcottage.livejournal.com]

Didn't see the movie. What's acceptable I don't know, but if a woman attacks me physically I'm fighting back. All's fair to begin with and secondly, I thought women fought a war over being equal to men? There's no abuse involved in crime, only winners and losers.

[kitap.livejournal.com]

They are trying to hard to make the movie PC and in so, failing miserably. He's fighting someone who's trying her hardest to kill him. She doesn't care that he's a man; he's trying to stop her, and she's going to try her best to stop him. She'd be trying to kill Lucy, too.

It seems to me that true equality is: should John Mclane be fighting Character X to the death? If the answer is yes, then it doesn't matter if the character is male, female or hermaphroditic. If the answer is no, then you should figure out why.

And I'm guessing that they aren't calling it reverse sexism or sexism at all that John Mclane gets truly, irrevocably, angry when they go after Lucy (before, if they had just given up and fled, he would have let them. Afterwards...). After family. Women are usually given the "you aren't taking/threatening my daughter!" (think Sigourney Weaver in Aliens) role; John got it here.