Post by drakeborough on Aug 1, 2017 19:57:54 GMT
I don't want to discuss the details of this feminism/sexism/patriarchy controversy, since such topics are at a high risks of flame. I'll just say that, in my opinion, using these real-life conceptw to judge fictional products is problematic at best.
For example, although I agree with most of Matilda's messages in this forum, I don't really understand the line "It would be a long time before there were many female characters in American popular culture who could be adventurers, or who could take the lead without being depicted as unattractive (Captain Ramrod), or who could be funny in ways outside the sexist box". What's wrong with a character who is unattractive? As the feminist characters from Blum's/Jippes' Golden Apple would say, shouldn't people by judged by their abilities rather than by their looks? Captain Ramrod is unattractive, and this is regardedd as sexist because it seems to imply that a skilled female character must be ugly; on the other hand, had she been depicted as attractive, other people would probably say that the idea that only good-looking female characters are skilled is sexist as well. It's often a situation of: head you lose, tail you still lose. See what I meant that applying certain concepts to fiction is often problematic?
That said, I don't think Barks was unable to portray strong and interesting female characters: Magica and Goldie are the first examples that come to my mind. As for Daisy, I can understad why Barks portrayed her that way: when trying to put the main character (Donald) into all sorts of challanges for domestic comiedies, he must have found that a demanding and troublesome girlfriend better served his purpose compared to a lovely and reasonable girlfriend who made the life easy and great for Donald. Her role is different from Minnie's because the latter has been there from day 1, while Daisy appeared after Donald had been around for 6 years. Also, Minnie could take part in longer adventures like "The Monarch of Medioka
", while Daisy's role was, with few exceptions, limited to shorter stories, and the occasional choral story.
For example, although I agree with most of Matilda's messages in this forum, I don't really understand the line "It would be a long time before there were many female characters in American popular culture who could be adventurers, or who could take the lead without being depicted as unattractive (Captain Ramrod), or who could be funny in ways outside the sexist box". What's wrong with a character who is unattractive? As the feminist characters from Blum's/Jippes' Golden Apple would say, shouldn't people by judged by their abilities rather than by their looks? Captain Ramrod is unattractive, and this is regardedd as sexist because it seems to imply that a skilled female character must be ugly; on the other hand, had she been depicted as attractive, other people would probably say that the idea that only good-looking female characters are skilled is sexist as well. It's often a situation of: head you lose, tail you still lose. See what I meant that applying certain concepts to fiction is often problematic?
That said, I don't think Barks was unable to portray strong and interesting female characters: Magica and Goldie are the first examples that come to my mind. As for Daisy, I can understad why Barks portrayed her that way: when trying to put the main character (Donald) into all sorts of challanges for domestic comiedies, he must have found that a demanding and troublesome girlfriend better served his purpose compared to a lovely and reasonable girlfriend who made the life easy and great for Donald. Her role is different from Minnie's because the latter has been there from day 1, while Daisy appeared after Donald had been around for 6 years. Also, Minnie could take part in longer adventures like "The Monarch of Medioka
", while Daisy's role was, with few exceptions, limited to shorter stories, and the occasional choral story.