I'm not afraid of writing boy characters in first person.

I don't remember it ever really occurring to me that I should approach it any differently. Probably because very early I realized I was writing characters with experiences so vastly different from mine (being elves or ancient dark gods) and compared to the differences between me and my first MC, who was a 87 year old half-faerie wind magic user who had her eyes cut out of her head and started murdering people to steal their eyes, having a penis didn't seem like it would matter that much.

Nobody ever said, "Tessa, I think the voice of your half-faerie eye-stealing octogenarian is unrealistic. It rings false."

HOWEVER, people say all the time to writers of one gender that the voice of their oppositely-gendered main character is not genuine.

Go read this funny (and ridiculous) essay by Bev Vincent, a man. Apparently I Write Like a Girl.

He received a critique of a short story by a well-known editor who mistook him for a woman based on his name. The critique focused on his inability to write a genuine male voice. Bev, understandably, argues that he really can write from the male perspective. He points out that the editors assumptions about what men do/can think about and notice was not only personally offensive but incredibly sexist.

And he's totally right. But that isn't the point of my post.

Most of my writing friends are women (just because most YA authors are women, not because of anything nefarious) and I know several of us have received critiques that our male protagonists don't sound boy enough. I could go into the reasons that are given: he's too sensitive, he notices too many details, he's too concerned with his appearance, he combs his hair, etc. Because boys can't be sensitive or emote, they don't notice details and don't care how they look or if their hair is like a rat's nest (RPatz notwithstanding).

This is my theory: when someone complains that your character doesn't sound like a real boy/girl, it's because of two things. Cultural/personal prejudice regarding proper gender roles*, and that there's actually something bothersome about the voice.

The reader isn't being convinced by your character, or they wouldn't even flinch when he or she does something odd, or thinks something odd. If the reader believes The Character is a real, living, breathing person, it doesn't matter if they do something "off-gender." Because human beings do that all the time. I know so many guys who display "feminine" traits without identifying as queer or transgender or anything like that, and I know so many girls who do the opposite. Real people have extremely fluid gender markers, unless they fight to keep themselves in a box - and that, too, is a huge character trait.

Recently, I got a crit of one of the main characters in my last novel, Blood Magic. I was told that the male protag didn't sound like a boy. There were other clues that something was off about his voice, so I took a hard look and rewrote him entirely, from motivations to vocabulary. But what didn't I do? I didn't take out his emotions, I didn't take out his insecurity about how he looks, I didn't take out a single one of his "feminine" traits.

And you know what, I didn't hear from that same reader again that he sounds like a girl. Because the underlying issues of his POV had been fixed. He was still exhibiting those feminine cues, but it didn't matter, because they were part of his whole, complex characterization.



*There will always be people who can't let go of their biases regarding gender roles and perceived gender roles, so you have to be able to distinguish between something being wrong with your own writing and a reader's prejudice. But it's always a good idea to think, "Ok, that was hugely offensive, but is there an underlying issue my reader is trying to address but can't quite figure out?" THAT is the key to taking criticism.


image by VOLPE1981 via flickr creative commons.

I was having a really bad day (which began at 2am this morning) until I got to work and read this op-ed by Gail Collins. BRISTOL PALIN'S NEW GIG. It's perfectly ridiculous, and since they aren't living in the Admiral's House, I can laugh my ass off. Gail Collins is, as usual, extremely funny when she points out idiocy.

Basically, Bristol has become a new "teen ambassador" for the Candie Foundation, promoting.... abstinence. My favorite moment from the article:

"I just want to go out there and promote abstinence and say this is the safest choice,” she said on “Good Morning America.”

“It’s not going to work,” said her ex-boyfriend, Levi Johnston, in a dueling early-morning interview."

( Full article behind cut. )


- In related news, Judy Blume (of Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret fame, among dozens of others) wrote an email appeal for Planned Parenthood, and is now receiving DEATH THREATS. Because that's always cool. Go support her through the California NOW website.

- Back to the funny. Via funky_peacenik via some guy she knows who I don't, jackshoegazer:

Or, How TWILIGHT THE MOVIE Destroyed My Faith in Feminism, and QUANTUM OF SOLACE Restored It


My initial reaction to "Twilight" the Movie was that feminism has failed.

There's a scene where Edward Sparklepire sneaks into Bella Klutz's bedroom. She's in a tank top and panties. She says something to the effect of, "What are you doing in my room?" And Edward says, with passion and anguish in his golden godlike eyes, "I've been watching you sleep for months." Bella, instead of screaming and throwing him out kind of shrugs. "Huh." Then Edward tells her to be still, because he wants to "try something." He climbs on top of her, kisses her, tells her to be still again, and when she starts to respond with passion (she's turned on by stalkers), Edward throws himself across the room and yells at BELLA to STOP. Because obviously the fact that he's getting so turned on by her near-nakedness is all her fault. He couldn't help sneaking into her bedroom because her blood smells so good, and blood shouldn't wear such a short skirt unless it wants exactly what he's offering.

And yes, this is the movie that attracted $70 million dollars from mostly teen and preteen girls.

As Natalie's mom said, "There goes another generation of women. And they're going to be old enough to vote for Palin next time."

(And I'm sorry, Julian, for making you come. Has your soul stopped bleeding?)

I *did* like it when Alice the Pixie-pire crawled up the bad guy's body and tore his head off.

To cleanse our palette we bought tickets to see James Bond. And thus was my faith in feminism restored. (I know. Feminism in bed with 007? Seems unlikely!)

AND. YET. On the drive home, Natalie and I had a little feminist-gasm of delightful conversation, revolving around our amazement and love of James Bond the Budding Feminist.

Because, this movie is really all about James's relationship with women. The woman he loved who betrayed him, his Mum, his plaything, and his partner. That's right - I said it. His partner. But I'm not going to start with her.

( James and His Women )

Basically, Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are working very hard to break down the stereotypical Bond/Bond-girl dynamic. He doesn't get to use and throw away women. He doesn't get to screw everything with tits. He doesn't even want to. That's what makes this movie feminist - it's an examination of masculinity, of the conditions and tropes and stereotypes of violent masculinity. THAT'S FEMINISM, TOO.

James Bond is so freaking human in these movies, and that's the real reason they hurt. And are so bloody brilliant.

As most of you know, I work at the Kansas City Renaissance Festival as a whore in Madame Red's Brothel. I do it for several reasons: it's a job/hobby that lets me dress up in a gorgeous costume and hang out with a bunch of my beautiful friends all weekend long, it empowers us within the realms of our sexuality, entertains people, sometimes gives others insight into their own attractiveness, their own prejudices, and their own socialization. It helps us to push the boundaries of acceptability (our own and other people's), to force ourselves to look at ourselves and our own power as women, as people, as sexual beings.

And it's fun.

Most of us (if not all of us) play characters who are strong and able women, who in some way chose the profession. Mistress Azure would never have picked prostitution as an acceptable lifestyle, but her life was screwed over by the patriarchal institution of the Catholic Church, and working with the Madame became the best option. She took it firmly into herself and made the best of it. Now, it defines her in many ways and through that I find a lot of room to explore different sides of myself - it's the best of immersive theater.

In a lot of ways, we're just using the idiom for the purpose of empowering ourselves and as many of our friends and audience members as possible. There isn't anything inherently wrong with that - and a lot of good has come out of it.

But sometimes it feels like we're glorifying something without really taking into consideration that what we're doing is a total lie (and by we I mean everyone in the context, not just the members of the brothel). I know the Renfest is about 98% devoid of history, so in that sense, who cares? I don't enough to quit, obviously (and I've struggled off and on with this throughout my personal history with the Brothel, and have reached the conclusion that it is more worth it to me for the small good that we do for others and especially for my own self-image). It's one of those places I'm trying to examine my tendency toward hypocrisy.

So, is it a lie? Yes. But not in the sense that we don't on some level know exactly what we're doing. Do we always pay attention? Do we always care or think about what negative impact we maybe be having? No, and maybe some of us never do. Mostly we do this for fun, not for political leverage or purpose.

It's a lie like telling a story is a lie. When we're at our best, we create this image of a possibility. Not a reality, not a historical accuracy, but the hope that maybe in some future it will be a reality that only women who choose to do so will sell sex. Look what we can do, what we can imagine, and can you imagine what it would be like to have this reality? We're fucking hot, we're all kinds of women-shapes and types of beauty, we're strong, mean, in charge of ourselves. THAT is the lie, and that is also the beauty of it.

Or so I tell myself.

I've been thinking about this all season, and this morning I read an essay by Nicholas D. Kristoff about a woman in Cambodia named Somaly Mam who was sold into prostitution as a young teen and now works with a foundation to free other woman from this slavery.

She is absolutely amazing. A real hero who did not let herself be destroyed and only got stronger and more determined.

Check it out.

I'm keeping the full article behind the cut, as well.

( A Heroine From the Brothels )

A quick note on the mention of Joe Biden: this shocks me, given his stance and hard work against Violence Against Women and other similar topics. I sincerely hope there's a good reason for him being on the same side of anything as Sam Brownback. When I find out what it is, I'll share.

Let me point out another example.

I've seen this on four blogs today, that are written by friends of mine who I know to be intelligent, nice, not racist people. It's a good example of how you can make a racist statement or take a racist action without being a racist, or without even realizing it.

I'm talking about Rum and Monkey's Native American Name Generator.

What's your Indian name? Just plug in your own and a random name generator throws together some very stereotypical words associated with Native American culture (associated by the dominant Western culture that has pretty much destroyed said Native American culture). VOILA! Your Indian Name! And bonus, it's in English (as the writer so proudly says)! That must be so us white folks don't have to deal with weird foreign words!

I get that it's a stupid internet meme, that its all in fun, that nobody means anything by it, blah blah blah. None of that makes it any less racist.

I've seen in several places over the past few weeks a thread of commentary regarding THE DARK KNIGHT and its failure to past the "feminist plot test." (This test varies, but is basically: is there more than one female character? is said female there for a reason other than a) to be raped b) to be killed c) to give the male protag someone to avenge/come home to/have sex with.) On a basic level, yes, THE DARK KNIGHT fails this more spectacularly than most recent movies that I'd call good.

And in the grand scheme of superhero movies that have come out in the past few years, Hollywood is continuing to fail this test. (You can blame the comics themselves, the overall cultural expectations, our communal archetypes, or even point out the X-Men - which did engage on a much more overt and complicated level with politics of prejudice and minority, but still arguably revolved around a very angsty man, and the most powerful woman ends up killing the shit out of everyone.)

I really want to see a superhero movie engage in such a serious, intense way with women, with female power and the incredibly rich and complex potential therein.

BUT. I find it so simpleminded to say that just because movies like THE DARK KNIGHT, IRON MAN, and THE INCREDIBLE HULK (to take the three most recent, and in my mind best) relegate women to the sidelines where they serve, get killed, get come home to, get to be rescued, ad infinitum, they aren't engaging with feminism.

You can't talk about or deconstruct the lines of discourse and power by only talking about the oppressed. You can't analyze femininity or womanhood or sexism without bringing in masculinity, manhood and sexism. What does it mean to be a man? How do men in our society deal with the expectations forced upon them by themselves, their culture, their women, etc?

These are feminist questions (and important ones):

What makes a man?

How does he best accept power?

Why is he expected to be strong?

Why is he expected to be a hero?

Why does it seem that in order to engage in masculinity, femininity must be ignored or downplayed?

Why are our most defining characteristics so defined against each other?

And MAYBE before we can continue to engage with such questions, before we can continue on this path to equality, we have to look to the upper levels of power.*

YES, we need more women superheroes, and we need them from the big guns of the industry, because then the fanbase will come. They will. Superhero fans are not as dumb as they get stereotyped to be. They can take it. They maybe even want it.

But it's not very conducive to progress to dismiss a movie entirely (especially movies like THE DARK KNIGHT and IRONMAN, which have done astronomically well) just because they don't do everything we want them to. We need to say, "Goddamn it, give me a strong woman! Stop killing them and taking away their agency! I'm pissed! Gah!" and then go, "But holy cow, did you see that thread about the destructive nature of the development of masculinity in our society? How can we talk about that and can it be fixed? How are the two problems linked? I know they are."

I'm a feminist, and sometimes the most important thing I can do is remind people that gender inequality is about a false dichotomy - and a dichotomy is built out of TWO opposing forces. BOTH of which MUST be rewritten.


*Not exclusively - I don't want all attention to shift away from the powerless, or the less powerful. That would be a devolution.

- I am wearing very girly shoes, for which my feet to NOT thank me.

- My favorite word today is falcate.

- My little hellhound (mutant mutt Grendel) was growling back at the thunder on our walk this morning. Awwww.

- The rough draft for my Wednesday Fic over at merry_fates is only 588 words! Yay! That's practically a miracle.

- Skithblathnir is a hilarious word. Every time I type it (ok, I've only typed it once) I want to say bless you to the text.

- Target Women: Suffrage, a funny video featuring the HI-larious Sarah Haskins on Obama, McCain, and Hillary's angry women supporters. Thanks, nataliesee! "Here, have $0.75 of my dollar!"

- I wish I had more randomness to spew. I suppose I have to get back to writing what I Don't Want To Be Writing today. At least it doesn't all suck: The ship jerked beneath me with every pull of the oars, as though an indelible rope was tied to the prow and length by length tugged me closer to my fate. It is so much fun writing a melodramatic heroine.

I don't have a lot of commentary to add to this quick essay from today's GUARDIAN.

When Harry Met Sexism: Critics just won't accept female fantasy writers, as the latest round of JK Rowling-bashing shows, by Bidisha.

Via tammy212, aka Tamora Pierce, a writer whose early works I know had a huge influence on my little-girl-don't-wanna-be-a-princess-would-rather-be-a-bad-ass-wizard self.

I was recently rereading the Lioness Quartet (and by recently I mean at least a year ago), after a good ten year hiatus. It was stunning to realize how her characters in many ways are responsible for the basic templates I use over and over again in the stories I try to tell. I've got Robin McKinley and Patricia McKillip for style and myth, and Tamora Pierce for character.

I just watched Barack Obama deliver a speech on race and America. It is not safe, it is not politically correct. It is courageous, and beyond asses and elephants. It is about anger and hope and perfection. It is more important than politics - it's bigger than that. This speech will be remembered.

Do yourself a favor, no matter what your views are: listen to it or read it, and try to understand the story he's telling.

Link to text of speech and video on MSNBC.

( Or read the text behind my cut. )

This is why as a feminist I support Obama for President.

In an attempt to drive away my current Pissy Secretary Persona before I do something horrid to the coffee maker, I'm going to talk about this amazing book I finished last night.

A Companion to Wolves was written jointly by Elizabeth Bear and Sarah Monette. (Confessional moment #1: I was predisposed to like this book, because I like both authors. Monette draws me in and I read her books in a sudden blinding rush, then immediately read them again. Bear forces me to read very, very slowly so that I can drag all the meanings out of every little word.)

The plot and characters of Companion aren't really that noteworthy. It's a basic coming-of-age plot, set in an alternate Viking North. (Confessional moment #2: I'm hard pressed not to appreciate a book in which bashing trolls is a favored past-time and Othinn, God of Death is not only prayed to, but merciless.)

You've got a lot of typical fantasy elements: mind-bond with animal, magical creatures, boy growing into leader, man verses monster, etc. (I know, you're thinking... what, exactly, did you like about this book?)

BUT. And this is a huge but.

Bear and Monette queer everything.

No, I'm not talking about making a character gay (even a main character) or anything remotely as simple. There's nothing simple about the underlying... well, there's nothing simple about this book once you look past the surface.

There's a line of thought in queer theory that basically says all you need to do to queer something is to move the focus off of monogamous, heterosexual, orgasm-centric sex. Having read Bear and Monette, and having heard bits about the book before reading it, I was expecting solid deconstruction of the animal-human fantasy genre. I had no doubt that it would be interesting, but have to admit that as someone familiar with queer literary theory, wasn't expecting the book to... go beyond my expectations.

That's what I get for having expectations. ( My ramble, that is not remotely organized because there are so many layers I'd have to spend time I don't have outlining my thoughts and points. )

I'd love, love, love to read this book in a graduate level feminism or queer theory class. If it had come out four years ago, I might've written my thesis on it, along with... maybe Carey's Kushiel stuff.

READ IT. Revel in the queer!

If not for the delicious feminism and queerness woven into almost every level, read it for the badass svartalfar. Because dude. They have jewels decorating their teeth.

so, I found this essay by Andrew Kohut, the president of the Pew Research Center, fascinating.

When I was writing up my master's thesis, I read one of his books, and always found the Pew website helpful.

Basically, he's suggesting a reason for the polls getting the NH outcome so wrong. And no, it has nothing to do with late-made decisions or Independents swings. It's about race and polling practices. I have to wonder how this information would play into my thesis. One of my points was that the "Culture War" was all rhetoric, because for years national polls have showed that for the most part Americans are NOT polarized at all when it comes to issues like abortion and gay marriage. There's about 15% on either side that views the situation in black and white, while the middle 70% is ambivalent, apathetic, undecided, or extreme only in their moderation.

Kohut is saying that the practice of polling, in general, doesn't reach as many lower income-whites, who tend to be more prejudiced when it comes to race relations. The pollsters adjust for the greater incident of refusing surveys in lower-class pools, but that still has to skew the results. I wonder if there's a similar trend within abortion and gay marriage polls? Logic suggests that there definitely is.

Oh, my poor, abused master's thesis. How I miss you some days.

Gloria Steinem says it better than I could in this measured, thoughtful NYT op-ed.

And below the cut for posterity.

( Women Are Never Front-Runners )