@Aretha12 @l777l @tigress666 Aretha, I addressed the incorporation of stereotypes. You omitted that paragraph and the context it provides. Consider what I wrote in respect to statistics as well.
I object to the passage of hers that I quoted. Sex differences exist, stereotypes reflect them. Treating everyone "the same" means reacting to the world as if everyone in it were the same. That is not the case.
Note that you are changing her words. Compare your interpretation with what she's written.
Obviously the things I've said about PMS and make-up (in fiction -- I'm not saying men should be genetically engineered to have PMS) have a cynical touch, and an element of exaggeration. They put something in stark relief; yet it's not the only thing I've written. One question, by the way: putting whom into the kitchen?
To expand on what I think: I'm not against having evil female characters. I'm actually for that. I don't limit that to evil female characters who are "evil" in reliance on distinctly female excellence: seduction, manipulation (think of 'evil empathy'), grace. I also appreciate diversity, so a blunt, stoic female type of character is welcome. But excellence, as I outlined, lies elsewhere. And I like excellence, particularly female excellence; it's sexy.
A final note on kitchens; I dislike that such a caring thing as cooking for someone else is being disparaged by feminists and their opponents alike.
@tigress666 [Perhaps with a third entry this comment will show up.]
"It means you treat them just the same as everyone else and don't stereotype them just because they happen to be of that sex."
Great. Give men and women in fiction the same haircuts, the same clothes and the same make-up. Give men PMS, and have them visit gynecologists (for no apparent reason). ... Are you seriously for statistical parity, statistical parity and sameness in fiction?
Fiction depicts what is of concern to real people. These will be different things for different groups. And stereotypes describe the differences between groups fairly accurately. So naturally there will be divergence, ultimately because the sexes are different. Survey literature to see that.
@DankDutch @percech @AtheistPreacher Hm. You can combine white with black, doing some white stuff as gestures to placate, and keeping the black core. That should work well with individual women who have conflicting desires. Soothing cognitive dissonance is appealing.
@tigress666 "It means you treat them just the same as everyone else and don't stereotype them just because they happen to be of that sex."
Great. Give men and women in fiction the same haircuts, the same clothes and the same make-up. Give men PMS, and have them visit gynecologists (for no apparent reason). ... Are you seriously for statistical parity and sameness in fiction?
Fiction depicts what is of concern to real people. These will be different things for different groups. And stereotypes describe the differences between groups fairly accurately. So naturally there will be divergence, ultimately because the sexes are different. Survey literature to see that.
@JediKnight366 The default state of what things? Have you read books lately, watched movies, TV and so on and forth -- note all the females and products for females. Speaking of products for females: survey all consumer products -- nothing for women there at all; only straight white male stuff. Especially all the battery-powered sex toys.
@tigress666 "It means you treat them just the same as everyone else and don't stereotype them just because they happen to be of that sex. Which means "positive" stereotypes are not a good thing as well."
What nonsense. Stereotypes in so far as they are accurate are part of reality: stereotypes describe reality. To what exactly does this idea of yours extend? Should women in fiction have short hair as often as men, the same kind of hairdo as often as men? PMS for men? High heals for men? Skirts for men? Or would you allow differences in behavior, which includes the choice of appearance?
l777l's comments