TSS: She Said She Said

In the Box by Mary Cassatt, 1879

In the now-canceled TV show The Finder, the main character, Walter, said something that really pissed me off. He claimed he could tell the writer of a book was female because women use more pronouns when they're writing whereas men will use proper nouns.

Um, right. *eyeroll* I'm not going to harp on that, since I think it's been proven both anecdotally and scientifically that there is NO WAY TO JUDGE GENDER BASED ON WRITING STYLE and why on earth would this even be a goal, what is wrong people? What if they invented a test to judge ethnicity based on writing and were like, "Asians use more sentence fragments, now we know where they're hiding!" would that still be hunky-dory? But as I said, not discussing that. Nope.

What I really wanted to talk about was a very interesting chapter in Lawrence Block's Telling Lies for Fun and Profit about creating distance or intimacy with characters in fiction, and one of the things he said reminded me of that scene from The Finder. According to Block, one of the best ways to create intimacy with characters is to use more pronouns when you're talking about them instead of their names. For example, instead of using, "Silas thanked Melissa and walked to the store," you could use, "He thanked her and walked to the store," in which case there's an assumption you know something about each character, at the very least their names.

Another thing Block addresses in this chapter is using last names for characters instead of first names, which he says is another way to create distance from the character. But, he adds, women are almost never called by their last names in novels, and doing so might create unnecessary confusion for the reader.

All of which leads me to wonder, is there a presumption of intimacy when it comes to women? I know the phrase "intimate scene" is thrown around a lot when discussing the work of female artists like Mary Cassatt. Perhaps our own gender assumptions allow private lives for women, and public lives for men, but not vice versa. Or maybe women are not allowed the distinction of public and private personas, and their personal lives are always available for consumption. I was reading Mystery in Geneva by Rose Macaulay recently who commented, "women are, inherently and with no activities on their part, News... Profound questions are raised concerning them. Should they smoke? Should they work? Vote? Take Orders? Marry? Exist?" This certainly suggests there is no separation between personal and public activities when it comes to women--not in the news, anyway.

There definitely seems to be some correlation between what is considered "intimate" and what is considered "feminine," and I would argue that presumption drives us to view both art and literature of a more private or familiar nature as effeminate. Exactly or why this happens, however, I might never find out. Maybe the Beatles can tell us:

Review: LEVIATHAN by Scott Westerfeld

Look, it's a pretty decent book trailer!

In 1914, Europe teeters on the edge of an all-encompassing war. Alek, a Hapsburg prince, is a "Clanker"--the term for people whose technology is reliant on machines. Deryn, a girl just inducted into the British Air Service, is a Darwinist--those who develop animals into their technology (clearly they're the good guys). Alek and Deryn probably would never meet under normal circumstances, but with a war going on anything can happen.

I normally steer clear of novels with the premise of Leviathan, but when I read Lusty Reader's great review of Goliath, I decided to give it a try, since I know we tend to love the same books. First of all, I have to say that as a physical object Leviathan is gorgeous--great, tactile cover, lovely thick paper, and lots of illustrations (have I ever mentioned I LOVE books with illustrations?). On top of that, it tells an awesome story. Yes, there were some battle scenes that started to feel a bit long-ish, but for the most part this is the type of novel that feels like it's going by really fast. I'm not sure I would say it was unputdownable, but it was pretty engaging.



That being said, I feel like I enjoyed Leviathan despite my better judgment, because it's kind of sexist. I already touched on this a bit in Fun with Gender Stereotypes (post here), but that was really just the tip of the iceberg with this novel. In this entire book there are only two women. TWO WOMEN. IN THE ENTIRE WORLD of this story.

That. Is ridiculous.

Now, one might say that since the book is set during WWI and takes place largely on an airship, this makes sense. But that is such a cop-out response. Firstly, this is a fantasy version of WWI, so Scott Westerfeld could write women into the armed forces if he wanted; other steampunk authors have done so. Secondly, in real life there were thousands of women involved in WWI, so including them would actually be more historically accurate than not. And thirdly, although much of the book does take place in a military setting, there are a few civilian scenes, and there are no women there, either! When Alek visits the German village, all the people he takes note of or interacts with--even just to buy a paper--are men. The same is true when Deryn is in Regent's Park--aside from the lady boffin, the other female character in Leviathan, all the people doing anything worthy of description are men.

So, as far as the reader is concerned, the only two females who are physically present in the world of this book are Deryn and Dr. Barlow (both Deryn's and Alek's mothers are mentioned, in that they have mothers--obvs. But Deryn's mother is mentioned in passing, exists only off-page, and exerts zero influence on the narrative; the same is true for Alek, whose mother is killed before the book even starts. Compare that to both of the main characters' fathers, who exert a very strong influence on their decisions in the story and, while existing off-page, are both more fully realized characters). Once again I have to say: two whole women in the entire continent of Europe, really?! And let's take a look at these women.

First and foremost, we have Deryn, who is pretending to be a boy named Dylan so she can serve in the British Air Service. The BAS doesn't allow women, apparently. While I understand that Westerfeld might have wanted to give her a secret for narrative purposes, it doesn't feel fully realized. Deryn doesn't stew over inequality based solely on gender, has no qualms over how she's going to hide things like her menstrual cycle, or considers alternative where she doesn't have to lie and pretend to be a boy. And while she fits in with the crew with astonishing ease, there are still broad statements about gender that seem pretty sexist. For example, the only thing Deryn dislikes about hanging with boys 24/7 is that they're super-competitive. Really? Because girls aren't competitive? How many women did you spend time with back in Scotland, Deryn?

Thirdly, Deryn's status as a strong female character derives entirely from the fact that she's pretending to be a male. She wouldn't even BE in this book if she wasn't pretending to be a boy. The reason why we think of her as a "strong female" is basically because she looks and acts like a boy. So basically erase every speck of femininity you can and you'll be a strong woman? Nice one.

Secondly, there's Dr. Barlow. While Dr. Barlow makes no secret of the fact that she's a woman, Deryn makes a big deal out of noting how unusual it is for a woman to hold Dr. Barlow's position as a prominent boffin, or scientist. And how did Dr. Barlow come by such a career? Why is she so well-respected? Is it because she's intelligent, has worked her ass off for years and demands people's respect? Is it because she sacrificed a personal life and family for her career? NOPE IT'S BECAUSE SHE'S RELATED TO A FAMOUS MAN. Seriously, that is the only backstory we're given--or apparently need to know--about the only other woman in Leviathan.

The sum being that our two female characters have gotten where they are in life--which is to say, worthy of the notice of a story--by hitching a ride on the penis train: either by being more or less male, or by virtue of their fathers. Nice. Sorry if you have a vagina, kids, better luck next time! Just resign yourselves to a completely powerless existence without any autonomy now and make it easier on yourselves. I suppose technically Leviathan passes the Bechdel Test, because Dr. Barlow and Deryn do discuss beasties and not men on a few occasions; but I'm not sure it counts if, as far as Dr. Barlow is concerned, Deryn's a male.

Obviously I'm not the target audience for this novel--that would be teenage boys, to state the glaringly obvious--but I was a little taken aback by some of the sexiest assumptions running through Leviathan. So even though I did enjoy the story, and want to find out how Deryn and Alek are going to get together, I can't help but feel ambivalent about it.

Fun With Gender Stereotypes

I'm currently reading Leviathan by Scott Westerfeld, where one of the main characters is a girl pretending to be a boy so she can join the Royal Air Whatever (Brigade?). Fortunately she has a brother to show her the ropes. His major tip on not giving her status as a vagina away?

Last night Jasper had demonstrated how a proper boy checked his fingernails--looking at his palm, fingers bent, whereas girls looked at the back of their hands, fingers splayed.

Um, yeah. That's the way to prove your manliness--checking your fingernails! Where do people get this stuff?

The weird thing is, I've come across this before. It was in an MG mystery I read when I was about eight or so. The detective knew the male criminal was disguising himself as a female because he checked his nails palm-in. So women are wired to check their nails a certain way? Give me a fucking break.

First of all, it's totally untrue. Google image search "checking nails" if you don't believe me. In fact, here is a photo of model Vena Cava backstage, with long nails and a manicure, checking her nails the "manly" way:



But whether it's true or not (it isn't, so stop staying it) isn't the real reason why statements like this bother me: it's because people assume they're true, and then those ideas became justifications for notions of gender essentalism. Men behave one way, women behave another--ergo, if you act the latter way, you MUST be a man, or vice versa (see detective story, above).

And yes, this goes for stupid and inconsequential things like checking nails, too. Maybe even more so, because no one bothers to question the implications of nail-checking stereotypes, does one? Yet eventually assumptions like this are repeated as fact by such lovely organizations as Choosing the Best, an abstinence-only sex education program in the US known for its gender bias (Legal Momentum).

Here's an idea: maybe we could not fall back on these archaic notions of what men and women "are" and how they behave and instead just treat people like people? I know, I'm wasting my breath. But hopefully at the very least we can stop repeating this nail checking ridiculousness.