2 Embracing (or equality for) the Mary Sue

I've just come across this Tumblr post denouncing the term Mary Sue as sexist; I've been hanging around in fiction communities since I was little and have a very good idea of what a Mary Sue is, but I'd never considered it's negative effects beyond, well, bad fiction. This looked like a good article to start with... and then I read the first paragraph:

So, there’s this girl. She’s tragically orphaned and richer than anyone on the planet. Every guy she meets falls in love with her, but in between torrid romances she rejects them all because she dedicated to what is Pure and Good. She has genius level intellect, Olympic-athelete level athletic ability and incredible good looks. She is consumed by terrible angst, but this only makes guys want her more. She has no superhuman abilities, yet she is more competent than her superhuman friends and defeats superhumans with ease. She has unshakably loyal friends and allies, despite the fact she treats them pretty badly.  They fear and respect her, and defer to her orders. Everyone is obsessed with her, even her enemies are attracted to her. She can plan ahead for anything and she’s generally right with any conclusion she makes. People who defy her are inevitably wrong.  

 God, what a Mary Sue.

I just described Batman.

No, no you didn't. You described how you see Batman. He is orphaned, which helps create him. Its an origin story, and I guarantee you there's much worse; he is rich too, but he spends most of his time trying to escape the image associated with it - part of the reason he's such a dedicated crime fighter is that he's desperate to give something other than his money. He isn't so intelligent that he doesn't have a research department, and he sure as hell isn't all that pure or good. I'd go so far to say that at times, he's downright treacherous. He doesn't always defeat the superhumans, and not all his friends are loyal. Eventually, everyone hates him. He definitely doesn't plan ahead for everything, otherwise he wouldn't get through Robins like they're on a work placement.

I've mentioned my position on tropes in comics before, and I stand by my opinion. Tropes are everywhere, and these days it really is rarely an issue of feminism. Look at Selina Kyle; orphaned, troubled childhood, high intelligence and physical skill, and gets to still be the good guy despite being also a master criminal, so attractive that even Batman wants her. Of course, as with the quote above, its only the bits of her story that are relevant to a Mary Sue argument.

You can look at most of the superhumans too and pick out enough information to make them a hideous stereotype. Have you played Arkham City? If you read the character descriptions, every single one makes the characters look like Nobel prize winning supermodel pro-athletes. Dr Freeze! The Penguin! They're all rich, they're all privileged, but for some reason its never enough. You know why? Because a comic where they throw parties, have affairs, and commit petty finance crime would be Dallas.

Here's the next bit that irked me, which is sadly the very next paragraph:

TV Tropes on the origin of Mary Sue:

The prototypical Mary Sue is an original female character in a fanfic who obviously serves as an idealized version of the author mainly for the purpose of Wish Fulfillment. 

Notice the strange emphasis on female here. TV Tropes goes on to say that is took a long time for the male counterpart “Marty Stu” to be used. “Most fanfic writers are girls” is given as the reason. So when women dominate a genre, that means people are on close watch, ready to scorn any wish fulfillment they may engage in. This term could only originate if the default was female.

 In fact, one of the CONTROVERSIES listed on the TV Tropes page is if a male sue is even possible. That’s right, it’s impossible to have an idealizied male character. Men are already the ideal.

You only have to look on the Wikipedia page for Mary Sues to see that the origin is from a female character, and that there are male-typical Mary Sue terms. Mary Sue is the term for a female version of this character, so it isn't that weird for the emphasis to be on female.

I think I've only ever encountered less than five male fanfic writers in eleven years, but that still isn't enough data to make any judgement call on the gender of 'most' fanfic writers. However, it's worth pointing out that the origins of Mary Sue start in one of the biggest Mary Sue vessels of them all - Star Trek. The term originated in a fan written tale, satirising this wish-fulfilment character that was present even in the show. It didn't catch on because it was female, it caught on because it was the first prominent attempt as prodding fun at the Wesley Crushers of sci fi. It was a representation of a repeating character type, so it became the common term.

What’s really wrong with a thirteen year old girl having a power fantasy, even if it’s badly written?

Because it's badly written. There are plenty of perfectly well written power fantasies by men and women, so throwing down the vagina card when someone criticizes your writing is just lame. I've seen so many terrible stories suddenly defended because the author has released an 'I'm just a girl, I have dreams' statement. If it isn't just a self-fulfilling piece of tripe, you'll care about the quality of your writing.

Let's skim down a bit:

So of course, a girl using traditionally feminine traits to dominate and triumph means she’s a sickeningly pure Mary Sue who makes everything go their way. Feminine traits are disdained and look down on, so when the positive feminine traits are prominent, the reader has an aversive reaction. How can a character be so feminine and triumph? She must be unrealistic, she must be badly written, because everyone knows it is impossible to be feminine and powerful.

 Hang on, didn't this start with criticizing Batman for acting masculine? Yes, he's a bit of a tool sometimes, but he has an ego! What self-respecting masked avenger wouldn't have an occasional god complex? If you look at classical literature, there are Mary Sues everywhere; Odysseus is a womanising, self-important moron and king of everything, Aeneas is a bizarrely intelligent hero who makes all the women swoon. Whole tragedies were written around Mary Sues. They aren't a new thing, and I doubt they will fade out any time soon.

There are plenty of feminine and powerful comic characters within the Batman franchise alone; we've already covered Selina Kyle, and there's also Poison Ivy, Oracle, Harley Quinn, and those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. No one would dare call any of them Mary Sues, probably because you'd wake up in an abandoned fairground tied to the tracks of a rollercoaster. There are equally as many badly written powerful, feminine characters - you know how I feel about Ghost - but it's because they're badly written, not because they're women, that people have problems with them.

 Let’s look at what kinds of Mary Sues people will point to. People will claim a female character is a Mary Sue if she is a love interest. Put a female character within a foot of a male character, and people will scream “Mary Sue!” Why does someone falling in love with her make her a Mary Sue? Well, she hasn’t “earned” this awesome dude character’s love. What has she done to show she’s worthy of him? Fans miss the irony that this line of logic makes the male character seem more like the Sue in Question, as he’s apparently so perfect one has work for his coveted love and praise.

 Never have I come across anyone who has called a love interest a Mary Sue, outside of - you guessed it - badly written fanfic. Lois Lane is not a Mary Sue, nor is MJ Watson (although, she is technically a type of shoe). Vicki Vale isn't even a Mary Sue. Is it just me, or do men kill each other for even a chance at attention from Poison Ivy? They're all strong women and their respective men have to earn their affection, and more often than not they reject their suitors in the process. Any character automatically falling in love with another is unrealistic, and deserves to be called out - not for being a Mary Sue, but for being (say it with me) badly written. When was the last time you admitted your affection to someone and had them immediately agree they're at the same level and you should both just get married? You have to work for it in real life, so you have to work for it in the comics.

The post drifts off a bit towards the end, and I lose track with what it actually has to do with Mary Sues. I think the problem is that people get so overheated about issues like this, they try to discuss all their opinions on it at once. I know, because I'm the same; I have to fight the impulse to go off about the costumes of female comic characters, or the representation of mutants.

The term Mary Sue is a valid one, otherwise it never would have stuck. There's a difference between people who genuinely admonish badly written characters and people who are just sexist, but it works both ways;  I've seen so may women call out men for liking male Mary Sues, but getting defensive over Bella Swan. Feminism isn't special treatment, its equal. Equal isn't being the same as men, its not receiving more or less because of your gender.

Ultimately, blame Gene Roddenberry.

[EDIT: I used valid three times in a sentence, but it's gone now. Shh, relax, it's all over.]

0 Gender roles in childhood: the difference between can and must.

There's a brilliant article floating around the internet right now called ' One teacher's approach to preventing gender bullying in a classroom', written by teacher Melissa Bollow Tempel. She explains how she dealt with any possible troubles caused by a girl in her class who liked things traditionally perceived as masculine, but still identified as a girl. Its odd that this is the first article I've seen that deals directly with gender roles without being tied to a story about young transpeople or homophobia in classrooms; it's also the first proper attempt I've seen at pre-emptive action rather than post-bullying.

Here's a small chunk from the article that I absolutely love:

My own thoughts about gender curriculum shifted when I became a mother. As I shopped for infant clothes for my first daughter, I was disgusted that almost everything was pink and there was no mistaking the boys’ section of the store from the girls’. I refused to make my baby daughter fit in the box that society had created for her. “What if she doesn’t like pink?” I thought. “What if she likes tigers and dinosaurs?”

As my two daughters grew, I talked with them about gender stereotypes. I let them choose “boys’” clothes if they wanted to (and often encouraged them because they are more practical). The first week of kindergarten, my younger daughter’s teacher told me that she had a heated argument with a boy while they played dress up. “She insisted that boys can wear dresses if they want to,” the teacher told me. I beamed with pride.

For years, I've felt exactly the same; from buying birthday presents to choosing stock for my toy shop, there's a clear divide between toys meant for boys and toys meant for girls - blue racing cars, pink teapots. Very definitive. Every time I had to make a choice, though, I felt an underlying sense of guilt for no obvious reason. Then, I read a comment on a Jezebel article about Lego's new range aimed at girls:

 mrs_weasley

Thu 15 Dec 2011 4:06 PM 

I am flabbergasted and confused by all the negative comments about this. Did anyone actually read the article? The Lego people asked girls what they wanted and designed these sets accordingly. They didn't unilaterally make the decisions about the colors and content. They based this on five years of research! And almost everyone here's reaction is: "Ew, it's pink so it must be bad." Why??? Why is appealing to girls' love of storytelling somehow worse than appealing to boys' love of building stuff? (And before anyone jumps on me, YES I know that many boys like telling stories and YES I know that many girls like building stuff - but there is also a lot of research that shows that boys and girls play differently.) Are we going to be treated to a "pink toys are bad" post every day until Christmas, so commenters can brag about how THEY played with trucks and just hated princesses? Because by doing so, you are basically saying "boys toys are better." Again, why?? Why is a truck better than a doll? Why is racecar better than a My Little Pony? Why is play workbench better than a play kitchen? If you say, "Because the girls toys reinforce gender stereotypes," my answer is, "So why do you think a truck driver is better than a mother? Why is someone who drives a car better than someone who rides a horse? Why is building a bookshelf better than making a meal?" I'm sorry, but denigrating things simply because they have a feminine design doesn't seem like a very feminist thing to me. 

It was like a little switch flicked on in my brain. Yes! The option to play with anything, to be anything, should be there, but standing in the way of little girls wanting to be princesses is the opposite of gender acceptance. In the Lego situation, they had done their research - they didn't just decide that little girls all like horsies and fairies and pink, they actually asked them after giving them a chance to play with original Lego.

I realise now that my guilt was because I felt I was trying to force kids to only accept things that were not usually assigned to their gender, that I felt girls must play with trucks and boys must have dolls otherwise the Earth was going to spiral into the sun or something. Of course, it won't.

This is how I arrived at the idea of 'can'; rather that telling kids that they have to play with certain toys, just show them all the toys and tell them they can play with anything they want, the emphasis being on 'they want'.

Studying psychology has left me with a habit of conducting observational studies whenever I get bored. You know when you watch people on the bus and silently judge them? Like that, but with a bit more science (only a bit). Basically, I've ended up spotting certain trends and patterns in my toy shop's little customers. Boys will look at the remote control cars first, girls go for the sticker books. Our jigsaw and peg puzzles can go either way, but girls tend to pick the animal themed ones and boys pick the vehicle ones. Absolutely everyone loves the things with dinosaurs on them.

Parents have a tendency to steer their children towards gender-aligned toys without even realising it. We have one particularly obnoxious customer who makes fun of his grandson by suggesting he wants a doll set. They tend to consider what the child should like, rather than what they do like.

I've found two very simple ways of avoiding this from happening; first, I ask what age range the adult is shopping for. This opens the door of showing them everything we have for that age, rather than boy/girl toys. This gets narrowed down by finding out what the child is good at - are they crafty? Do they paint? Do they like building things or playing pretend?

The second option is to ask the child. I know, it sounds simple, but try going to a toy shop with a child and see who they talk to. Engage the parent too, but ultimately the child is going to have a better idea of what they'll play with for hours and what they'll toss aside after ten minutes.

Gender roles still need to be challenged, but their barriers should be explained and allowed to dissipate rather than demonised; denying a girl the chance to play with dolls when they truly want to in the name of gender equality is as bad as denying a girl the chance to play with cars when they truly want to.

0 I'm okay, if your uke plays

Recently, my music taste has been leaning towards girl-centric bands; a brief foray into grrrl-rock with Bikini Kill and Babes In Toyland led me down the darker path of Hole and Jack Off Jill, straight back to the warm country house of my favourite, Amanda Palmer.

I love her. I love her music, I love her rebellious and open attitude and I love her husband (author Neil Gaiman). Her music is brilliantly open too; her song 'Oasis' has caused controversy nearly every time its hit the public eye, because it's a happy, upbeat, catchy song - about rape and abortion. Why not? As she says, people go through these things, and treating them as some miserable taboo does nothing to help. To me, she's a strong role model, and whenever I'm feeling down about myself I listen to her album.

My first proper female band obsession has to be Debbie Harry; I would listen to Ave Maria on repeat until one of my parents snapped and turned it off. Then I'd put on Heart Of Glass. She was unlike any of the women I was used to - she was edgy, still quite feminine, but not all the time. Most of my early teens was spent trying to be like her, and like all the other effortlessly cool girls who would hang around smoking and casual in town. It was difficult, though, because I wasn't comfortable, and it wasn't me.

This inner voice was reawakened by Florence + The Machine. Florence Welch is so incredibly stylish that when I accidentally bumped into her at a concert I just stared at her. I really hope she didn't think I was a stalker.

However, her figure is the direct opposite of mine - she's tall, thin, and a more masculine shape, whereas I am curvy, short, and busty. I was old enough to realise at this point, that I wouldn't be able to replicate her clothing choices. So I began thinking, I thought for several weeks, until the shoe finally dropped while listening to Amanda Palmer's post-label-dropping release, The Truth.

I spent so much time wanting to hang around cool people, wanting them to like me and let me share in their cool life, but I wasn't doing anything with my own life. Why can't I be cool too? There are so many brilliant people in the world, and the only thing stopping me becoming one is, well, me.

And that's why I like girl bands.

I've added some profiles from a few of my favourite, usually independent female recording artists; Amanda Palmer is, obviously, the same one as before. Jess Law is an old school friend of mine, and I cannot even begin to list her talents. Sophie Madeleine has a lovably delicate voice, accompanied by her uke.

0 Online shopping doesn't count.

At least, I hope it doesn't because I'm currently getting at least three packages a week. Today, my impulse purchases from ASOS arrived - they were offering me free next day delivery, how could I refuse? I've invested in these lovely hair combs, for when my hair is longer and less crazy scientisty.

The one on the left will make me look like I have little birds flying out of my hair (always a bonus), and the one on the right is so Art Deco I couldn't resist.

I also bought the Lomo Diana F camera, twice, at ridiculously cheap prices.

Diana F+ Quing Hua                                           Diana F+ Daybreak

Both cameras should have cost me at least £139, but thanks to eBay and the Urban Outfitters sale, I paid £68. The Quing Hua even had a roll of film in it, so that should be interesting.

I'm quite glad I bought these cameras now, as it is Birmingham's Clothes Show Live next week! I'm going on the 7th, the last day, platinum tickets, as I've done every year for, oooh, almost ten years, and its made me reminisce a bit about previous shows.

My favourite show is a difficult one to choose; the gumboot-dancing builders, the ethereal woman in a globe drifting across the stage, or the dress that was so long a platform in the catwalk had to raise the model high above us. I love the suspicious and random goody bags that have included everything from washing powder and elderflower juice to blue velvet thongs and 'personal topiary' kits.

I like that its a show, and it rarely disappoints, but alongside all the brilliance there have been some failures.

For some reason, Peaches Geldof was asked to host the catwalk sow - she stumbled through it, reading the names of the (admittedly dubious) celebrities off her hand, and then literally stumbled when the lights were turned out to start the show. I vividly remember Dave Berry just stepping over her and walking off. The theme last year was a bit shaky too, with the completely obvious choice of 'Christmas'.

When you hold a fashion show every year at the same time, just before Christmas, at no point should you consider Christmas to be a valid theme. It isn't even a style of dress, really.

The stalls themselves are usually wonderful, showcasing brands I never would have heard of, had I not seen them at the Clothes Show; Buddhist Punk, Lulu + Red, Religion, and a wide variety of vintage and student brands. There's bargains aplenty, especially on the last day when a lot of haggling goes on.

As the popularity of the Clothes Show, there have been stalls turning up who haven't really got the hang of it yet; they consider themselves to be brilliantly cool and popular for getting in and aren't we lucky they're letting us buy their clothes? The worst thing a seller has ever said to me?

"You know, I could take this back to my shop and sell it for twice the price!"

So I agreed, put down my purchases, and walked off. They weren't a brand, and I can't remember who they are, but I remember the product, the person, and the bad experience. One sentence I was enough to make me never want to shop with them again. Its a shame, because the whole point of this show is to introduce your brand to the public, to make deals and build relationships. This stall was overpriced, unwilling to haggle, and considered the Clothes Show to be a boutique rather than a marketing opportunity. Lame.

I'm looking forward to it this year, and am hoping its a return to the old days of the fashion show. If the theme is Christmas, I'll be so disappointed.