- This topic has 42 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
So, I’ve noticed that a lot of our recent conversations about OUAT involve discussions of gender — sometimes tackled directly, sometimes not so much. So perhaps this warrants its own thread, that way we’re not confined to character analysis threads.
Since this topic of gender and its many variations — gender roles, “strong” women, concepts of femininity and masculinity, questions of LGBT representation, the nature of relationships and what constitutes family/kinship etc — seem to crop up regularly, here’s a couple of questions:
1) Is OUAT, at its core, a reflection on gender? I’m asking because there are obviously other things going on in it, but insofar as a show usually explores some kind of core social or moral quandary, is this one of OUAT’s primary foci?*
* (This isn’t to say this is the only topic, but rather a prominent one. In the same way that we may say that Battlestar Galactica was a show about what constitutes human nature in relation to humans’ creations, or a show like The Expanse is about colonialism and class, but in a sci-fi setting).
2) Does OUAT have a specific gender ideology? Are there systematic themes to the way in which it represents women? Men? What about romantic relationships? Kinship? Parenthood?
3) Is it sometimes written in a way that is purposefully polarizing? Can we think of the “ship wars” in the fandom as actually “culture wars” over gender roles and representations of relationships?
[adrotate group="5"]1) Is OUAT, at its core, a reflection on gender? I’m asking because there are obviously other things going on in it, but insofar as a show usually explores some kind of core social or moral quandary, is this one of OUAT’s primary foci?*
I think in the beginning it wanted to be a reflection on gender. Our three lead characters were all women in various stages of their lives–the Evil Queen, Snow, and Emma. I mean, it’s almost some sort of Crone, Mother, Maiden triumvirate, but subtly twisted–especially with Emma in which her Maiden status was more about her innocence about where she came from and who her family really was. The show took traditional images of women and carefully twisted them in fun way. Snow might be the princess in a pretty gown, but she also wore leathers, furs, hunted, trapped, tracked, and actually got the betterment of Charming in “Snow Falls.” Our first image of Emma is in a skin tight, highly sexual dress (with shoes that would probably knock you unconscious), but it turns out that she’s scamming the guy on her date, has a job that is traditionally “male” and is self sufficient. Further, when her long lost son finds her, her plan isn’t to get cookies and milk and lament all about how she wished they had each other, she took him back to SB because that was his home. She didn’t turn into a puddle of goo around him; she maintained some distance. Slowly, with some great development Emma let her “mother” side through.
What happens over time is that those characters and their interesting twists in traditional gender roles became less complicated. They became rather one note. Regina, Snow and Emma all became “mother” in the most basic sense–when they needed redeemed or humanized, they have their child inserted into the scene (see, for example, every time Baby Snowflake suddenly appears, being carried by Snow. It’s always when there is some sort of emotional scene in which Snow needs to look protective and usually weepy or highly emotional)
I’ll just stick with the females for now.
2) Does OUAT have a specific gender ideology? Are there systematic themes to the way in which it represents women? Men? What about romantic relationships? Kinship? Parenthood?
I don’t know if we can call it specific gender ideology because they change it with the passing seasons. I also can’t remove what A and E (and the actors) have said about the characters in questions. It often doesn’t match how I’m reading the OUAT text–or how a lot of people are reading the text. So that’s another factor. A and E continually say that Emma is a strong woman, but to me she lost that status around season 4B. I think the writers know that some gender ideologies are buzzwords. You want to be talked about, then you claim to write “strong women.” It’s a buzzword in culture right now largely due to conversations happening about gendered language, rape culture, and privilege. TV is a business. You don’t want to say that you’re following trends that are decades old, instead you try to say that you’re not normative. But with every passing season, every time a woman’s story is reduced to simply being one half of a heterosexual relationship, every time it ignores woman of color or different sexuality, it gets harder to argue that OUAT isn’t normative.
3) Is it sometimes written in a way that is purposefully polarizing? Can we think of the “ship wars” in the fandom as actually “culture wars” over gender roles and representations of relationships?
I stopped believing the writers do anything on purpose a long time ago. I don’t think they are being purposefully polarizing because they don’t realize it is polarizing. People who call the writers out on issues get called “not fans” or “haters” or are told “keep watching. Hope you like what you see!” They never answer the criticism or really even listen to it in any meaningful way. They don’t get the problem so they aren’t certainly aren’t doing it on purpose.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"They definitely seem to want to present “strong” women–and one thing I liked a LOT was that with women like Belle, Regina, and Snow White, strength came out in different ways that did not require (much) masculinization/sacrifice of femininity. (The omg-I-can’t-do-anything-I’m-in-a-skirt trope bugs the heck out of me, and Once has mostly evaded that one.)
Belle, for example, is all girl, and not much of a physical fighter, but she still beats up pirates and defeats yaoguai and saves the day on the rare occasions that she gets screentime. They even built her up to be a real character with a complex set of motives, fears, and conflicting desires (omg Family Business)…though their recent opportunities to explore that have been inconsistent at best (insert headesk over 509/10/11 here).
Anyway.
Men in Once have been shown to be sensitive and as concerned about family (and as affected by it) as the women. Even with Mary Margaret’s baby obsession I think David’s desire for babies was the stronger one. We’ve seen all our leading men weep at one time or another, and I don’t feel as though it was portrayed as a weakness in any of them (though it was occasionally treated as such by background characters).
So there is a worldview being presented that does challenge some dominant stereotypes, though they’ve been challenged plenty of times elsewhere. What’s more valuable, when they do it–as they did better in S1 than they have since mid S2–is when they give us three-dimensional, dynamic characters who are people first, with gender identity being only one aspect of their humanity.
Keeper of Belle's Gold magic, sand dollar, cloaks, purple FTL outfit, spell scroll, library key, copy of Romeo and Juliet, and cry-muffling pillow, Rumple's doll, overcoat, and strength, and The Timeline. My spreadsheet: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6r8CySCCWd9R0RUNm4xR3RhMEU/view?usp=sharing
They definitely seem to want to present “strong” women
I agree that they want to–I’m just not sure it’s all that successful.
Belle is a pretty good example. You did a nice job of laying out how she can be very feminine but doesn’t have to be masculine in her moments of being the hero. But while she’s not the omg-I-can’t-do-anything-I’m-in-a-skirt trope, she is a certain type of Sexy Librarian trope–all the brains and all the looks. I seriously expect her to be chewing on the end of a pencil, leaning over a book, with her breasts exposed any day now. Basically this:
And while she does occasionally get fleshed out in her flashbacks, her present day is seriously lacking in the strong woman department. Her entire story is about Rumple/Rumbelle. Any attempt at a life outside of Rumple is never given any screen time–actually being a librarian (does anyone besides Belle go into the library except when they need to solve the Problem-Of-The Arc?); her complicated relationship with her father was handwaved way so that it’s all fixed now and he walked her down the aisle, but nothing since then; any friend Belle makes–Ruby, Mulan, Anna–are dismissed without any sort of closure for Belle and the rest of the female main characters pay her no attention, rarely speak to unless they need information, and almost never offer her comfort when things happen to her.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"I think in the beginning it wanted to be a reflection on gender.
I agree that the show certainly was meant to be a new take on the traditional 1950’s Disney version of Snow White (which portrayed Snow as more of a flat, cookie-cutter princess character). By contrast, in season one Emma Swan informed Graham that one doesn’t have to dress a woman as a man to give her authority. Snow White corrected Charming for calling her a girl, insisting that no, she was a woman, before she knocked him out cold with a rock. Regina had authority over everyone in the town, with the possible exception of Mr. Gold, but really she was suffering from mommy issues. There were so many rich and complex interactions between the generations of Snow and Regina, not to mention Emma and Snow. Then there was a totally new dynamic of Emma and Regina both vying for the title of mother in Henry’s life. Slowly, that unique dynamic has played out to the point now where Regina and Emma basically co-parent their son together.
What happens over time is that those characters and their interesting twists in traditional gender roles became less complicated. They became rather one note. Regina, Snow and Emma all became “mother” in the most basic sense–when they needed redeemed or humanized, they have their child inserted into the scene
I think motherhood used to be a prominent theme that the show took in an interesting new direction. After all, both Emma and Regina have shared true love’s kiss only with their son. That says something about the significance of the maternal bond on this show, and how parental love can be the strongest of all. Sadly, as RG wrote, motherhood only gets promoted when it’s convenient to do so now. Rarely do Emma and Regina interact with Henry anymore (Dreamcatcher was a rare exception). Hardly does one ever see Emma and Snow ever even talk anymore. David and Snow may as well have played no part in trying to save Emma from the dark one curse. Now, Snow, Regina, Robin and David just up and left their infants and toddlers in SB to go to Hell. So, yeah, the unique angle that the show had about the importance of love between children and parents went up in smoke.
I don’t know if we can call it specific gender ideology because they change it with the passing seasons. I also can’t remove what A and E (and the actors) have said about the characters in questions. It often doesn’t match how I’m reading the OUAT text–or how a lot of people are reading the text. So that’s another factor. A and E continually say that Emma is a strong woman, but to me she lost that status around season 4B.
Totally concur.
I stopped believing the writers do anything on purpose a long time ago. I don’t think they are being purposefully polarizing because they don’t realize it is polarizing.
I tend to disagree here. Just because the writers don’t respond to valid criticism online, it doesn’t mean they’re unaware of the issues in their own characterization. For instance, back in Skin Deep, Regina had a line to the effect of “I would never suggest a woman kiss a man who held her captive. What kind of message is that?” Jane Espenson can be quite sly, because clearly, she is aware of Stockholm Syndrome being something that isn’t good to promote to women, and yet…you see how it goes.
I’m open to the possibility the writers are aware that certain characters can be quite polarizing (e.g. Hook, Rumple). The writers then seem to insert snarky comment (usually from Regina and more recently Zelena) which seems to be a stand in for the more critical fans. Yet, the writers then proceed to include these controversial characters in romantic scenes with fan favorites. So it’s almost like the writers are trying to have their cake and eat it too by appeasing some shipping fans while also walking the tight-rope of inserting snarky zingers.
"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy
They definitely seem to want to present “strong” women
I agree that they want to–I’m just not sure it’s all that successful.
Belle is a pretty good example. You did a nice job of laying out how she can be very feminine but doesn’t have to be masculine in her moments of being the hero. But while she’s not the omg-I-can’t-do-anything-I’m-in-a-skirt trope, she is a certain type of Sexy Librarian trope–all the brains and all the looks. I seriously expect her to be chewing on the end of a pencil, leaning over a book, with her breasts exposed any day now. Basically this:
And while she does occasionally get fleshed out in her flashbacks, her present day is seriously lacking in the strong woman department. Her entire story is about Rumple/Rumbelle. Any attempt at a life outside of Rumple is never given any screen time–actually being a librarian (does anyone besides Belle go into the library except when they need to solve the Problem-Of-The Arc?); her complicated relationship with her father was handwaved way so that it’s all fixed now and he walked her down the aisle, but nothing since then; any friend Belle makes–Ruby, Mulan, Anna–are dismissed without any sort of closure for Belle and the rest of the female main characters pay her no attention, rarely speak to unless they need information, and almost never offer her comfort when things happen to her.
And you’ve seen me rant every time they’ve cut her character and potential story out of the picture unnecessarily, too 🙂
I think they’ve done some very good things with most of the mains at some point, but they’ve also got a lot of failings and a LOTLOTLOT of dropped threads that really seem to be due to the OOH SHINY syndrome of thinking of a new toy or plot twist and forgetting the set ups that they already have, or even storylines they already promised to tell.
Keeper of Belle's Gold magic, sand dollar, cloaks, purple FTL outfit, spell scroll, library key, copy of Romeo and Juliet, and cry-muffling pillow, Rumple's doll, overcoat, and strength, and The Timeline. My spreadsheet: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6r8CySCCWd9R0RUNm4xR3RhMEU/view?usp=sharing
I’m open to the possibility the writers are aware that certain characters can be quite polarizing
Oh I totally think the writers know that those characters are polarizing. I just don’t think they get “why” outside of shipping wars (i.e: they believe that the reason so many don’t like Hook is just because “he prevents someone from being with someone else”).
I guess my question is: if the writers *are* writing these characters to be deliberately polarizing, what is their end game? Do they, in the end, pull up the curtain to reveal a fairly solid message about gender, gender depictions, power dynamics? I don’t think the writers are trying to say something about the culture war–which is such a big part of this shipping wars in this fandom–but are simply part of that war with their own piece of media.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"I guess my question is: if the writers *are* writing these characters to be deliberately polarizing, what is their end game? Do they, in the end, pull up the curtain to reveal a fairly solid message about gender, gender depictions, power dynamics? I don’t think the writers are trying to say something about the culture war–which is such a big part of this shipping wars in this fandom–but are simply part of that war with their own piece of media.
Yes, they are stalling, and have been stalling. A lot of the time, the last few episodes of a given show really dictate the major themes and opinions of the writers on said show. I just recently finished a show, and I thought the final 5 episodes were just unreal, the best writing the show had ever produced. It was as if they knew that was their end game, and just needed to get there. It’s why I usually try and stick around to the end of shows. I do think once an end date is set, we will start to get very solid messages, and hopefully some important character moments, etc that bring the show home to a close. This has been my hope.
Hey! This turned into an interesting discussion! Yay! Ok, I finally have a minute, so I’ll tackle my own questions, though much of what I would have said was already covered by you folks. I’ll focus on women in this post, and then I’ll add another question about men.
1) Is OUAT, at its core, a reflection on gender? I’m asking because there are obviously other things going on in it, but insofar as a show usually explores some kind of core social or moral quandary, is this one of OUAT’s primary foci?*
I think that this is where OUAT started — insofar as a specific gender ideology is prevalent in fairytales, Season 1 (so, what I think was the ‘core’ of the show, with all the fresh ideas and well-worked out cosmology) was tackling them head-on. I also remember that it positioned itself explicitly as a feminist show, about strong female characters. Emma and Regina you guys have tackled perfectly. @Keb, I fully agree with you that there were different versions of feminine strength that were possible. Most of the female characters early on were also incredibly complex, 3-dimensional, and different from each other.
2) Does OUAT have a specific gender ideology? Are there systematic themes to the way in which it represents women? Men? What about romantic relationships? Kinship? Parenthood?
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned I think, and a source of “trouble” on OUAT from the start, was the portrayal of female sexuality. That, I think, has been very very consistently, shall we say, “anxious.” Sexually (or just sensually) aggressive women tend to be portrayed on OUAT as villains (or temporarily villainous, like Dark One Emma). This isn’t to say that women are completely denied sexual agency, but that I think there is a sense that a more “passive” role is more appropriate. Certainly, the seductress is consistently vilified, and actually very often any “seduction” actually takes the form of rape. This is Regina/Graham and Zelena/Robin dynamics — remove the magic, and what you’d see is seduction. Add the magic, and you get rape. The “trope” of course is extremely old: many many cultures (and religious traditions) tend to think of female sexuality as “polluting” or “dangerous” to men, such that there are all sorts of taboos on intimacy before big events, like say, a hunt. It’s all over the anthropological record. The reason I bring this up is that we can’t talk about this without talking about gender and power.
Similarly, there is a lot that can be said about an implied “male gaze” in relation to the cinematography and costumes. Consider, for example, Regina’s collection of EQ dresses. In fact, as Regina becomes less evil, she begins to dress more and more demurely. Even the more edgy suit is replaced by the much more conservative business attire, scarves, and an overcoat.
Belle is a bit of an exception in this. Belle’s outfits tend towards the “sexy librarian” trope, and that’s actually very consistent, but I think this is in context of Rumbelle and Gold’s “Wall street” look. A small digression, if I may: I have a lot of problems with how Rumbelle is written lately that pertains directly to gender. But the aesthetics of Rumbelle have been extremely consistent throughout the show, in a way that other couples haven’t been, and it’s the “businessman/secretary” trope. The only thing that has saved Rumbelle from coming off as sleazy (see my post about power differentials in relationships) is that Belle is, consistently, the more forward one. I don’t know if it’s the script, RC’s interpretation of Rumple, or something the directors were explicitly suggesting, but Rumple’s “bumbling fool” metamorphosis every time Belle (or back in the day Lacey) is around, especially in the earlier seasons, saved Rumbelle from deteriorating into an offensive cliche about Powerful Men and their submissive Interns.
3) Is it sometimes written in a way that is purposefully polarizing? Can we think of the “ship wars” in the fandom as actually “culture wars” over gender roles and representations of relationships?
I’ve already talked about Emma/Hook elsewhere, but one thing that might be brought up here is @Slurpeez ‘s comment about Emma’s “Martha Stuart” dress. This makes me think that the show runners aren’t stupid, and are doing some of this consciously. Emma is essentially donning a dress that isn’t her at all. Neither Savior!Emma nor DO!Emma would be caught dead in that housewife outfit. And she’s calling Hook out on it too — she’s asking, not in so many words, whether he’s feeling less threatened by her when she adopts this more demure, traditional look. And sure enough, he’s now willing, albeit grumpily, to talk to her. In retrospect, I read that scene as Emma seeing that she is compromising who she is, and still doing it, but with a heck of a lot of resentment.
So in other words, I don’t think it’s just Hook who is polarizing, although he is (as is Rumple), and maybe we can tackle masculinity in a different post. I think the relationships depicted are written in polarizing ways. And I think it’s achieved through a combination of several different ‘messages’: for example, there’s the writing, there’s the acting, and then there’s the cinematography and aesthetics. For example, we have interesting tensions. If you take into account that costumes are a HUGE part of OUAT’s budget, and that a lot of information is being conveyed through them, I think it’s interesting that Hook’s costume hasn’t changed at all. I don’t think that’s entirely accidental, and not just because there’s a Hook™ being sold by ABC. After all, most other characters have at least 2 costume-personas, and some of these evolve over time, like Regina’s, Emma’s, and even Snow’s (not for the better, I might add). So while the CS text is being written as one thing, it’s aesthetics are potentially problematizing that text.
The topic ‘Gender in OUAT’ is closed to new replies.