27 March 2013


On Sugared Snips and Spiced Snails
(Warning: In this post I am rather harsher than I usually come across)

I've always hated this movie--but not for the reason you think

Turnabout is fair play, aye? After I wrote last Sunday's post on the ultimate meaninglessness of empowering girls by trying to make them more like boys, I wondered whether there was an equivalent for boys. "Is there a group of grown men," I asked myself, "who are trying to level the playing field for boys by encouraging them to be more like girls?"

Then it hit me: THERE IS!

Still not the reason you think

A friend of mine likes to say that Harry Potter isn't a realistic character because he is not like a real boy. He is, however, a telling character, because he is what J.K. Rowling believes a real boy is like. (My friend was not surprised to learn that when Rowling was writing the first books in the series, she was a single mother of a daughter.) I could say the exact same thing about "kick-butt" heroines: they are what their creators believe boys are really like--and of course, all those creators happen to be women.

So you see how it all falls apart if it turns out that boys aren't really like that, right?

"A good novel tells us the truth about its hero, but a bad novel tells us the truth about its author," said G.K. Chesterton, author of a lot of bad novels. LOL! (But seriously, he must know something about it then, aye?) What these stories with "kick-butt" heroines tell us is that their authors blame the restraints of culture and society for holding women back. Why else would they base their girl protagonists on not just any boys, but on boys who defy their own restraints: the rebels, the iconoclasts, the dirty fighters, the rakes, the bastards? And why else would the vast majority of these stories be set in pseudo-medieval or dystopian worlds where restraints can be easily demonised?

Now, my point is not to say that certain restraints don't exist or that they are all good. It is to say that "kick-butt" characters are as inaccurate as any Hollywood "yellowface" performance.

And the plot thickens because, as I hinted earlier, somewhere in the world there are male writers who are basing their own "alpha" heroes on what they think women are really like. They honestly believe that women have smashed through all the aforementioned restraints and have revealed their true selves to be amoral, shallow, flighty, heartless, backbiting, gold-digging "girls gone wild." And they think that in order for a man to make it in what has become a woman's world, he must beat his oppressors at their own game.

So they produce a body of literature which is as ultimately meaningless as the "kick-butt" canon, but the especially ugly manner in which they go about it emphasises what you may not have seen in the first bunch of books: they're all based on envy.

Basically, if you think that the opposite sex has all the power--and has it at your expense--then you are envy's little bitch.

(I use a female metaphor to be as gender inclusive as possible. =P)

Image Sources: Breakfast at Tiffany's images


Terry Nelson said...

This post is for women, right?

Enbrethiliel said...


I knew that if anyone would get it, it would be you.

xoxo ;-)

Sheila said...

I admit I don't get it. I'm pretty sure I've never read fiction like this. Is there any way I can talk you into giving an actual example of what you mean?

Enbrethiliel said...


All you have to do is ask! =D

The reason you've never read fiction like this is that the writings I'm referring to are mostly found on the Internet--and they are written as "fact"! (So I guess you could say that they are fictional only inasmuch as they are delusional. =P) There are a lot of modern men who have been conditioned to hate women, and they blog about it with all the force of a nuclear bomb. I hope you don't mind if I don't link to any of them!

There are a couple of printed books which I could probably mention, but as I haven't read them, I will stick to the "body of literature" that I am familiar with.

DMS said...

This is an interesting post for sure! I had to read it twice. :)

Sheila said...

Oh, I have read a little of that trash. But I always click away in a hurry, because I can't abide it.

Enbrethiliel said...


Jess -- Thanks for reading!

Sheila -- I know, right?!

Spacetraveller said...


Noooooooo idea what you are talking about.

Actually, is there a case for blaming God here?
Why did he make women so blind to men's nature and men so blind to women's nature?

Why is it 'never the twain shall meet'?
This makes intergender relations rather difficult.
Is this a 'fitness test' for humanity, I wonder?

Why is it like this??
Is it simply a challenge for us all to overcome, or is it meant to be an insurmountable wall?

Enbrethiliel said...


Oh, I would never blame God for something that's clearly all our fault! =P

This post isn't about men's nature or women's nature per se, but about what some men and some women think the nature of the opposite sex is. I'm saying that they think it because they believe the opposite sex has all the power, while their own sex is powerless. And I'm calling BS on that belief.

Belfry Bat said...

I will speak more emphatically than E: absolutely not is this a case for blaming God for anything. Ignorance of our complements' nature is a consequence of ignorance each of our own proper nature, which in turn is a consequence of The Fall, which (if you will remember like it were yesterday) was prompted with temptations unto knowledge, of all things. The particularlities of how this relates to the present false gnosis I'd rather leave to E, as she has studied these things more closely than I.