Why the Bad Wolf Is Bad-Ass
I HAD AN EPIPHANY! The reason that people don't like Rose Tyler is that she has basically zero flaws. She's "too heroic." So maybe that ultimately makes her flat as a character.
(norhythmthatsme)
Rose is
It can kind of get annoying, I suppose, because Rose commits no mistakes. It's like she's perfect. She's unfazed no matter how trapped she may be, and always seems to know what to do even if the situation seems hopeless. I mean, the only real blatant error she makes is creating a time paradox by saving her father from getting run over ("Fathers Day"). Even then, her "mistake" is totally understandable. Who would stand idly by while their father dies?
I also feel that people may be uncomfortable seeing such a strong female character. She is rarely a damsel and distress and goes down fighting. I mean, even in series one "The Parting of Ways," SHE saves the DOCTOR by erasing the Daleks from time. HAHAHA. Talk about #boss. OH, and did I mention how she saved him in "Rose"? Uhhh talk about kick-assery swinging from chains in a dingy, dank warehouse with an angry Nestene Consciousness. She doesn't need saving because she can save herself. And that's what makes it so poignant in "The Parting of Ways" when the Doctor says, "Rose, I'm coming to get you." Cuz it's like they're a team. They take turns rescuing each other. It's so different from the way that women are usually portrayed (as helpless waifs, objects of male conquest, sexualized ornaments, nagging mothers/wives, emotionless dominatrix sexpots).
After a certain while it can be tiresome to watch Rose and the Doctor (either Nine or Ten) because it does seem one-note how she's basically a flawless person. Frankly, though, as a feminist I love her character. I was thinking about Amy Pond, and it occurred to me that if all of the companions were as assertive and brave and confident and fantastic as Rose, then they'd be Rose, and not themselves. Amy has to be distinct.. as in an almost total foil of Rose. She's pretty infantile in her sentiments and reasoning, naive, conflicted and flaky (with Rory), dependent on the Doctor like her Daddy ("Daddy makes all me problems go away").. SO she likes the Doctor and adventures (kind of)--I mean those are the only two traits I feel that she shares with Rose.
Feminists treasure strong female leads in movies and books, right? BUT if we're really trying to be equals with men, it also makes sense that feminists should be okay with a RANGE of female personalities. The privilege that men have is that they're represented in myriad ways--as heroes, a villains, as cowards, as drunkards--basically everything under the sun. I can understand how weak female characters may perpetrate the stereotype and assumption that women are the "weaker sex," but after a certain point, can weak female characters be admissible, part and parcel of the "progress" of a diversity of representation of women in the media?
Women can be strong, they can be weak, they can be crass, they can do martial arts (FREEMA AGYEMAN!). The point here is to acknowledge the diversity within diversity (there are pluralistic realities and forms of self-expression within the demographic of "women").
THAT BEING SAID,
Rose is for sure the feminist ideal of a strong, smart, independent woman. She may not be realistic but that's kind of the point. She's a symbol, an elusive myth or legend of all that a woman could possibly be.
tylerdrrdn
Separate appreciation post for Rita forthcoming. Maybe.
This is disjointed and hardly thorough, but I wanted to type this all down before I forgot!
(norhythmthatsme)
Rose is
- intuitive
- brave
- adventurous
- strong
- smart/witty
- independent
- personable (she's basically becomes homiez with whatever peeps/aliens she finds)
- compassionate
- down to earth
- unafraid of feeling her emotions
- beautiful
It can kind of get annoying, I suppose, because Rose commits no mistakes. It's like she's perfect. She's unfazed no matter how trapped she may be, and always seems to know what to do even if the situation seems hopeless. I mean, the only real blatant error she makes is creating a time paradox by saving her father from getting run over ("Fathers Day"). Even then, her "mistake" is totally understandable. Who would stand idly by while their father dies?
I also feel that people may be uncomfortable seeing such a strong female character. She is rarely a damsel and distress and goes down fighting. I mean, even in series one "The Parting of Ways," SHE saves the DOCTOR by erasing the Daleks from time. HAHAHA. Talk about #boss. OH, and did I mention how she saved him in "Rose"? Uhhh talk about kick-assery swinging from chains in a dingy, dank warehouse with an angry Nestene Consciousness. She doesn't need saving because she can save herself. And that's what makes it so poignant in "The Parting of Ways" when the Doctor says, "Rose, I'm coming to get you." Cuz it's like they're a team. They take turns rescuing each other. It's so different from the way that women are usually portrayed (as helpless waifs, objects of male conquest, sexualized ornaments, nagging mothers/wives, emotionless dominatrix sexpots).
After a certain while it can be tiresome to watch Rose and the Doctor (either Nine or Ten) because it does seem one-note how she's basically a flawless person. Frankly, though, as a feminist I love her character. I was thinking about Amy Pond, and it occurred to me that if all of the companions were as assertive and brave and confident and fantastic as Rose, then they'd be Rose, and not themselves. Amy has to be distinct.. as in an almost total foil of Rose. She's pretty infantile in her sentiments and reasoning, naive, conflicted and flaky (with Rory), dependent on the Doctor like her Daddy ("Daddy makes all me problems go away").. SO she likes the Doctor and adventures (kind of)--I mean those are the only two traits I feel that she shares with Rose.
Feminists treasure strong female leads in movies and books, right? BUT if we're really trying to be equals with men, it also makes sense that feminists should be okay with a RANGE of female personalities. The privilege that men have is that they're represented in myriad ways--as heroes, a villains, as cowards, as drunkards--basically everything under the sun. I can understand how weak female characters may perpetrate the stereotype and assumption that women are the "weaker sex," but after a certain point, can weak female characters be admissible, part and parcel of the "progress" of a diversity of representation of women in the media?
Women can be strong, they can be weak, they can be crass, they can do martial arts (FREEMA AGYEMAN!). The point here is to acknowledge the diversity within diversity (there are pluralistic realities and forms of self-expression within the demographic of "women").
THAT BEING SAID,
Rose is for sure the feminist ideal of a strong, smart, independent woman. She may not be realistic but that's kind of the point. She's a symbol, an elusive myth or legend of all that a woman could possibly be.
tylerdrrdn
Separate appreciation post for Rita forthcoming. Maybe.
This is disjointed and hardly thorough, but I wanted to type this all down before I forgot!