The (Super)Hero and the Princess: On Role Models and Gender.
Neat! I’ve been called out- by JeffL over at Feministe. They’re talking about the princess syndrome- the way that little girls are always encouraged to be “little princesses.” JeffL remarked that “Superheroes are to boys as princesses are to girls — an impossible to obtain role model,” a sentiment that I strongly disagree with. Since the comment is kind of a side-track from the point of that thread, and since I was given pretty free reign to post as I see fit, I’m going to take the opportunity to address it.
Besides, I’ve got a “comics” category button, and I’m itching to use it.
First, the comment (as I understand it): The post that started this all was from a woman who was bothered by the way that many people constantly encourage her young daughter to be a “princess” or assume that her daughter is going to want pink/princess themed things. The idea here is that little girls are constantly fed the notion that their worth comes from their physical appearence (side note: I’d argue that little girls are actually presented with two options for worth- as a princess, or as a house-maid. These are the two most common themes for young girl’s toys- princess gear, or baby dolls and fake kitchens/vacuums/etc). In the words of Jill, “The problem, though, is that these girls are loaded with the burden of not only being as successful and ambitious as their male peers, but looking and acting perfect while they do it.”
JeffL seems to be arguing (and I apologize if I get your point wrong, Jeff) that boys face the same, or at least a similar, problem in the form of comic book heroes. As evidence, he points to Batman- rich industrialist turned super-hero. Jeff points to certain facts about Batman that boys are presumably expected to emulate or see as aspects of their worth: “…never show one whit of emotion, except anger. And be tall, muscular and athletic. And speak in a deep, commanding voice. Each characteristic as damning as the coiffed hair & high heels”
There are several things that I see as problematic with Jeff’s analysis. First, to address his take on Batman: Batman is a flawed hero, and the comics never make a secret of that fact. Sure, he’s about as physically perfect as a human being could possibly be- he’s spent years training to be in peak physical condition. None of us are going to be able to do the things he does, because he’s a fantasy character, but there’s no secret made about the sacrifice that Batman made to become what he is. Jeff mentions “never show a whit of emotion” as though it’s presented as a positive trait within the comics. It isn’t. Batman’s inability or lack of desire (depending on the writer) to connect with and trust other characters is almost always presented as a flaw of the character- his failure to form meaningful/lasting relationships is something he struggles with, not something the reader is supposed to see as a positive trait.
The bigger issue I have with Jeff’s comment, though, is that it pretends that all heroes have the same set of traits- that there’s nearly as much consistancy in super heroes as there is among princesses. There isn’t. Heroes come in all shapes and sizes. Batman is the dark, emotionless loner who tries to scare villains. Does that fit Superman as well?
I think not.
Let’s look at four of the most popular comic characters out there- two from DC, and two from Marvel.
Batman: Wealthy orphan, no super powers, trains night and day to be “perfect,” has trouble expressing emotions or forming meaningful relationships.
Spider-Man: Comes from a lower income family, science nerd turned hero as a result of an accident, wise-cracking and fun-loving as Spider-Man, has confidence issues- constantly worried about “doing the right thing.”
Super-Man: Comes from a middle-class family in Kansas, physically is one of the most powerful beings on the planet, is generally portrayed as being a “boy scout,” mild mannered and meek as Clark, but always friendly and willing to lend a helping hand.
Wolverine: Violent, ugly, short man who is traditionally a smoker and a drinker. Has more in common with Clint Eastwood characters than with most other heroes, pretends to be a major loner, but forms strong bonds with other characters whom he sees as his family.
Of the four, three are generally depicted as being attractive. All of the, I’ll grant, are depicted as physically strong when in costume. Two of them have origins that focus on them being smart. All of them are, interestingly enough, orphans. Two of them don’t have any trouble forming relationships with other characters (although Wolverine pretends to). All of them have various flaws that form the bulk of drama in their books- none of them are presented to the reader as flawless.
And that’s just if we only look at the most popular characters. The great thing about comic books is that there are so many characters. The majority of the X-Men aren’t attractive exactly- they’re cool looking, but it’s clear that there’s no expectation that you’re going to grow up to look like them.
And that’s another issue that I think Jeff over-looks. The focus of the princess syndrome is on the little girl being just like a princess. The problem with that is that the only thing a princess has going for her is that she is a princess. She has to be pretty, and royalty. That’s about it. Super heroes aren’t defined by their physical abilities or what they look like, generally speaking. Batman isn’t Batman because he’s a great looking guy in a bat costume- he’s Batman because he’s trying to protect people, and this is the way he thinks he can best do it. The moral of Spider-Man isn’t “Spider powers make you a great hero” it’s “With great power comes great responsibility.” Comic heroes are defined by what they do, while “pretty princesses” are defined by what they look like.
Some of the more interesting heroes aren’t particularly attractive, or if they are, it doesn’t matter, because they wear a costume that hides the fact. Again, Wolverine is not an attractive man- it’s frequently pointed out, in fact, that he’s short, and kind of old, and fairly unkempt. What’s interesting about him is what he does, not what he looks like. Comics are full of characters like this- the Wesley Dodds Sandman (late middle-aged, slightly over-weight, glasses), Mr. Fantastic (middle aged, married, grey streaks in hair, no athletic ability, scientist), Ben Grimm/the Thing (massive guy made out of rock- his “ugly” looks have been the topic of more than one FF story-arc), Hank McCoy/the Beast (looks have gone from ape-like, to blue fur, fangs and claws, to very cat-like), Cable (a cyborg with massive scarring, and a receeding hairline), Professor X (older, bald man in a wheelchair), Daredevil (blind lawyer), etc, etc.
Comic heroes can be anything from actors, to scientists (a lot of them are scientists caught in experiments gone wrong), to high-school kids, to athletes, to lawyers- the possibilities are endless. And, all along the way, a kid is constantly told “X isn’t a hero because of his powers- he’s a hero because of what he does with his powers.” That’s practically the mantra of modern comic books. You’re a hero for your actions, not for your powers. Powers let you do things, but characters are still heroes, even without powers- Marvel wrote stories about how several characters would still be heroes without powers, titled, aptly enough, Powerless.
And that is the big difference- heroes are heroes by what they do. Princesses are not.
December 28th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Game on, Roy!
You’ve characterized my comments correctly, but I should point out the superhero/princess analogy wasn’t originally mine, I was just agreeing with an earlier commenter.
The discussion at Feministe, and the context for my thought, is that little girls (say, 6 years old) look at the princesses as role models, and that the role models, as presented, are more harmful than helpful. I think you make a bunch of good points here, but I think your missing that context.
Just as the Patriarchs at Disney homogonized Belle & Mulan & all the others, so to has Time Warner distilled Supes & Batman & Spidey down to good looking men in tights who Always Do the Right Thing. Agreed, that’s not the comic book heroes you & I love, but that IS the role model the Patriarchy is presenting to those 6 year old boys and, again it’s those homogenized role model that do the damage, not the original source material.
Interestingly, I think the same is true for the Princesses. Mulan is a hero, a true warrior. But by the time she made it to the t-shirts, toys & coloring books, she’s nothing more than pretty face in a Japanese dress .
Really? All the “mainstream” Superheros got that way by an accident of birth (Superman, X-men) or just plain accident (Spidey). Even Batman, the one with out any powers still relied on the being born into the right family to fund his evolution into a Superhero. How is that any different than being the one with the Fairy Godmother, or the one born daughter to the king? The archetype of either the Superhero or the princess is presented as someone luckier than the reader/viewer, who then did something “good” with that luck.
December 28th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
One of the disappointing things about dragging super heroes into this discussion has been the notable lack of super heroines discussed.
I wrote an essay earlier this summer that may be relevant here. (“My Super Stereotype Filled Movie!”)
While I wanted to be Cinderella and Ariel when I was very young (5 and 7, respectively), I wanted a whole lot more to be Jubilee and Rogue when I was older. And Delerium, Death, and Harley Quinn as I got even older.
And Power Girl, but that was last year, so I don’t think it counts.
If The Princess Collection had existed in the 80s, I would have been all over it.
But I turned out to be as un-Princessy as a gal can be…if you couldn’t tell my super herione name dropping.
December 28th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Jeff: Regarding the context- you’re absolutely right. I really ought to have taken more time with the post, and made the full context clearer, but you hit it very well.
That being said, I think you’ve also pointed out one of the big differences between the princess and the hero- the hero is a hero because he tries to “Always Do the Right Thing.” The Batman/Superman/Spider-Man that kids are shown *aren’t* flawless, though. Look through the stories that Marvel is putting out in their Marvel Age line (the “for kids” books) and you’ll see a Spider-Man that has a lot more in common with the original than with most of the stuff coming out in the Modern books. The Ultimate line of books (which are, according to Marvel, geared towards new readers- which I take to mean “kids.” Particularly in the case of Ultimate Spider-Man. The Ultimates would seem to contradict that line, though) show a very young, very awkward Peter Parker who doesn’t manage to always do the right thing, even though he tries.
“The archetype of either the Superhero or the princess is presented as someone luckier than the reader/viewer, who then did something “good” with that luck. ”
See, I have to disagree with that, too. The archtypal hero is a tragic one- he’s not luckier than the reader, and in many cases, would clearly trade places with the reader if he could. The powers come at a cost, and are frequently unwanted. Spider-Man’s friends and loved ones are constantly in danger. Batman loses his parents. The Hulk is a danger to everyone around him. The Thing is pretty significantly disfigured. The X-Men are (traditionally) social outcasts and victims of serious/violent prejudice. Superman is the “last of his kind.” Sure, they get powers- but those powers bring as much pain and baggage as anything else. Of course, as kids, we think the powers are great- who wouldn’t *love* to have Spider-Man’s powers? Does any child who reads comics not eventually realize “Wow. Batman’s life sucks”?
The more important difference, though, is in agency. The hero chooses to be a hero. This is offset by the villain, who, typically, also has powers, but chooses to be evil.
The princess doesn’t choose. Her value as a princess doesn’t come through her actions in the same way that the hero’s does- Spider-Man could easily use his powers for personal gain, but the mantra remains the same: With great power comes great responsibility.
But, generally speaking, what does the princess do? She’s pretty and kind, but she rarely does anything but make a nice trophy for the prince. Cinderella shows that, if you’re pretty enough (and have pretty things), you too can get Prince Charming.
That’s it.
That’s a pretty major difference, to me.
Obviously, not every hero is created the same, but, in general, I think that heroes make significantly better role models for boys than princesses for girls. =)
Red: You won’t see any argument from me. I’d love to see more intelligently written female characters become popular. I guess things are moving in that direction- more and more female characters are written as characters, instead of as props/fan service/plot devices, which is nice. But, there’s still resistance. Some readers won’t read a book about a female character, and I’ve seen parents refuse to buy a book for their child if the main character isn’t the same gender (mostly this works if it’s a boy child and a female character).
December 29th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Compare and contrast…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_male_superheroes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_superheroines
I never knew there were so many of ‘em!
January 4th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
[…] The best Wolverine stories are the ones that take advantage of what an interesting and well designed character he is. When you focus on the powers, you miss the point, and I think that’s the problem. Wolverine wasn’t interesting because he had healing powers- the powers, as I argued in this post, don’t make the hero, his actions do. Wolverine is a hero, and he needs to be written like one. If you’re writing Wolverine like the Punisher with claws, you’re doing it wrong. Wolverine is a classic hero character- albeit a tragic one- and he’s most interesting when he’s written like one. […]
May 15th, 2007 at 1:37 am
That was smexcellent
It said everything that’s been running thru my mind lately and more
May 15th, 2007 at 5:22 am
[…] Your When Fangirls Attack! link of the day: a look at superheroes and gender roles from male perspective, because every other goddamned link is to someone treating a statue like it was an attempt to piss on her tits. (Seriously, my sympathies to Ragnell in this matter.) […]
September 14th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Yes, of course they’re tragic, but dude, either I grew up in a particularly grisly place, or everybody’s life has tragedy, period, so it’s not like, I don’t wanna be Superwhoever because of the tragedy involved, it’s, I got all this pain, and I don’t even have superpowers to show for it!
And as for the Batman bit? Like the said in the current thread on feministe, it can take years to forgive your parents for being human. So would I have traded my parents’ life for being the girl-equivalent of Batman at that age? Three times before breakfast!
In fact, like many kids, I hated my parents at the time, so parents dead + large inheritance + being able to do whatever I want? Yeah, I’d definitely have counted that as “lucky” in my fantasies. Very, very lucky. In fact, I’m not even sure Batman’s life sucks. He has a ton of problems, admittedly — but then, who doesn’t, and at least he gets meaning, gets to have impact, where most of us don’t. It’s not perfect, but it’s more than most of us get. Oh, and intensity to boot.
Now, nitpicking on the details aside, I agree that the “princess” bit is awkward. In fact, it’s insidious. In fact, I think you may be a little off at that when you state, heroes are about what they do, princesses about what they are (beautiful). This is a very, very dangerous way of phrasing it: “Being interesting (or muscular, or …) takes constant work, wouldn’t you like to be beautiful instead?” Hell yes! I get to skip all the hard work? Sign me up! The thing is, in the real word, to no small extent, beauty is something you do. Whether it’s taking an hour to brush your hair, or do your legs, or exercise, or diet, it’s an ongoing process that takes time and often money. The thing however is that the actual process is often ridiculed and hidden, because, wink wink nudge nudge, we’re all naturally beautiful, of course. Like Jill said, “expected to do everything their male counterparts do, and excel at beauty at the same time.” If beauty were an innate quality that you either have or don’t have, this possibly wouldn’t be as much of a problem. The way things are it means, you’re supposed to spend as much effort as men (on being competent and getting things done), and then spend more time (and money) on being beautiful: fashion, hair, makeup, whatnot — and of course it’s a constant drain, because fashion changes, and makeup lines within the same company change, and unless you get tailor-made / custom-made, you can’t just name the attributes that work for you, you have to find something within what’s offered that year. And if you like it, G-d knows they’ll cancel that product. Oh yes they will, trust me on that one. And no, guys, it’s not like you work out your best colours and then memorize the pantone — colour codes are different for each company, and they change over the years. And you thought what you knew as vendor lock-in was bad. Oh, and if your performance of “beauty” includes doing things like having your labia changed to look like some porn star’s, or whatever it was that I read the other day, then of course the drain on money is even stronger. So you take the drain from fashion and all that, factor in any difference in pay you may get from what your male colleagues get, and then you wait. And the next time somebody tells you to vote with your money, you kick in a few heads. (With or without heels, your choice.)
*takes a deep breath* Ahem.
September 14th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Yes, of course they’re tragic, but dude, either I grew up in a particularly grisly place, or everybody’s life has tragedy, period, so it’s not like, I don’t wanna be Superwhoever because of the tragedy involved, it’s, I got all this pain, and I don’t even have superpowers to show for it!
Well, sure, all of us have some sadness in our lives- but even with the shit that I went through as a kid, I don’t think that I can really compare the sadness in my life to the sadness that most comic heroes go through- I mean, come on, I’ve never watched anyone, let alone my primary care giver, get murdered right in front of my face. I never learned that I was the last of my kind in the universe. I never lost all the people I loved because I was turned into an inhuman monstrosity. Do we envy the powers? Aboslutely. I don’t think that most of us envy the lives, necessarily.
Like I said: Of course, as kids, we think the powers are great- who wouldn’t *love* to have Spider-Man’s powers? Does any child who reads comics not eventually realize “Wow. Batman’s life sucks”?
And as for the Batman bit? Like the said in the current thread on feministe, it can take years to forgive your parents for being human. So would I have traded my parents’ life for being the girl-equivalent of Batman at that age? Three times before breakfast! In fact, like many kids, I hated my parents at the time, so parents dead + large inheritance + being able to do whatever I want? Yeah, I’d definitely have counted that as “lucky” in my fantasies. Very, very lucky. In fact, I’m not even sure Batman’s life sucks. He has a ton of problems, admittedly — but then, who doesn’t, and at least he gets meaning, gets to have impact, where most of us don’t. It’s not perfect, but it’s more than most of us get. Oh, and intensity to boot.
As kids we feel that way- but would you still trade your parents lives for that? I suspect that, for most of us, the answer is no. Thats the problem I have with the suggestion that the princess thing is somehow the same as the super hero thing. Our society does try to teach girls that one of the best things they can be is a princess, and the media still pushes that image onto young women and adults. There’s the notion that you haven’t “Made it” until you have a princess wedding. I don’t think that most adult men grow up still thinking that they have to meet the super hero ideal. As children we wish we could be Batman, but I don’t think that it’s ever really held up as something we should actually aspire to.
In fact, I think you may be a little off at that when you state, heroes are about what they do, princesses about what they are (beautiful). This is a very, very dangerous way of phrasing it: “Being interesting (or muscular, or …) takes constant work, wouldn’t you like to be beautiful instead?” Hell yes! I get to skip all the hard work? Sign me up! The thing is, in the real word, to no small extent, beauty is something you do.
I’m certainly not attempting to minimize the work that women put into meeting the beauty standards that our society places on them. That’s got to be a ton of work, no doubt- but, with regards to the fictions we give our children, I think the point still stands. We don’t teach children about all of the work that goes into creating that beautiful image- we don’t teach them that Sleeping Beauty spends x hours a day getting ready, or how much money is spent on products, etc. I stand by my criticism: You’re a princess because of who you are, not what you do. As far as Disney is concerned, most princesses simply are beautiful. Heroes are heroes because of the actions they take. You’re a hero because you fight injustice and crime, and because you work to save people. I think that’s a serious narrative difference.
The thing however is that the actual process is often ridiculed and hidden, because, wink wink nudge nudge, we’re all naturally beautiful, of course. Like Jill said, “expected to do everything their male counterparts do, and excel at beauty at the same time.” If beauty were an innate quality that you either have or don’t have, this possibly wouldn’t be as much of a problem.
Honestly, I think that’s very accurate, and I think that’s another reason to criticize the “Princess and hero are both harmful” suggestion. I don’t see that as contradicting anything I’m suggesting, but, in fact, adding to the critique: teaching little girls that the best they can aspire to is a princess is harmful, in part, because it helps ingrain them with unhealthy and unrealistic ideas about beauty. I think this goes back to what I said above: these things suggest that “real” beauty is natural. You have it or you don’t, as you say. The thing is, if you don’t have it- and who does?- then you have to work to fake it as much as you can.
Thanks for commenting, by the by!
September 14th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
I’m not really even contesting that point, I was just a bit unhappy with the phrasing. The thing is the frame of reference; within the fantasy we’re sold, the phrasing is correct and beautiful is something you *are*, within the real world, it is dishonest, deceptive, and damaging, because it can lead you to making very stupid choices at an early age. So depending from which paradigm you were writing from, not even the phrasing was incorrect, but I’ll ask you to accept it’s a trigger phrase for me, and the most constructive thing I felt I could do with that sudden surge would be to spell it out, because I don’t know your readers enough to know whether the distinction is totally obvious to them.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
All I can say is, um, wow….I wonder if the White Queen and Beast sit around having conversations like these all day?
