I find it exceptionally painful when a show that is brilliant in every other way, and that I really, really love, fails miserably on the presentation of women characters. And everything about Heroes just keeps getting better and better, with that one glaring exception.
First, it’s worth noting that there are only two female “heroes” among the main ensemble cast of about ten characters. Three recurring characters have died in the show’s first season; two of them were women creeping up on relevance. We’ve got suggestions that certain minor female characters (like Mama Petrelli) will be playing an increasingly important role, but mostly, it’s all about the boys, saving the world.
The line “Save the cheerleader, save the world” has quickly become almost cliché, but it’s the first clue about what kind of role the two female main characters are playing. Claire needs saving. She’s tough (in terms of her very 17-year-old personality as well as her ability to regenerate), but ultimately, it’s the men who are doing the dirty work. When I look at Claire against the other main female “hero”, Niki, I can’t help but see another virgin/whore dichotomy. Niki starts as a single mother running a sex website in order to support her child. She quickly realizes she has a violent and powerful alter-ego, Jessica, who is not only willing to act as a mercenary (providing both sex-for-blackmail and murder-on-demand), but actually seems to enjoy it.
To review: the two main female characters are a 17-year-old cheerleader who needs to be saved, and a sex worker with a troubled and checkered past who mainly needs to be stopped. Those clauses only work in passive voice for a reason–the action centres around what the male heroes, almost without fail much more complex characters, do with respect to dealing with the competing problems of stopping the “whore” (and those she works for) and saving the “virgin”. Neither is really an agent in the events so much as a passive, archetypal figure that must be factored in as the male heroes struggle to prevent tragedy and figure out their own goals in a morally ambiguous world. The men are multifaceted, but the women are dichotomous: Daughter/mother. Cheerleader/killer. Protected/threat. Young and pure/older and damaged. Virgin/whore, pretty much literally.
Here’s my memo to Heroes: You’re a great show. You’re original, and complicated, and exciting, and brilliantly geeky. But you seem to have issues with women. Do better.
No related posts.
{ 42 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
I think this thread has cemented me not watching the show when I get the chance.
SunlessNick(Quote) (Reply)
I think this thread has cemented me not watching the show when I get the chance.
Despite the huge flaw when it comes to female characterization (Mama Petrelli still fascinates me), it’s a good show. I cling to hope that we’ll see Claire as more than a pawn, that maybe she’ll actually listen to the only person telling her she shouldn’t run and hide and pretend to be normal.
sbg(Quote) (Reply)
So not my intention, SunlessNick! Oh well.
As a sort-of amendment, last night’s episode was interesting in what it said about Claire’s potential role in saving the world. The stuff I said above about that role being passive (ie. not giving Sylar the opportunity to get her power of regeneration) was based on the future presented a couple episodes ago. Peter, not knowing anything about that (potential and changeable) future, assumes that her need to be saved was in fact so that she could be the one to stop the bomb going off–handing her a gun with the instructions to shoot him should he prove unable to control the explosion himself. He recognizes that she would be the only one who could “get close enough” to do this, making her power and agency directly relevant.
I thought this reflected pretty well on Peter (though Claire still went with the “apprehension” we were criticizing above) and that it was interesting that he would be the one to say this, given the animosity I’ve seen directed towards him as overly self-absorbed (among other things). Plus, it says something about the chance that Future Hiro’s assumption of the reason his intervention with “Save the cheerleader, save the world” would work was just flat-out wrong.
And: what sbg said re: Mama Petrelli. Many layers remain to be explored in that character.
Purtek(Quote) (Reply)
Howdya like them not making Dale a recurring character, Purtek? Toldja you’d hate it!
Katie(Quote) (Reply)
Yeah, that certainly didn’t go on my list of “pros”. Sometimes I try to focus on the positive, though, however dim the light my be. Only sometimes.
Purtek(Quote) (Reply)
Let’s brainstorm and settle on another Dale-level actress or two to suggest and start a letter-writing campaign to the producers, writers, and advertisers to introduce a season-regular character just like Dale next season.
C’mon, Daily Kos got advertisers to divest from Ann Coulter’s websites…we can get another Dale-like character on Heroes, right?!
Katie(Quote) (Reply)
Oh, also, the Grey’s Anatomy spinoff article made me realize something–”mother/whore” as she may be, Niki/Jessica also has some neat characteristics that are totally individual to her, rather than being “typical of her gender.”
For example, she can keep a lot of her rollercoaster thoughts to herself.
Katie(Quote) (Reply)
I’d be curious to know what that contract dispute was over, though. Were they willing to keep her on at a fair rate, or did they think they were getting a bargain until she decided to demand the same as they’d pay a man?
The wage gap is, last I heard, even greater between male and female actors than between men and women in most other jobs.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
I cut Claire a bit more slack than I would say, Niki. Claire is still just a kid, invulnerability doesn’t suddenly make you more mature. Her first instinct is to help (like after the train wreck) but if you give her a while to think about it a teenager’s natural instinct for self-preservation is going to kick in. At 16/17 the one thing most people want most in the world is to fit in, and she stands out in a very significant way (and her power is more difficult to hide since it’s involuntary), so her behavior seems fairly natural to me.
To be fair, I should say I’ve heard rumors from several different sources that the reason the character was written off was because of a contract dispute with the actress. Now that doesn’t excuse how she was written off, and I can’t for the life of me find the link in my cluttered list, but if it’s true then they were apparently planning on keeping her character around.
I don’t know about Purtek, but that depresses me so much. I know a good bit of that is because I love the actress, but it was great to see a female character who not only accepted their ability but thought it was great and worked on learning how to use it. I knew she was a goner given that Sylar was standing right there but still…. *sigh*
I would have traded Niki for Dale in a heartbeat, but I guess you just can’t trust the stupid brain stealing serial killer.
MaggieCat(Quote) (Reply)
I heard at one point that the entire suration of X-Files Gillian Anderson was getting about half what David Duchovny was.
scarlett(Quote) (Reply)
Thank you for these observations. The whole cheerleader needing rescuing thing has been bothering me since the show began. Cutting Nikki/Jessica in half (good mommy/bad whore) has also bothered me. It also bothers me that the women on the sidelines are people like a clueless wife obsessed with doggies or a powerhungry politcal mom or a bitchy cheerleader rival. I hadn’t noticed some of your other points, though.
dew(Quote) (Reply)
This thread has revealed so many aspects of this show that I either didn’t have space for or didn’t think of when I wrote it initially. I hadn’t even quite conceptualized the dichotomy existing within Nicki/Jessica herself, partially because the “whore” half of her character has had so much more agency–another interesting point in itself.
Purtek(Quote) (Reply)
← Previous Comments
{ 1 trackback }