https://dailycampus.com/2022/02/25/the-manic-pixie-dream-girl-is-rooted-in-misogyny
To be fair to the author, writing & characterization is what we agree on.
They slip in "heteronormativity", "patriarchy", "male gaze"
They missed the past 15 years of hyper-aggressive female empowerment efforts that are so prominent that people overseas got sick of it. Men expect male characters to be castrated & mocked, men don't "expect-" to be MC's.
how can you write an article in post 2016 & say with a straight face men grow up expecting to be MC? Something that they're grateful or lucky to get in movies #Futureisfemale because the only thing they expect is to be told they don't have a stake & women don't need men.๐That's a prominent part of western culture.
๐จTL;DR Conflating toxic gender politics with a simple trope cause author refuses to accept the simple fact that a MPDG Is a side character, not a statement. No more than the apologetic, nervous and soft spoken male character "Butt-Monkey" trope that's male DOMINATED is no more a statement of assault on all men than MPDG is to women. It's just a trope.
You don't have to like the trope, but turning it into this widespread social address to contrive a moral rationalization is just desperate, no one needed to be a victim to make a good argument here.
basically tl;dr the article lacking proper caveats, honesty, & retrospect defeated the good point is might've had. No mention of Breakfast At Tiffany's or Twilight or My Life As a Teenage Robot, or Shrek's MPDG role, which shows the investment in the trope is a fraction of the desire apparent to complain about it. The trope is just a justification to make something out of nothing, just a target to project modern sensibilities onto, as is the case every other day for western privileged. Which explains why ppl apparently can't enjoy anything anymore & feel threatened by everything.
The selective outrage & lack of nuance effectively destroyed the credibility of the author's case, just derailed into a gender politics sermon with the trope being the unwilling mascot.
๐Full Response (optional):
1# The manic pixie dream girl is not the main character nor designed to be a 3-dimensional person like Katara or Raven TT2003: MPDG is a vehicle specifically, like the white rabbit or mysterious transfer student or other-wordly bad boy (Edward Cullen).
Difference is most MPDG have leagues more characterization, stake, & charm than the white rabbit despite both tropes serving the same purpose: Plot activation
This isn't like me criticizing Horikoshi's handling of Momo Yaoyorozu: a side character, I'm not sitting here complaining that Momo doesn't have as much screentime as DEKU (the actual main character), but specifically that the girl has one of the most OP quirks & most that gets explored is her underboob, or camel-toe.
And thus my personal issue with that is a statement of how ALL GIRLS and women are presented in media because patriarchy. Ignorant.
The issue here, is author is overlooking the simple fact that the girls are inherently not the focus, period. Thus not multi-faceted, they are specifically people that are the plot vehicle.
The real problem is that this is women characters being in service to anything having to do with male characters in a positive way: that is the real issue.๐ฑ Women supporting men, you'll find is a recurring theme that the author repeats throughout, because that's the real problem. Women not controlling the narrative is the problem.
๐จ"The trope typically enforces heteronormative gender roles, making the girl in the movie serve the story in relation to a main male character. Additionally, it indicates that being “like other girls” is explicitly negative which is harmful to girls who want to present in the manner it criticizes."
Inversely by criticizing the MPDG you're also making women who are genuinely like MPDGs explicitly negative because they genuinely aren't like other girls? Did that not factor into your equation that you're creating a new victimhood by complaining about another?
So not being like other girls as the aesthetic focus is harmful to the girls that are, and other shows & movies that's glorifying being like other girls is also harmful to girls who aren't like them. there's no winner
An archetype is glorified, thus another one is put down, why? Because someone decided for everyone else that this should be a problem for everyone. (And that's coming from me! lmfao)
๐ก More importantly how is this fabrication of a hypothesis any different from the trope of the:
Female self-actualized protagonist being independent/no love interest/ specifically no MALE love interest = thus good✅ according to modern rigid gender normativity
VS
The female antagonist who either is more comfortable/expressive in her sexuality for males specifically, thus bad๐ or the mean girl being boy crazy is an association of loss of agency is the consequence of liking boys, thus bad.
So you're telling me the MPDG (usually THE ICON of the story, usually most liked, thus the most significant element & loved- so where's the misogyny if her presentation is inherently loved & positive?), that is more harmful than the rigid, progressive norm that: having AGENCY & liking boys CANNOT exist in the same dimension for girls.♀️ That's not damaging?
๐จ๐จThe author lacking that caveat Is what ultimately neuters the credibility of the article as a whole. In fact that self-pity patriarchy rant that wrapped up the article is what obliterated the credibility of the article.๐จ๐จ
Sometimes a Trope is just that, should it be improved upon? Maybe? At that point just write your own story in combination with the opinion. Imagine how I felt these past 10 years watching My Hero Academia cannibalize itself for no reason.
If I've learned ANYTHING over the years of essaying it's "It got a reaction from me, but it's not about me. Don't make it about you." and secondly, you have to have at least 3 caveats or nuances attached to your complaint, STRAWMAN yourself at least once.
If you can't do that? settle for having a handicapped argument or just say nothing.
๐จ"The entire phenomenon is wonderfully explained in Olivia Gatwood’s aptly named spoken word poem, “Manic Pixie Dream Girl.” In it, she states, “and when you are a whole person / for the first time, the movie is over / Manic Pixie Dream Girl doesn’t go on, / there’s no need for her anymore.”
The author doesn't want to accept that the Manic Pixie Dream Girl is not entitled to depth because she's not the main character, why is author pretending that MPDG isn't a plot device when that's literally the point of any character, male or female, that serves to drive the MC into the main plot?
That's what All Might was, a plot device. You could easily counter with" but he got more characterization & that's the OP's point."
No? All Might had 10 years of story, 400+ chapters, and 8 seasons 4 movies, OVA+ of material. He's a MPDG role initially but he didn't remain that way.
Nice try, dear strawman. ***
So why are we pretending that female characters are the only one's serving this function? What did we think SHREK served to Fiona's monotonous life up until that day he showed up? He was the MPDG.
Soooo, if the real issue is about the woman existing to be a vehicle & discarded for the narrative, why didn't OP bring up your Uncle Bens, Planet Kryptons, Tadashi, Gwen Stacy, Lalah Sune, Dr.Erskine, Thomas & Martha Waynes or any plot device character existing just to literally die for a significant development of the narrative:
But you see, at that point then it's not a gender struggle session because that happens to male & female characters, so adding NUANCE to this topic defeats the victim / "patriarchy bad" song.
And the reason why is because of her personality, honesty, unapologetic conduct. Why make that into a problem? A matter of "gaze" as if it's it'd be any different if it were a lesbian writing her own gaze onto the narrative.
Male gaze bad because it's male. This is waaaay different from me ripping a Manga apart because the author felt it necessary to panty shot an 11 yr old girl.
Or the Captain Marvels or Rey's dominating the narrative, if a woman dominates the narrative as per acceptable norms, if men service women's stories one-sidedly, then the inequity isn't a problem.
The point that's likely intentionally ignored is the dream girl is essential to the plot in the first place.
A female side character does what a any side character does-- that is no different from dehumanized Prince Charmings who just exist to serve the woman's happy ending or libido, male avatars of superhuman feats & labors, or heroes who exist to get beat to a pulp or die for a woman's end means.
"Breakfast At Tiffany's" has one of the most nuanced MPDG I've ever seen, so much so I thought the movie was going to end on a tragic note. In fact the arc of that movie was the woman being taught how to live in a more healthy way by the man, he was the vehicle & plot device. Holly was both MPDG & not one, but the male character was the underwritten vehicle of the plot, was he a misrepresentation of all men?
The fact that Breakfast At Tiffany's wasn't mentioned tells me a lot about how many fucks to give were invested here. Which is my point exactly about "credibility" being put into question here.
Or the problematic trope of your Jack's dying for your Roses (Titanic), glorifying male deaths for female preservation as a vehicle of gothic romanticism that women perceive as "sweet"- is an attack on men are some stupid crap. The social hatred or systemic male hatred that men are essentially lower class citizens compared to women on the sole basis that their very well being is inherently socially lower in designation in the eyes of men AND WOMEN, hence suicide statistics and nobody cares because it's not a woman's issue, the media perpetuates this male hatred bla bla bla blaaaaaaa.. see how easy it is?
See? anyone can make something out of nothing and claim it's a social assault on a group.
Furthermore, people that behave like MPDG exist, so is it misogynist to discount the people that the archetype empowers? Do we think about that?
Or empowerment for women or a crisis for women is whatever a woman with a platform says it is this week on behalf of women, REGARDLESS of other women? Which is what I'm noticing as a trend in how worldviews get formed for a lot of people in the west.
This is why caveats need to be exploited more in articles and people need to step back & accept that not everything is a statement about an entire group of people, because in reality- it's not about you.
It's not about the article being an opinion, 'do you know what you're talking about or not'?
This isn't a topic about political policy, it's just pop culture stuff, one of the easiest topics to do quick research on so you can present a full spectrum of points. The principle here has validity but the lack of retrospect just destroys what author is trying to say, this is reads like selective outrage with a hint of projection.
Final quote responses:
"Moreover, this all comes from a very heteronormative perspective, but that is the unfortunate reality of the world we live in."
Yes, the normal sexuality is reinforced as normal.
Gender norms that function is normal, as opposed to progressive norms that contribute to women's burnout & plummet of life satisfaction, retreat, isolation, resentment & birthrate declines: I'll kindly take the heteroproductive gender roles that made nations and got humanity this far vs the modern ways that's swiftly tearing everything apart that it did not build. ¯\_(ใ)_/¯
"Assuming straight is the default sexuality is all too common," Cause It is default, get over it.
"-and the manic pixie dream girl trope furthers this idea as well. The trope does not allow for changes to the traditional gender-script, as the woman must teach the man how to live until she is not needed anymore."
Breakfast At Tiffany's, watch more of the media with the trope you're talking about before you speak on the trope as if you're an expert.
" Moreover, other than the mocking joke of “he’s not like other boys,” there is virtually no male equivalent;"
Who remembers "Team Edward vs Team Jacob"? Like I said, "credibility" is obliterated by the author just talking.
"the manic pixie dream girl is yet another way to maintain patriarchal standards for our society. Thus, we must move away from stereotypical portrayals of women in media, and away from the notion of femininity being inherently bad."
Patriarchal standards have been obliterated enough to where enough western birthrates are past recovery rate, don't worry, you're winning. Patriarchy has been losing for more than 20 years.
More importantly, Femininity being bad is the progressive notion that women need to abandon their femininity to emulate masculinity in order to be strong independent women, men wanting femininity was rigid & misogynist.
Strong independent women couldn't be desirable & feminine, and wanting men.
The strong woman archetype was MPDG on steroids, but that was "empowering" right? Because the toxic masculine woman controlled the narrative, vs the MPDG who supported the narrative of a male character.
So the real issue here isn't agency, it's control. Who's controlling the narrative of the story.
Author is showing their hand more and more as the article drags on.
It's not about the trope, author is projecting gender politics onto the trope regardless of the trope. Which explains why author misses the actual point of the trope.
This is like an incel making a rant about how the geek who doesn't get the girl is a female supremacist narrative to make boys feel bad about not being their own person vs the rigid norm of what girls want.
Just projecting your politics onto something completely divorced from your worldview and masking it as a social criticism so you can feel justified.
I see right through it. What could've been a good point on characterization got lost barking up the wrong tree.
