If you don't mind my asking, how exactly are you defining "manly"?
There's a reason I ask, a while ago, I had a similar discussion with a friend. I'd told her that one of the reasons I went nuts over characters such as Buffy, Xenia, the archaeologist River Song, and to a degree Starbuck on BSG, was that these characters were a rarity on television. She asked - what, are you looking for women who are more "manly". No, I responded, not at all. I'm looking for female characters who do jobs that may be traditionally male - women I can identify with. Women who are archaeologists, scientists, superheros, fight for what they want, are aggressive (not just manipulative), and no nonsense. Not manly. Not more like "men". Women who have careers. My friend paused, then said:"But there are lots of women in real life who are firefighters, archeologists, lawyers, high powered executives, sentators, fighter pilots, cops...tv isn't showing reality." EXACTLY.
My friend by the way is a legal secretary and has a lot in common with the characters of Rose and Donna Nobel on Doctor Who - two characters who are not boring. (I'm not a huge Rose fan, but she's far from boring, actually she's more developed and more interesting than Martha Jones was (who unfortunately at times came across as a bit flat or a Mary Sue). And Donna is very complex and interesting.) Penny in contrast is I think a flat character. Granted, Whedon doesn't have much time to develop her and you could argue that the two male characters are equally one-dimensional. But, she seems very much the stereotype of the weak/damsel in distress girl who needs to be saved by the hunky guy and ends up getting killed as a result. Donna Nobel and Rose Tyler in contrast, often save the Doctor.
For me, Penny was dull. Partly the actress, who I didn't like on Buffy either. Partly the role. Wispy. A shadow. She made Captain Hammar seem compex by comparison and that's saying something.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2008-07-23 12:20 am (UTC)There's a reason I ask, a while ago, I had a similar discussion with a friend. I'd told her that one of the reasons I went nuts over characters such as Buffy, Xenia, the archaeologist River Song, and to a degree Starbuck on BSG, was that these characters were a rarity on television. She asked - what, are you looking for women who are more "manly". No, I responded, not at all. I'm looking for female characters who do jobs that may be traditionally male - women I can identify with. Women who are archaeologists, scientists, superheros, fight for what they want, are aggressive (not just manipulative), and no nonsense. Not manly. Not more like "men". Women who have careers. My friend paused, then said:"But there are lots of women in real life who are firefighters, archeologists, lawyers, high powered executives, sentators, fighter pilots, cops...tv isn't showing reality." EXACTLY.
My friend by the way is a legal secretary and has a lot in common with the characters of Rose and Donna Nobel on Doctor Who - two characters who are not boring. (I'm not a huge Rose fan, but she's far from boring, actually she's more developed and more interesting than Martha Jones was (who unfortunately at times came across as a bit flat or a Mary Sue). And Donna is very complex and interesting.) Penny in contrast is I think a flat character. Granted, Whedon doesn't have much time to develop her and you could argue that the two male characters are equally one-dimensional. But, she seems very much the stereotype of the weak/damsel in distress girl who needs to be saved by the hunky guy and ends up getting killed as a result. Donna Nobel and Rose Tyler in contrast, often save the Doctor.
For me, Penny was dull. Partly the actress, who I didn't like on Buffy either. Partly the role. Wispy. A shadow. She made Captain Hammar seem compex by comparison and that's saying something.