I am not sure
which word I hate more, "badass", or "Kickass". Both, and
often the situations where they are used, make me feel like we are celebrating
being aggressive and mean rather than being strong. Why is being successful always equated with
winning over others? Why do people encourage someone with "go kick some
ass'. Speaking for myself, I would love to make a success of things but I would
rather do it without hurting any asses or feeling like my ass is
"bad". And by reading some fiction I discover another negative
dimension to the word, as usual, women being asked to be strong are asked to be
manly. What a sad way to be a feminist. Were I a woman, I’d not aspire to be
more like a man. I’d aspire to have the same rights and opportunities as a man,
and to be strong in my own way. But that’s just me talking. I understand we
must keep in mind that unfortunately the world we live in is a competitive and aggressive
one. Whenever someone’s gets to the top it is because he/she has kicked some
ass in the road. Of course, there are a few exceptions given certain conditions
and circumstances. Because this is the way language develops and changes over
time, just as how 'gay' became shorthand for 'homosexual'. 'Badass' might still
mean something negative for men (not least because it suits some people to
imply as much). It also explains why there have been so many feminist attempts
to 'reclaim' words. Or is 'badass' going to join the list of
Words-You-Must-Never- Use-to-Describe-a-Woman such as 'feisty'?
Is “badass” the
only way to be?
No. Women are
diverse that way.
The whole “women
mustn't behave like men” line relies on the idea that the behaviour is innately
gendered, in the same way that boys supposedly mustn't behave 'like a girl'. So
by all means we should find a synonym for 'badass' that means confident,
successful, swaggering or whatever. But that's matter of using a thesaurus, or
just one of human behaviour, which is as confusing as Bjork sang about, rather
than thinking that one side can have all the 'positive' attributes and dump the
'negative' ones on some other group. It's not a question of women behaving like
men, it's a question of people behaving how they wish to behave, without
reference to their sex. Some people are forceful, aggressive and competitive,
whilst some people are quiet, contemplative and unambitious. You can't predict
who will be what by looking at their genitals.
I remember
seeing a comment from a co-worker along the lines of "If women ran the
world it'd be a better place", so I mentioned Angela Merkel and Hilary
Clinton, and asked if their world would really be so much better. I got the
response "No, not women acting like men." The idea that holding
political office is a purely male behaviour surprised me considerably.
It's a great
shame that the author has so internalised sexist stereotypes about what
constitutes "male" and "female" behaviour that her
characters are unable to conceive displays of strength and self-possession as
anything other than acting "like a man". This is the same kind of
pernicious lie that is used, for example, to attack persons of colour who
display academic ambition as "acting white". The reason these
"badass" qualities are praised is not because they are intrinsically
"male". That is a ridiculous, sexist slur, and one that utterly
betrays the many women who naturally possess these qualities, not to mention
the many, many men who don't possess them, as being somehow inferior or
less-worthy examples of their gender. Also, the idea that they imply some
"gun-toting, bullying ass-kicking" stereotype is an absurd fantasy,
entirely from the author's imagination. Nobody who is praising
"badass" female sports stars is doing it because they are gun-toting
bullies. The very idea that they might be is delusional.
That’s why I think
this is a false question. It is not about being empowered being victims, but
how do we empower ourselves. I, for example, would consider a nurse who works
with terminal patients a strong and empowered woman, but is she a badass? No,
she is not, because her strength stems from empathy and poise. I do not
understand why empowerment must be equated to ruthlessness and even violence.
This unconsciously draws from the idea that feminine is somehow weak. Is
childbearing and rearing something weak people do? When I see women who are
single mums and work and put their kids through university, I think those are
strong brave women, yet there is not a hint of toughness and disconnectedness
in them, and they are also not victims at all. Think of the grandmothers of
Plaza the Mayo, aren't they empowered? They are, looking for their
grandchildren for 30 years, but you don't see anybody calling them that. Female
empowerment in media, and in fiction in particular, is shown as women kicking
ass with violence, instead of shaming whole governments and bringing people to
tears due to their courage. "Badass characters", as used in fiction
simply implies a healthy amount of self-confidence, and a cool and
unpretentious attitude. It is a way of behaving that appeals particularly to
the Western psyche. These qualities are praised not because they are
"male", but because they are considered objectively praiseworthy, at
least within modern western society. And, in moderation, they are praiseworthy.
Of course, we should be careful not to denigrate those who do not naturally
possess them, just as we shouldn't let admiration for intellectual, academic,
physical or societal achievement degenerate into contempt for those who fall
short. But we also shouldn't be so afraid of alienating someone that it stops
us from offering praise where praise is deserved. Particularly in the case of
women who demonstrate the kind of confidence and self-possession that
exemplifies being a "badass". While there is nothing intrinsically
"male" or "female" about these qualities, it is true that,
on the whole, women have not enjoyed the same encouragement to express them as
men. Now that is changing, we should not feel ashamed or worried about
celebrating them when we have the opportunity.
Female
badassery, in SF at least, seems to be reaching the formulaic stage that car
chases and sex scenes have long since undergone, so that there's something
perfunctory and obligatory about its presentation. Every time there's a fight
scene in which there's a female present, novels seem to go out of their way to
show that "hey look -- women can fight too!" There's also the
influence of Hong Kong action flicks, in which every fight scene must be some
ridiculously choreographed acrobatic and gymnastic tour-de-force in which people
take multiple kicks and punches to the head, smash through plate-glass windows,
and fall several stories without winding up in a major trauma unit and being
paralyzed from the neck down, with major brain damage on top of it all,
assuming any real person would survive such violence to begin with. I define
"badass" as having the courage to be yourself no matter what. You can
be a badass and also cry, falter and doubt yourself. All badasses - male and
female - are whole people, with weak spots like anyone else. What makes you a
badass is having the wisdom and the courage to nurture what needs nurturing.
You can also be a badass for fighting lifelong battles that maybe only a very
few around you are aware of: mental illness, addiction, domestic violence, poverty.
We won't win the Nobel Prize, but that makes us badasses too. We wake up
another morning, and some days it isn't a fight, and that in itself is a
victory.
Hard SF means
more that writing a story about Cowboys, or, in this case, Cowgirls, and giving
them ray guns (or absolute mental powers in this case). Or producing a
political drama - with aliens (it's still only a political drama). Or making a
film about military conquest ... and setting it on other planets. To be true
SF, a work must take a theory, observation, scientific or technological
phenomenon (real or imaginary) and say "what if ... " What if the
world's population rose to 20 Billion? What if the sun exploded? What if we
discovered the secret to immortality - or mind reading - or AI? It's that
analytical journey told through the medium of fiction that makes SF. Not some
guy or girl and his or her "companion" goofing around in a police
box. Too many present-day SF authors either lack imagination or feel compelled
to write more "accessible" stories. Space-opera is a case in point:
an entire genre created just so authors don't have to trouble themselves with
thinking up any decent future science, and actually try to imagine and create
future tech. Instead, they set stories in futures with less science than we
have now, but still have the gall to call them "science fiction".
Disgusting. What will they think up next to sell SF?
SF = Speculative
Fiction.
