Gender Dynamics Index: Difference between revisions

Line 155:

* [[Hysterical Woman]]: Pulling women's reactions to a ridiculous extreme.

Another example is how emotional reactions tend to be portrayed as more of the concern of female characters, particularly positive or empathetic emotions (as opposed to anger, hate and jealousy). Female characters are often shown mediating disputes between male characters, offering solace to other characters caught in a reactive moment (where they are depressed or upset at something), and if a mook expresses concern over the morally dubious behavior of the [[Big Bad]] or his orders, almost invariably it will be a female mook (the lone female mook of a bad boss is always the one to bet on for a [[Heel Face Turn]]; she is almost never depicted as [[For the Evulz|relishing]] the evil she does). Rarely are male characters depicted offering each other an emotional safe space as this might come across as uncomfortably effeminate or gay (the only exception seems to be war movies). This has the effect of making sympathetic emotions the domain of female characters, which somewhat ridiculous because all people have them and there is [http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/05/vulcans-nixed-y.html evidence] that we can't think or make decisions without emotions and this includes the positive and sympathetic emotions. Essentially without them, far from being more effective, we are paralyzed with indecision.

Another example is how emotional reactions tend to be portrayed as more of the concern of female characters, particularly positive or empathetic emotions (as opposed to anger, hate and jealousy). Female characters are often shown mediating disputes between male characters, offering solace to other characters caught in a reactive moment (where they are depressed or upset at something), and if a mook expresses concern over the morally dubious behavior of the [[Big Bad]] or his orders, almost invariably it will be a female mook (the lone female mook of a bad boss is always the one to bet on for a [[Heel Face Turn]]; she is almost never depicted as [[For the Evulz|relishing]] the evil she does). Rarely are male characters depicted offering each other an emotional safe space as this might come across as uncomfortably effeminate or gay (the only exception seems to be war movies). This has the effect of making sympathetic emotions the domain of female characters, which somewhat ridiculous because all people have them and there is [https://web.archive.org/web/20120410133518/http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/05/vulcans-nixed-y.html evidence] that we can't think or make decisions without emotions and this includes the positive and sympathetic emotions. Essentially without them, far from being more effective, we are paralyzed with indecision.

* [[The Chick]]

Line 439:

'''Overall'''

* [http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~wegner/pdfs/Gray%20&%20Wegner%20~~(2009)~~%20Moral%20Typecasting.pdf Moral Typecasting] involves separating people into moral agents and moral patients: moral agents are capable of right and wrong and incapable of being affected by the right or wrong done to them by others, moral patients have right and wrong done to them and are seen as incapable of doing right or wrong to others. Moral Typecasting explains why moral patients who do nothing are sometimes viewed more positively than moral agents who do good—if someone is capable of doing good s/he is also seen as capable of evil. In this schema, a hero is closer to a villain than either are to a [[Damsel in Distress]]. Note that this schema exactly mirrors the active/passive; proactive/reactive; achiever/motivator dichotomies listed above.

* [https://web.archive.org/web/20150419143411/http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~wegner/pdfs/Gray%20%26%20Wegner%20%282009%29%20Moral%20Typecasting.pdf Moral Typecasting] involves separating people into moral agents and moral patients: moral agents are capable of right and wrong and incapable of being affected by the right or wrong done to them by others, moral patients have right and wrong done to them and are seen as incapable of doing right or wrong to others. Moral Typecasting explains why moral patients who do nothing are sometimes viewed more positively than moral agents who do good—if someone is capable of doing good s/he is also seen as capable of evil. In this schema, a hero is closer to a villain than either are to a [[Damsel in Distress]]. Note that this schema exactly mirrors the active/passive; proactive/reactive; achiever/motivator dichotomies listed above.

* [[wikipedia:Women are wonderful|Men and women associate more positive characteristics with women and more negative characteristics with men.]] Despite this, women are still discriminated against for certain job positions that require a perception of greater agency. In light of the research into Moral Typecasting, it's possible that women are viewed more positively than men because they are seen as moral patients who are incapable of doing bad or good. This view subsequently hampers them when they wish to achieve positions associated with greater agency and responsibility.

Line 457:

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-57-i1S95Kk&feature=relmfu Video depicts what happens when a woman spikes a man's drink versus a man spiking a woman's drink.]

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks Video depiction of bystander reaction to male-on-female and female-on-male abuse]

* [http://abcnews.go.com/WhatWouldYouDo/video/stealing-blind-intervene-6746215 People help a blind woman who is cheated more often than a blind man.]

* [https://web.archive.org/web/20141101233152/http://abcnews.go.com/WhatWouldYouDo/video/stealing-blind-intervene-6746215 People help a blind woman who is cheated more often than a blind man.]

* [http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=183059 Male civilians more likely to be targeted in wartime and less likely to be evacuated from dangerous areas.]