Opinion question: Is Mary Sue Sexist?

[Warren Castille]

Universally hated teenage genius on Star Trek?

 

He hosts a show about board games on Youtube now.

 

[2.24] Q: The Marty Stu?

 

[2.25] PS: More like the Wesley Sue.

[allgivenover]

Universally hated teenage genius on Star Trek?

 

He hosts a show about board games on Youtube now.

 

afhMMcAHlKw

[Dogberry]

Universally hated teenage genius on Star Trek?

 

He hosts a show about board games on Youtube now.

 

[2.24] Q: The Marty Stu?

 

[2.25] PS: More like the Wesley Sue.

 

There were numbers and stuff and my eyes just kind of glazed over.

 

Back on topic, Mary Sue is one of the few cases where the female term is the default. I think some might read into that and say it's a negative term because it's named after a female, rather than a negative term that happens to be female.

 

Certainly, the term can be used in a misogynistic way, but so can a reference to sandwiches. Is my ham and swiss on rye misogynist?

[No Longer Exists]

*Peeks out from under the Hat* Quick Question, unless I missed it in all the comments, examples, definitions, and discussions above.

 

If the proto-concept of Mary Sue/ Gary Stu is an idealized depiction of the author in a fictional setting where the idealized depiction is the very model of a modern major general (sidetracked!) perfection, then wouldn't that BE sexist on the part of the author/originator as they have chosen their specific gender over the gender of a truly fictionalized concept? Or did I miss the mark?

 

Expansion!

 

Is the idealized depiction of an author in a fictional setting considered literary nepotism?

 

Rambling nonsense!

 

How much could a Mary Sue do if a Mary Sue could do anything?

 

*Disappears back under his hat, mumbling Dr. Seuss* Now...the star-bellied sneetches had bellies with stars but the plain bellied sneetches had none upon thars. Those stars weren't so big, they were really quite small. You might think such a thing wouldn't matter at all...

[allgivenover]

Is Average Joe sexist? Why is that we default to male when categorizing someone as average? Average Jane doesn't make this ok by the way since it's never used.

 

Don't even get me going on Peeping Tom.

[Telluride]

Is Average Joe sexist? Why is that we default to male when categorizing someone as average? Average Jane doesn't make this ok by the way since it's never used.

 

Don't even get me going on Peeping Tom.

 

I find these questions perfectly valid and strongly related to the topic.

[g0ne]

I still can't come up with a response for this thread. My brain draws a blank.

 

Maybe I should just take Flynt senpai's advice and run away from this thread. 

 

Or just enjoy cookies.  *jumps into mountain of cookies piled up*

[Warren Castille]

Can turns of phrase be inherently sexist? Unless the etymology states it was designed to specifically reference a negative trait in a man or a woman, I don't think so.

 

Still, these things can always change over time. As a rule, though, I try to always stick to the original definition of a word, and not the common-use (especially on the internet) version of it.

[Unnamed Mercenary]

I still can't come up with a response for this thread. My brain draws a blank.

 

Maybe I should just take Flynt senpai's advice and run away from this thread. 

 

Or just enjoy cookies.  *jumps into mountain of cookies piled up*

 

I wouldn't try to force a response. 

 

To finally add my input, here's my viewpoint.

 

"Mary Sue" is sexist when someone -wants- it to be sexist. As others have said, it was designed as basically a checklist of traits to define a self-inserted/original character in a preexisting setting/story/world.

 

Did it happen to be a female character in its creation? Yes. Would it carry the same meaning if a male character had the same traits? I would say yes. 

 

Is it sexist that the words themselves refer to a female? As in, is it sexist because we've allocated a traditionally female name to have this meaning? Perhaps. But just as above, we have other gendered phrases like Peeping Tom and Average Joe. One could delve into the etymology and reasons on why the terms were coined the way they were, but ultimately, it would probably come down to perceived sex/gender roles at the time of their creation, which in turn could lead to the terms being sexist. Did the terms age well? That's an opinion that can differ for people. So no, the words themselves are sexist, but perhaps the intent in choosing them were, at some point in time, judged in a more "modern" frame of thinking. I don't think there was malicious intent in their coining as much as a lack of a better neutral term that would have worked as well in the creator's mind.

[Darien Cadell]

"Mary Sue" is sexist when someone -wants- it to be sexist. As others have said, it was designed as basically a checklist of traits to define a self-inserted/original character in a preexisting setting/story/world.

 

Pretty much what I think, although I don't think self-insertion is restricted to preexisting settings. You can make a beautifully original setting and insert yourself into it with the whole author-failure-to-engage problem Warren mentioned.

 

Because of its origins, the term has a feminine leaning, and people can use it, if they so desire, to demean the gender without taking into account that self-insertion is a genderless concept. And sometimes people so desire. And the sexism that can be there perpetuates.

 

Batman is a bad example, though. He's a hero, but he's far from universally approved of within his own canon. The police are constantly on his case for vigilanteism in pretty much every variation of his existence. There are plenty of characters within his world who consider him a threat to law and order. He's just a hero, regular type. Heroes by definition are loved, but while he has fans, he has detractors, too. Mary Sue can't have detractors.

[Caspar]

"Mary Sue" is sexist when someone -wants- it to be sexist. As others have said, it was designed as basically a checklist of traits to define a self-inserted/original character in a preexisting setting/story/world.

 

Pretty much what I think, although I don't think self-insertion is restricted to preexisting settings. You can make a beautifully original setting and insert yourself into it with the whole author-failure-to-engage problem Warren mentioned.

 

Because of its origins, the term has a feminine leaning, and people can use it, if they so desire, to demean the gender without taking into account that self-insertion is a genderless concept. And sometimes people so desire. And the sexism that can be there perpetuates.

 

Batman is a bad example, though. He's a hero, but he's far from universally approved of within his own canon. The police are constantly on his case for vigilanteism in pretty much every variation of his existence. There are plenty of characters within his world who consider him a threat to law and order. He's just a hero, regular type. Heroes by definition are loved, but while he has fans, he has detractors, too. Mary Sue can't have detractors.

They can, but their detractors must be portrayed as wrong, universally so. Batman isn't a Mary Sue. I find it strange that people think this is the case. It differs from writer to writer, but his flaws tend to get far more attention from writers than his strengths, to juxtapose him with his rogues gallery as being similar but having a moral compass.

[Khadan]

"Sexist" is overused as a term thus reducing its efficacy by an alarming margin. Just like any of the other 'ist' terms, tbh. Trying to attribute "Sexist" to "Mary Sue" (while completely and willfully ignoring Gary stu) only reflects on the others ideology and desire to twist the narrative to their own ends. This is why ideologies are vermin.

[Wymsical]

Vaguely, yes. The term does describe a real phenomenon; we've all seen Mary Sues (possibly RP'd one in our younger years. Cough.), and as already pointed out, there is a male equivalent: Marty or Gary Stu. They are awful.

 

But as the Tumblr post states, that's Batman. And no-one bats an eyelid pun intended. In fact, he's a hugely beloved cultural icon. So I do think that accusations of Sue-ism are levelled at female characters more often, because female creations and interests are more frequently derided, attacked and seen as lesser.

 

For example, look at the vitriol levelled at the recent woman-centric media of Twilight and 50 Shades. It's not enough for these things to just simply be shit (they are), but hating on them becomes a kind of public performance. It's a bit like that.

 

I'm gonna poke a bit at your comparison here and the suggestion that Twilight and 50 Shades are so hated in some part because of being female-centric. Firstly, anything that garners popularity on that large of a scale is going to get a lot of scrutiny and attention. If the item in question doesn't hold up, it usually gets forgotten or derided. 

 

Twilight and 50 Shades are remarkable because they sold ridiculous amounts of copies despite being awful. Twilight especially so; it was everywhere in its heyday. T-shirts, posters, sneakers, 'Team Edward' nonsense and ect. I'm sure Facebook was drowned in it. But I find it interesting that you point to it when the character of Edward got much more rabid hate than Bella herself. Stalker, creepy, shitty vampire, so on and so forth. Jacob didn't fare much better, even managing to rack up 'pedophile' with the regrettable love triangle being wrapped up with his fate literally being bound to Bella's infant daughter with a single look. Meanwhile, Bella herself was... boring. She did nothing but swoon, obsess, and generally be a useless putz for nearly the entirety of the series. In fact, if there ever was an example of a true 'Mary Sue' in popular culture, it would be her. People have pointed out numerous signs that Bella is an actual self-insert for Stephanie Meyer, including the infamous 'dream I had' origin of Twilight. Ultimately, she is a foil for the two male characters and meant to be ignored in favor of them so the readers can replace her with themselves instead. 50 Shades' focus is much the same; it's all about Christian Grey and his downright worrisome fixation on Anastasia Steel. In fact, both series have subsequently earned a lot of ire for their depictions of relationships that border from unhealthy (Twilight) to genuinely abusive (50 Shades). Additionally, the books' apparent insistence that nothing is amiss and this should be aspired and desired have been roundly condemned. There is nothing ultimately redeeming about these books beyond the salacious 'guilty pleasure' of reading them. They're practically femsploitation. Add all of this to the absurd popularity that defied any logic and a lot of hate will brew from all sides. 

 

Fact of the matter is, a character is only as good as their writing and execution. Batman has had the benefit of myriad writers, stories, themes and character arcs, many of which have been critically hailed. He has struggled, failed, changed, evolved, triumphed and more.

 

A 'Mary Sue', regardless of gender, lacks all of this.

[Dat Oni]

The only thing remotely "sexist" I can identify from this thread and the tumblr post about the term Mary Sue is that Mary is a girl's name. 

 

I want you all to consider this: If that's enough to warrant the title "sexist", should we be naming girls Dave and the like to avoid it?

 

"Hey Delial, your name is Steve now. You know, so you can be empowered and all."

 

Excuse me while I wait to be stabbed.

[Harmonixer]

Vaguely, yes. The term does describe a real phenomenon; we've all seen Mary Sues (possibly RP'd one in our younger years. Cough.), and as already pointed out, there is a male equivalent: Marty or Gary Stu. They are awful.

 

But as the Tumblr post states, that's Batman. And no-one bats an eyelid pun intended. In fact, he's a hugely beloved cultural icon. So I do think that accusations of Sue-ism are levelled at female characters more often, because female creations and interests are more frequently derided, attacked and seen as lesser.

 

For example, look at the vitriol levelled at the recent woman-centric media of Twilight and 50 Shades. It's not enough for these things to just simply be shit (they are), but hating on them becomes a kind of public performance. It's a bit like that.

Counterexample: Rhonin and Thrall from Warcraft are almost universally hated for being Mary Sues. Rhonin is a near-omnipotent time wizard and ladies man, and Thrall is Orc-Jesus, and nobody likes either of them. Meanwhile, the only genuinely overpowered female character, Jaina, mostly flies under the radar. People just dislike her because she tries to be so god damn edgy...

 

It's not only Jaina, either. Sylvanas is another great example for that particular setting of a character that is unfortunately given a free pass despite making very little sense and being a major example of a 'Mary Sue'.

 

There was a time, before I knew the lore that the concept of the Banshee Queen was super cool beans to me. I loved the Undercity and the Forsaken are a really visually appealing race, their voices were top notch and I liked quests related to them. As the years went by, I started learning more about the lore and quickly realized how fucking awful of a character Sylvanas was.

 

And not even in a cool way either, just how whiny and terribly put together. Then she got that new booby model and suddenly she was everyone's favorite ever!

 

It's no secret that WoW lore is... shaky at best. Things that are actually kind of cool are very understated and everything else is really overbearing. I think it's like that in this game too, but it's much easier for me to overlook it for some reason. Bias, I think.

 

In terms of the OP subject? I'm really not a fan of shit like this lately. Was it in the last few years that everyone was like 'dood, did you hear? I can be offended and someone HAS to give a shit now!' What's going to happen with future generations with the examples that are currently being set?

 

You can't be a victim forever. That's just a miserable existence.

[Verad]

The only thing remotely "sexist" I can identify from this thread and the tumblr post about the term Mary Sue is that Mary is a girl's name. 

 

I want you all to consider this: If that's enough to warrant the title "sexist", should we be naming girls Dave and the like to avoid it?

 

"Hey Delial, your name is Steve now. You know, so you can be empowered and all."

 

Excuse me while I wait to be stabbed.

 

Rather, we should be naming men Jennifer.

[Cirina Qalli]

If someone played a Batman-esque character in a roleplay community, I'd still consider them a Mary Sue or a Gary Stu. Doesn't matter the gender to me.

[Warren Castille]

If someone played a Batman-esque character in a roleplay community, I'd still consider them a Mary Sue or a Gary Stu. Doesn't matter the gender to me.

 

That's awfully slap-dash. Can I ask you to elaborate on what's wrong with being a skilled detective?

[Melkire]

If someone played a Batman-esque character in a roleplay community, I'd still consider them a Mary Sue or a Gary Stu. Doesn't matter the gender to me.

 

 

I'll go hide in the corner now even though my character is more like The Question.

 

I can understand how that's a major turn-off for some people, though. Competency in certain areas, especially hyper-competency, rarely comes off well. More often than not, it's aggravating.

[Shoshopu]

The only thing remotely "sexist" I can identify from this thread and the tumblr post about the term Mary Sue is that Mary is a girl's name. 

 

I want you all to consider this: If that's enough to warrant the title "sexist", should we be naming girls Dave and the like to avoid it?

 

"Hey Delial, your name is Steve now. You know, so you can be empowered and all."

 

Excuse me while I wait to be stabbed.

 

Let me help you identify what people are talking about, then, since I'm pretty sure you only skimmed the essay in the OP if that's what you got out of it (because that doesn't make sense at all, at least your suggestion afterwards about naming girls after boys. Are you suggesting that girl names are inherently bad? That the author thinks girl names are inherently bad?)

 

The problem the author of that essay and others have is that to them it seems to them that people are far more critical of female characters, overly so, and are more likely to pin the term Mary Sue to an overpowered female character than they are to an overpowered male one, and that people are also more critical of the author's motives behind creating that female character than they would be of an author's motives behind a male character

 

When the author went on the tangent about the gendered names, their point was that the only time we seem to use a feminine word by default is when we're talking about bad characters. It has the implication that most bad characters are female if you aren't careful. Does that make sense?

[Warren Castille]

It's a tangent, and unrelated, and off-topic, but can we please stop calling blog posts "articles?" It gives a false sense of credence to what is, in fact, someone's blog.

[Shoshopu]

It's a tangent, and unrelated, and off-topic, but can we please stop calling blog posts "articles?" It gives a false sense of credence to what is, in fact, someone's blog.

 

Eh, I just called it that because the OP did, but point taken, it's not even technically an article (unless you consider a blog on the same level as a newspaper or magazine, but I'm pretty sure the blogger doesn't so I don't)

[Warren Castille]

I didn't want to be a stick in the mud over it. The term "essay" is accurate, but the sourced points are TVTropes pages. It bugs me to see that being taken seriously for criticism, especially when five seconds on Wikipedia took me to the interview with the originator herself.

 

I'm being a grognard about this, I am aware. Sorry.

[Brynhilde]

I'm operating on 4 hours sleep and therefore incapable and unwilling to do anything tonight aside from slob around in my Sonic PJs and stare vacantly at moving images until bedtime, so while I'd like to answer a few very good points made in recent posts here, I'll leave it.

 

But I'd like to stress how bloody impressed I am that this thread still hasn't devolved into an ugly name calling fest and been locked. Go us.

[Shoshopu]

I didn't want to be a stick in the mud over it. The term "essay" is accurate, but the sourced points are TVTropes pages. It bugs me to see that being taken seriously for criticism, especially when five seconds on Wikipedia took me to the interview with the originator herself.

 

I'm being a grognard about this, I am aware. Sorry.

 

urf yeah the OP called it an essay, I was just remembering wrong and trying to go by what I thought Cercil was referring to it as

 

I apparently just have poopy short term memory