I’m glad to see people finally talking about what makes the “girl boss” archetype tiresome.
I have a theory about what led culture to swing to the “girl boss” archetype and away from strong and stoic male leads, besides woke ideology’s emergence into the mainstream, of course: what I’d call the “betch” archetype, which was prominent in Hollywood during the aughts, directly preceding the girl boss.
I grew up in the aughts. During my adolescence, I recall TV and movies constantly feeding me this “betch” archetype, or a female character who is airheaded, whiny/weepy, vain, mean-spirited, an overreactor, and physically fragile/incapable, often diminishing the character’s personality to the point that she became nothing but an all-too-obvious sex object, even in movies/shows with large female audiences. Take the main characters in "Mean Girls" and how Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie portrayed themselves in "The Simple Life"; I’d say those depictions epitomize the archetype I’m thinking of. Because of this archetype, it also became totally acceptable in the aughts for female characters to gratuitously be called skanks, sluts, whores, bitches/betches, etc., which I think would be met with a lot of criticism today.
I found the betch archetype equally as nauseating when showed time and time again as I find the emotionless, static girl boss who isn’t allowed to possess any character traits traditionally viewed as feminine. It felt like a caricature or vilification of femininity. Instead of countering it with female characters who displayed more positive feminine traits and depth, they overcorrected, as usual, by eliminating femininity from female characters all together with the girl boss. It really makes me wonder why it’s so hard for Hollywood to create balance and range in the writing of their characters so we’re not always having these horrible pendulum swings.
The girl boss archetype is unfortunately prevailing in fiction as well. It’s become difficult for authors to write relatable female characters that don’t get labeled as weak. And it seems to be even more difficult to write male characters or write honestly as a man because the male perspective as a whole is being conflated with “toxic masculinity.” There's a great contradiction in modern literature, where behaviors and ideas deemed “toxic” in male characters are celebrated when coming from female characters.
What a fantastic and interesting comment. This is probably worth turning into a post of it's own. I think you're on to something with the overcorrection point. Excellent thesis. Thank you for this.
Of course! I appreciate your article. The subject is important to me and my work. It's nice to be able to talk openly about it with other people and know that I'm not alone in feeling the way I do.
That's part of what attracted me to SubStack too? To have these kind of reality grounded and epistemically rigorous conversations without fear of being vilified by the mob. You are certainly not alone, MJ. Thanks for your support.
Would give RRR a big thumbs up and definitely worth a watch. Over the years I’ve watched some Indian movies and much like watching Korean movies/ series once you get into the rhythm and telling of their stories they are fantastic too watch. ( thoroughly enjoyed Kingdom and if you like your series a wee bit darker would recommend is Korean drama series Strangers from Hell ( also heard it called Hell is other People)
Thanks for the recommendation. Yeah Kingdom is amazing. Still no word on season 3 though which is not an encouraging sign after all this time. Thanks for the comment.
Good article! I have to say though, I also disliked the first Top Gun, but Maverick is a gazillion times better; give it 15 minutes and if you aren't interested, okay. Also, RRR is fantastic.
Thanks for commenting and thanks for the compliment. I'm glad you enjoyed the article. I may have to check Maverick out after all. I keep hearing great things. I'll give RRR another crack as well. Thanks
The original American film archetype is the Western. I tried to reinvent the genre adapted to contemporary issues. Publishing and the film industry which are siblings are both horrified by the content and snobbish at the genre. It's run by hysterical women, basically, so I see no return to form for either sector. They are perverse librarian types who hate anything masculine they cannot dominate with emotional blackmail. This is why they protect perverted men: they can control them. The whole teleos of the arts industries has transmutated from proper culture-seeking into a proxy for the gender wars. Pathetic.
I've had direct experience pitching agents in Manhattan. "White men, don't bother; we're not interested," was, verbatim, the first female agent's words. They are all white women of a certain age range, of an absolutist left politics, and deep prejudice against independent men. I've interacted with these people. They are harpies, collectivists, resentment hags. This is not all women, obviously, however much someone might wish to pin me for a generalist. But the dark feminine mindset that runs the creative arts industries as of now, this is who they are. Twisters is an attempt to get middle America back but see my review of it. It's an utter failure.
Yes, I have noticed so so many agents/publishers/magazines adding the obligatory statement that they are especially open to submissions from BIPOC or Lgbtq+ people, and sometimes just from exclusively these groups (talk about inclusivity, right?!😅). I don’t even bother submitting stuff to these kind of people/places, It’s clear I won’t be welcomed because I’m not the skin colour or sexual orientation they’re looking for.
Hey there Katherine. I have to thank you for your post 'I Love Men'. It was one of my main sources of inspiration for writing this article. I even cited it within. Keep up the great work.
Hi, wow, thanks! I think Substack didn’t notify me about the mention. I don’t want to sound weird, but sometimes when I write controversial stuff it feel like I’m being shadow-banned or something. I’m probably just paranoid. Anyway, thank you so much! I’ll read it. I just stumbled upon the comments, but I was meaning to read it earlier (so much stuff on Substack, I get distracted easilly).
I mentioned the name of the article and embedded a link to it and referenced your username as the citation. Not sure if you'd get notified about that or not. Hope you enjoy.
And it's even narrower than that, I'm afraid. I am a gay man. But a gay man who doesn't buy into the totalitarian thing. Try being a black man or a black gay man who doesn't buy into it. That is a greater heresy. It's all vile.
Yes, apparently being just gay, or just a woman isn’t enough anymore. You need to be an ally (I hate that word, it sounds totally communist, like comrad). I had almost lost fate in trad publishing, until last week I received the first and only “yes” from a magazine for my story. Although it’s a small anthology, and a small publisher, it gives me hope not all is lost.
I just want to add that more sophisticated agents will hide adherence to this mantra that currently possesses the industry and not be so blunt and foolishly forthright (but thank god for it as I appreciate knowing where I stand). They will be more insidious and pretend to consider you and your work but will have dismissed you on sight.
Fantastic article, I love how you analyzed the trends of the business-side, the sociological side, the psychological and also analyzed the essay of a number of us Stackers. This was one of the best essays I've seen in weeks, this is an amazing accomplishment.
Honestly, I'm going to write another archetype essay soon, but before then I'm hoping to read a little further in Campbell and will have to tag this in there and in the podcast version.
Thank you. Reading this comment made my week, which is saying a lot as yesterday was my birthday. Thank you Bros Krynn. Don't forget to tag me in that next archetype essay, I can't wait to read it.
I’m glad to see people finally talking about what makes the “girl boss” archetype tiresome.
I have a theory about what led culture to swing to the “girl boss” archetype and away from strong and stoic male leads, besides woke ideology’s emergence into the mainstream, of course: what I’d call the “betch” archetype, which was prominent in Hollywood during the aughts, directly preceding the girl boss.
I grew up in the aughts. During my adolescence, I recall TV and movies constantly feeding me this “betch” archetype, or a female character who is airheaded, whiny/weepy, vain, mean-spirited, an overreactor, and physically fragile/incapable, often diminishing the character’s personality to the point that she became nothing but an all-too-obvious sex object, even in movies/shows with large female audiences. Take the main characters in "Mean Girls" and how Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie portrayed themselves in "The Simple Life"; I’d say those depictions epitomize the archetype I’m thinking of. Because of this archetype, it also became totally acceptable in the aughts for female characters to gratuitously be called skanks, sluts, whores, bitches/betches, etc., which I think would be met with a lot of criticism today.
I found the betch archetype equally as nauseating when showed time and time again as I find the emotionless, static girl boss who isn’t allowed to possess any character traits traditionally viewed as feminine. It felt like a caricature or vilification of femininity. Instead of countering it with female characters who displayed more positive feminine traits and depth, they overcorrected, as usual, by eliminating femininity from female characters all together with the girl boss. It really makes me wonder why it’s so hard for Hollywood to create balance and range in the writing of their characters so we’re not always having these horrible pendulum swings.
The girl boss archetype is unfortunately prevailing in fiction as well. It’s become difficult for authors to write relatable female characters that don’t get labeled as weak. And it seems to be even more difficult to write male characters or write honestly as a man because the male perspective as a whole is being conflated with “toxic masculinity.” There's a great contradiction in modern literature, where behaviors and ideas deemed “toxic” in male characters are celebrated when coming from female characters.
What a fantastic and interesting comment. This is probably worth turning into a post of it's own. I think you're on to something with the overcorrection point. Excellent thesis. Thank you for this.
Of course! I appreciate your article. The subject is important to me and my work. It's nice to be able to talk openly about it with other people and know that I'm not alone in feeling the way I do.
That's part of what attracted me to SubStack too? To have these kind of reality grounded and epistemically rigorous conversations without fear of being vilified by the mob. You are certainly not alone, MJ. Thanks for your support.
Would give RRR a big thumbs up and definitely worth a watch. Over the years I’ve watched some Indian movies and much like watching Korean movies/ series once you get into the rhythm and telling of their stories they are fantastic too watch. ( thoroughly enjoyed Kingdom and if you like your series a wee bit darker would recommend is Korean drama series Strangers from Hell ( also heard it called Hell is other People)
Thanks for the recommendation. Yeah Kingdom is amazing. Still no word on season 3 though which is not an encouraging sign after all this time. Thanks for the comment.
Good article! I have to say though, I also disliked the first Top Gun, but Maverick is a gazillion times better; give it 15 minutes and if you aren't interested, okay. Also, RRR is fantastic.
Thanks for commenting and thanks for the compliment. I'm glad you enjoyed the article. I may have to check Maverick out after all. I keep hearing great things. I'll give RRR another crack as well. Thanks
The original American film archetype is the Western. I tried to reinvent the genre adapted to contemporary issues. Publishing and the film industry which are siblings are both horrified by the content and snobbish at the genre. It's run by hysterical women, basically, so I see no return to form for either sector. They are perverse librarian types who hate anything masculine they cannot dominate with emotional blackmail. This is why they protect perverted men: they can control them. The whole teleos of the arts industries has transmutated from proper culture-seeking into a proxy for the gender wars. Pathetic.
Thanks for commenting. I suppose I would be correct in saying that you are less optimistic than I am, then? 🤣🤣
I've had direct experience pitching agents in Manhattan. "White men, don't bother; we're not interested," was, verbatim, the first female agent's words. They are all white women of a certain age range, of an absolutist left politics, and deep prejudice against independent men. I've interacted with these people. They are harpies, collectivists, resentment hags. This is not all women, obviously, however much someone might wish to pin me for a generalist. But the dark feminine mindset that runs the creative arts industries as of now, this is who they are. Twisters is an attempt to get middle America back but see my review of it. It's an utter failure.
Yes, I have noticed so so many agents/publishers/magazines adding the obligatory statement that they are especially open to submissions from BIPOC or Lgbtq+ people, and sometimes just from exclusively these groups (talk about inclusivity, right?!😅). I don’t even bother submitting stuff to these kind of people/places, It’s clear I won’t be welcomed because I’m not the skin colour or sexual orientation they’re looking for.
Hey there Katherine. I have to thank you for your post 'I Love Men'. It was one of my main sources of inspiration for writing this article. I even cited it within. Keep up the great work.
Hi, wow, thanks! I think Substack didn’t notify me about the mention. I don’t want to sound weird, but sometimes when I write controversial stuff it feel like I’m being shadow-banned or something. I’m probably just paranoid. Anyway, thank you so much! I’ll read it. I just stumbled upon the comments, but I was meaning to read it earlier (so much stuff on Substack, I get distracted easilly).
I mentioned the name of the article and embedded a link to it and referenced your username as the citation. Not sure if you'd get notified about that or not. Hope you enjoy.
And it's even narrower than that, I'm afraid. I am a gay man. But a gay man who doesn't buy into the totalitarian thing. Try being a black man or a black gay man who doesn't buy into it. That is a greater heresy. It's all vile.
Yes, apparently being just gay, or just a woman isn’t enough anymore. You need to be an ally (I hate that word, it sounds totally communist, like comrad). I had almost lost fate in trad publishing, until last week I received the first and only “yes” from a magazine for my story. Although it’s a small anthology, and a small publisher, it gives me hope not all is lost.
Congrats!
I just want to add that more sophisticated agents will hide adherence to this mantra that currently possesses the industry and not be so blunt and foolishly forthright (but thank god for it as I appreciate knowing where I stand). They will be more insidious and pretend to consider you and your work but will have dismissed you on sight.
Fantastic article, I love how you analyzed the trends of the business-side, the sociological side, the psychological and also analyzed the essay of a number of us Stackers. This was one of the best essays I've seen in weeks, this is an amazing accomplishment.
Honestly, I'm going to write another archetype essay soon, but before then I'm hoping to read a little further in Campbell and will have to tag this in there and in the podcast version.
Mon ami, this was an amazing read.
Thank you. Reading this comment made my week, which is saying a lot as yesterday was my birthday. Thank you Bros Krynn. Don't forget to tag me in that next archetype essay, I can't wait to read it.
Oh Happy Birthday! Bonne Fete! And I’d be more than happy to tag you in the next Archetype and Campbell essays don’t worry.
Thank you