Why are all my role models male?

Post Reply New Topic

I've heard some psychologists categorize Aspergers as an "extreme maleness" in attitude/thought, even in females with Aspergers, so maybe it's no surprise that most of my role models are male. I look to females to mimic the behaviors I think are socially acceptable, but when it comes to identifying with fictional characters or celebrities, I'm always enamored with males. Part of this comes from being physically attracted males, but a lot of the time I see a lot of myself in the character as well. All of my favorite writers are male. My favorite musicians are male. If I could make a list of 100 celebrities I'd like to meet, Angelina Jolie is the only female who comes to mind (and, coincidentally, she does have a very androgenous personality - a lot of extremes in both "male" and "female" traits).

Does anyone else find their role models tend to be mostly male? What famous females have you found yourself identifying with?

For me, probably...

It gets confusing discerning between what one is attracted to in another (for potential partner, or at least someone one wishes to get close to) vs. what one considers attractive features in another (that one would like to embody/possess, "be like" oneself).
If I say I like something about a person, that could mean I seek that in a companion, that I seek that in myself-or both, I suppose-it's not always clear in communication, though.

Wanting to be "with" vs. wanting to be "like". Lust for vs. Jealousy towards.
Attracted to many aspects of maleness (such as preferring sound of male voices)-but I sure would NOT want to be like that myself, have a "male-sounding" voice. Find a few females attractive, but that doesn't make me want to be near them-I just admire (and slightly envy) an aspect of their appearance (or personality)-and wish I "could be that way".

Men tend to be the public figures that most folks hear/read/learn about-more than women, who (for whichever reasons) tend to not to be nearly as famous/"well-known". Hence, more potential material (statistical proportion) for role modeling, positive or negative attention.

In my youth, I was most fond of stories (fiction or non) of females who dressed up as (pretended to be) males, in order to get "fair treatment" or be allowed to do what they want to do. Such as: book about soldier in Revolutionary War, "Afterschool Special" episode on a girl who wants to get some school job (can't recall the specifics), the film "Victor/Victoria" or girls trying to play "traditionally male" sports.

Am not at all rough & tough ("macho") or tomboy, but I relate to those who don't "fit in" with the preset program/expectations of others. Also, often felt insufficicently appealing (to the opposite sex) so I'd take heart at stories where the non-glamorous (atypical, unpopular) gal gets the guy. Identify with iconoclasts, the "underdog", and "oddballs"-not all flavors of eccentricity, but compatible/similar kinds (to mine) of unusual personalities/outlooks.

I don't think Aspergers is "extreme maleness" - I think that stereotype will change in the next while. But at the same time we may be more androgenous than most women. Or at least less able to identify with more traditional female role models.

I identify with several female comic book superheroes (who all for some reason have red hair - mine is dark), as well as one male one that I can think of off the top of my head. As far as film/tv characters, there doesn't seem to be much to choose from. They usually give the good roles to men, and when they do give good roles to women, they're not the kind of stories I can identify with. So the people who get the stories I can relate to tend to be male.

As far as historical figures/famous people go, I read many many biographies before finding one person who was a good fit for me: Joan of Arc (and I wanted to be a Bronte ). I find with reading biographies that I don't identify with men so much, because their lives are so different. There's still a shortage of famous women I can identify with/emulate, though. So it's like I have to settle.

Hmm... that is true to a certain extent. But you don't see that much diversity in female character in books or even blogs. And, to be honest, I don't see that much diversity in the females I've met in real life either. Maybe that's because I'm shy, but aside from my own personality, I don't see a lot of women I've met who are not represented by female characters in Hollywood or on TV.

I know a lot of um, shall we say, "intellectually simple" women in my family who I don't see in movies. I know a lot of bitchy/dominant women that I don't necessarily see in movies. I know a lot of crazy bipolar women that you don't see in movies. But positive female characters that aren't represented? I can't say there is anything I've seen in real life but not on TV. I think actresses are upset by the fact that the good lines tend to go to men. But in real life, men are more likely to be the ones competing for the one liners and telling jokes. Girls are the ones giggling and saying "you're so funny," or "stop fooling around and mow the lawn."

Still would be nice to see a good, slightly crazy but totally loveable female character. Uh, that isn't played by Angelina Jolie.

Wow, I was going to make a post similar to this because I've often noticed and wondered why this was.

I also tend to identify with male characters more so than female in terms of the media. I often find female roles portrayed on TV as sexy (ain't nothing wrong with that), beautiful (even in women playing plain parts), and smart not to mention extravagant in their taste of clothes. What I don't see in many of their roles are imperfections and quirks. Plus I notice in many a films that when their life sucks a man comes along and saves the day and they live happily ever after. It just doesn't come across as realistic or something I could identify with. Not to say all female roles are like this but there are quite a number of films turn out that way. One example is Cayote Ugly which is a chickflick movie....didn't hate it I just didn't identify with any of them.

In terms of emotions, I notice they come across as more emotional than I would be. Anthony Hopkins and Sean Penn are good examples of what goes through my head when I'm dealing with something sad or messed up.

Most characters I don't relate at all to deal with romantic drama and comedy. Which is odd in so many ways because I luv a lot of aspects of romance but have a hard time identifying with it through how females in the media potray them.

Here are few examples of female actors that I usually connect with and find talented.

Cate Blanchett She's always playing a different types of roles that are strong yet with each she contributes a unique style to each film. I don't know I can't put my finger on it.

Toni Colette plays characters that are all different in their uniquiness. I identify with her quirkiness and insecurities. My favorite was Muriel's Wedding as she plays somewhat of an outcast. I could really put myself in her shoes of not fitting in with the "in crowd" and out of times with the presence AKA not into being trendy.

Queen Latifah She's charasmatic and funny. I like that she "doesn't give a damn" for being herself attitude. She also has very witty dialogues that don't come off as all angry but funny.

Rene Zellweger I noticed her talent most of all in The Cold Mountain than any of the main characters that came off as somewhat flat. Nicole Kidman wasn't bad but she just didn't mesmerize me with her role (too done up for the era in which she plays and flat.) . I love Rene's hilarious yet serious roles. She isn't afraid to play roles that aren't sexy in the same way you would see sexy in the media. I think Bridgest Jones Diary is a good example that even though I wasn't very fond of the film but I couldn't help but notice her talent.

There's more actresses I like but I know that there aren't nearly as many as there are with male actors (aside from looks) I don't know if this really relates to AS or not. Most of the female roles I find appealing and unique are oddly from old movies...20's to the 40's. I find they have more persona and character than the ones of today. I guess because sex sells since there's no censorchip. This doesn't mean I'm against any of the sex except that there's so much of it that it gets in the way of a movie. Also I find that sex is more dominantly aimed toward a male audience which personally makes it harder for me to relate.

As for diagnosis, they're finding more females with AS than say 20 years ago as it was once thought that the majority was found in males. I've read somewhere that the diagnosis that qualifies females to have AS are a little different than males. It's also been learned that females and males have an area in the brain that involves communication. This part is statistically more active in females than males with AS or not. I also can't help but notice that females with AS could be easily overlooked for we as a society expects females to be more shy and introverted than their male counterparts. Males in the media and in life are usually expected to be outgoing and dominant.

Also I think the constructs of our society has a lot to do with most of these gender issues. Most of us "like it or not" want to fit in somewhere with the gender we were assigned. Consequently I believe this makes it harder for those who either don't relate or can't relate with their "assigned gender" This isn't exclusively about being gay, lesbian, or bi, but that our culture and media tend to exagerated women and men in their gender roles.

Most of this emphasis on gender roles and looks is due to what sells which is sex aka nature's way of attracting the opposite sex for procreation thus making it much harder for those who cannot psychologically relate to what is masculine to men as to what is feminine for women. I think in reality there is a a large grey area between males and females because not so long ago women were the last to have the right to vote and to work. It was also thought that women didn't or weren't suppose to enjoy sex. So many of these so-called truths of females have been and are still being debunked.

I think times are now changing slowly but surely for females, the most misconstrued gender in my opinion. I also notice that women are better at androgeny than men.

True. I feel like the female imperfections we do see all tend to be always the same types - the stressed out mother, the klutz (a la Bridget Jones), the wild child. Or, the supporting actress roles: the matron, the stupid fat woman. Maybe that's one of the limitations in movies/TV - females can only be attractive or ugly. Even with reality TV, the "normal" looking women get increasingly groomed to fit our definition of attractive - slim and toned, busty, overly styled hair, makeup, botoxed to not look a day over 30.



That's an interesting point. There was more emphasis on femmes fatales, strong female roles. Though if anything, the femme fatale is less real than many of the female roles you see today (um, in a movie not intended solely for a male audience). But most female actresses today would fight over a femme fatale role nonetheless, all the while complaining about how females are portrayed as fantasy figures in film.



Yeah, I've heard that. A lot of psychologists who diagnose it are still applying male "rules" when diagnosing females, so then it's no surprise that 95% of those they diagnosed were male. It's the same thing with psychologists who say that loss of appetite and weight loss are necessary to diagnose people with clinical depression - apparently they still haven't clued on to the fact that people (especially women) use food as a medication and will eat more and gain weight when depressed.

[quote="MissConstrue" Also I think the constructs of our society has a lot to do with most of these gender issues. Most of us "like it or not" want to fit in somewhere with the gender we were assigned. Consequently I believe this makes it harder for those who either don't relate or can't relate with their "assigned gender" [/quote]

I definitely agree with that. But one thing I found was reassuring. Social psychologists say that everyone has a mixture of "masculine" and "feminine" traits. Masculine traits being things like dominance, aggression, etc. Feminine traits are like nurturing, conversation, etc. They found that the most androgynous people - ie those with highest number of traits from BOTH categories - tended to be the most successful socially. Perhaps this is because they are adaptable - they can lead but also follow, they can be supportive but they can also challenge others, they can hang with the guys and bond with the girls. Easier to adapt, but harder if you're the type of person who needs to model after other people!

I have a tendency to mimic the socal interactions of people around me, maybe because I don't feel like I have a "natural" response of my own. It's interesting though. At my last workplace, I had 2 different bosses - the first was male and the second was female. The female one was really warm and maternal and she always told me how much she enjoyed working with me, even if I was a pretty aloof person (I usually make up for this by telling jokes). My male boss, on the other hand, told me he thought I hated him. This because our conversations were always rational debates about our research, and because I never really opened up conversations with him about my home life (but then, neither did he). He wasn't one for small talk so I never offered it. Apparently a woman is expected to smile and talk in a charming manner about what she did on the weekend, etc. He never interacted that way, so I couldn't offer it. But then he'd see me smiling and chatting with female coworkers (who spoke to me in that manner), so he thought that meant I liked them but not him.

Are you sure about that? Oftentimes female writers are required to publish under a male name because its believed that boys won't read their work if they know they are women. That's why harry potter was written by "J.K. Rawling" instead of "Joan Rawlings" And is that any surprise considering any good work appears to be written by a male? It perpetrates the impression that girls can't write.

Ever since I was a little kid, I've almost always identified most with the lead male characters of whatever series I happen to be interested in. Even as a small child of about three or four, whenever my mom and I would play pretend, I would always make her be the female or supporting male character, while I'd always be the lead male character. For example, when playing "Beetlejuice", I'd always make her be Lydia, while I would play as Beetlejuice himself. Whenever we'd play "Super Mario Brothers" (in pretend, not the videogames), I'd always pretend to be Mario while my mom would be Luigi.

Even in present days, my favorite characters are still all-male. In my imaginary world, I hang out with all my favorites; my imaginary persona is biologically a female, but she acts like a tomboy and is treated like a little brother by the others.

Last edited by IdahoRose on 28 May 2008, 1:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

That's very true. I saw a documentary on that. I didn't think people cared what sex they were when it came to a book such as a children's one.

Often times they will use their initials or have a website using an alternative name.

There is a fairly objective difference in male and female writing styles. Males can write in a female style and females can write in a male style, especially if they read a lot of authors of the opposite gender, but most females tend to write in a more "feminine" way. Masculine writing is often spare and muscular, with strong verbs and an emphasis on plot. Feminine writing is more poetic, more focused on emotions and relationships. Hemingway is a masculine writer. Austen is a feminine writer.

There are a number of female writers who publish under male names, but they don't always capture a male voice. There are also women (and men) who publish under gender-neutral initials (JK Rowling, AA Gill, etc). But the female writers still tend to write in feminine style and the male writers tend to write in masculine style.

I've been told on more than one occasion that I have "masculine" style, when I'm writing in the voice of a male character. When I write male characters I tend to read magazines like Esquire and watch male-oriented action movies to get inside the mind of your average guy. I find myself subconsciously copying the style of my favorite Esquire writer (a male who writes masculine prose about gender-neutral topics like eulogies and gift-giving) and that gets me compliments about my masculine writing. It doesn't come just from writing in the opposite gender (if you doubt that, just read Stephen King's female protagonists and tell me that's feminine prose).

So there is a definite gendered style. Not everyone adheres to it, of course, but most people will have to work to write against their gender.

I think it's because our culture does sucky things to gender expectations and the like, and there really aren't a lot of good female role models out there.

I like Angelina Jolie as well. I'm also a big fan of Emma Thompson, and I used to want to be CJ from West Wing.

Simone de Beauvoir is The Jam.


There are a few of them, out there, if you look. . . but yes, as a culture, we are building Slowly.

Ah yes-- also, familiar with Firefly? Good for female characters.

http://www.hulu.com/firefly

I think that this would could be much improved by a well planned and placed cultural revolution.

Women will be smarter when it is more culturally acceptable to be smart. I have experienced this first hand.

For two years, I danced basically full time. In dance, 99.99999999999% of what matters is how you look. Granted, the details of appearance that matter are nuanced and reflect technique and musculature, but appearance rules.

I think dance culture, in many ways, is a microchasm of American culture.

At the end of that time, I met the only person I've ever known who was disappointed in me for not being smart enough, rather than for being too smart. He was romantically interested in me and found my intelligence sexy--but he was looking for an equal partner, and I literally couldn't keep up. It could never have worked out, for a host of other reasons, but it caused me to start to reconsider the world and how I saw it in a lot of different ways.

I started reading again, and refusing to be ashamed of my intellect.

Cultural pressure makes an enormous difference.

The character Holly Short, in the Artemis Fowl books, is different. She gives me hope for female characters. As much gratuitous fantasy violence as there is in the books, I really hope they do make a movie or two out of them and get Holly right so more people can see her as a legitimate female type.

BTW, sex doesn't sell in movies. It's negatively correlated with box office gross. I'm willing to bet it doesn't sell in books, either, but have no idea of how you'd test it (I have data for film).

Hmm, that's probably true. But innuendo sure goes a long way. Look at basically every guy-oriented movie in the last decade. Look at Something About Mary. And look at traditional corset-buster romances with all those quivering women and sword-bearing men.

I don't think graphic stuff is necessarily what the general public wants (though Larry Flint and Hugh Hefner might disagree on that one). But, on the other hand, gender is a different thing than sex. And marketers almost always think in gender when defining their target audience, whether they're making a movie or writing ad copy or publishing a newspaper.