#hrlaughed

Not so, says Sarkeesian. She views Mattie Ross as an anti-feminist character in part because Ross doesn’t show, in Sarkeesian’s opinion, character growth or “a full range of emotions.” She even goes on to say “But since we live in a male-dominated, male-centered society, traits stereotypically identified as masculine: [emotionally inexpressive, aggressive, dominating] are more valued and consequently more celebrated by Hollywood, while traits stereotypically identified as feminine: [emotionally expressive, cooperation, affectionate] are undervalued and often denigrated.” Even more telling of her beliefs in this false male/female dichotomy is when she says “The feminism I subscribe to and work for involves more than women and our fictional representations acting like men, or unquestioningly replicating archetypal male values such as being emotionally inexpressive, the need for domination and competition, and using violence as a form of conflict resolution.” It becomes clear in her dissection of Mattie Ross and in her other ‘Feminist Frequency’ videos that her issue is with what she views as stereotypical masculinity. In her views, negative traits like emotional inexpressiveness or violence are inherently masculine while a desire to cooperate, or being affectionate are inherently feminine (tell that to Antonio Banderas’s representation of Pierre Dulaine in Take The Lead (2006), damn it!). In her eyes, Mattie Ross never challenges gender roles because she took on the apparently negative attributes prescribed to maleness instead of taking on that positive femininity and changing the world around her. Nevermind the fact that Ross and by proxy the movie is inherently challenging those stereotypes by making an argument that the dichotomy itself is false. According to Sarkeesian, the only way to show strong female characters is to have them be stereotypically feminine and change the world around them (I assume in a not Legally Blonde fashion, but I could be wrong).