[foobarbazqux]

The hidden part about this story is that the woman is still not empowered. She's now the princess to the knight in shining armor, rescued from the horrible dragon. The author hasn't changed the narrative, he's completed it.

It's still a story where a man decides the outcome. What he did was indeed chivalrous, good even, but chivalry is nothing original.

[JulianMorrison]

"Empowered" is such guff. Here's the point: if she does anything short of drawing a weapon on him, there are men out there, lots of men out there, who will chance taking it physical in order to resist having their dominance questioned.

And society will take the man's side. She provoked him. She was impolite. She emasculated him.

It's like the game of "cat and mouse" in Red Dwarf, the only way to win is not to be the mouse, well in this game the only way to win is not to be the woman. Because all the other players in the game - including the cops and the judge and jury - won't sit still for an outcome where the woman just wins.

And if she does draw on him, well, look up Marissa Alexander.

[foobarbazqux]

To empower means to give power. It's empowering for the hero to support her while she stands up to him.

[JulianMorrison]

Far from it.

What's empowering is feminism. Fighting the slow fight to crush and erase this male centered culture.

A man, standing up for her? If he chose that particular patronizing way, she'd be well justified in worrying he too was trying it on - the "hero saves princess, gets the girl" narrative. Out of the frying pan…

And yeah, it's patronizing, because it reckons she chose her choices from weakness or timidity rather than a well calibrated judgment of her chances in this sexist society.

[foobarbazqux]

I think my post must have been poorly worded. I meant to give her agency by encouraging her to stand up to him, instead of for him to do it (which is what happened).

If you disagree, okay, but what better actions could he have taken in this situation?

[JulianMorrison]

No, I understood exactly that. You can't "give her agency". "Encouraging her to stand up to him" is exactly the wrong thing to do, she's chosen her choices as an adult who knows the score, and doing that is implying she just lacks the gumption and if only a dude was backing her up… No, it's not that easy. You may be the best intentioned dude in the world but you are ONE dude, and no, she is not going to suddenly start acting like a woman in a non sexist society at the risk of her own life, just because of one dude nominally taking her side.

[foobarbazqux]

Ok, but I'm still genuinely curious if you have an answer to my previous question.

[cbhl]

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but the narrative won't change without both men and women being involved in making that change.

My limited understanding of history is that "affluent white men" were involved in granting women and blacks the right to vote, due to the nature of "democratic" processes at the time.

Similarly, ongoing debate about granting equal legal (tax, etc.) benefits to those in homosexual relationships requires the consent from a government consisting (mostly) of heterosexual people.

[foobarbazqux]

So the guy could have gone up to the girl and said, "Is this guy bothering you?" and then encouraged her to talk back to him herself. That's not nearly so stereotypical.

[cbhl]

If I was a girl, I would find that overwhelming. Instead of unwanted contact with just one guy, I now have unwanted contact with two guys.

Plus, that sounds like a bad cop/good cop routine to use the first guy to make the second guy look like an attractive candidate for a significant other.

Maybe I'm just over-thinking this.