One Woman in the Justice League
Just one woman, maybe two, in a team or group of men.
Also watch Jimmy Kimmel's "Muscle Man' superhero skit - "I'm the girly one"
The Avengers:
In Marvel Comics:
"Labeled "Earth's Mightiest Heroes," the original Avengers consisted of Iron Man, Ant-Man, Hulk, Thor and the Wasp. Captain America was discovered trapped in ice in The Avengers issue #4, and joined the group after they revived him."
5 / 6 original members are male. Only one is female.
Modern films (MCU):
The original 6 Avengers were Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Hulk, Hawkeye, and Black Widow.
Again, 5 / 6 original members are male. Only one is female.
Justice League
In DC comics:
"The Justice League originally consisted of Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter, and Aquaman"
6 / 7 original members are male. Only one is female.
In modern films (DCEU):
The members were/are Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Flash, Cyborg. (+ introducing Martian Manhunter (in Zack Snyder's Justice League director's cut))
5 / 6 main members in both versions of the Justice League film are male, with appearances by a 7th member in the director's cut who is also male. Only one member is female.
The Umbrella Academy (comics and show)
7 members:
- Luther (Number One / Spaceboy)
- Diego (Number Two / The Kraken)
- Allison (Number Three / The Rumor)
- Klaus (Number Four / The Séance)
- Five (Number Five / The Boy)
- Ben (Number Six / The Horror)
- Vanya (Number Seven / The White Violin) Later becomes known as Viktor and nonbinary in the television adaptation after Elliot Page's transition but that's not really relevant to this.
Here, 5 / 7 original members are male. Only two are female. Only slightly better than the other more famous superhero teams, and they had to add another member (compared to Avengers' 6 members) to improve the ratio (maybe executives still demanded to have 5 males).
Now let's look at some sitcoms and other stories.
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia:
4 males, and 1 female slightly less prominent character who is abused constantly. The show claims to be politically aware and satirical but gets away with a lot of misogynistic comedy, tbh, that I'm willing to bet a lot of people are finding funny for the wrong reasons.
Community:
Jeff, Britta, Abed, Troy, Annie, Pierce, Shirley. This one is a little better, 3/7 are female. Notice it's always more males though, they never let it become more than 50% female, or else then it's a "chick flick" or a "female team up" or "gender flipped" story. And of course the main character, and the leading few characters, are almost always male or mostly male.
Stranger Things:
Main original group of kids consisted of: Mike, Will, Dustin, Lucas, and El (Eleven). 1 original female member, who is comparable to an alien and even plays the role of E.T. in direct homage. When they added Max, I saw people complaining that although they liked her, there should be only one female member. 🤦
Why is it 'iconic' to have only one female in a group of males? Does that just mean it's the tradition, the way it's always been? Can't we change that? Is it so that all the men can have a chance with the one girl, or so the males can always dominate the discussion with their use of force and manliness? Or so that whenever the team saves the day, it's mostly a bunch of men doing it, but with 'a little help' from a female/a few females (at most), too!
It's so fucked up and disgusting to me I've realised. And men don't seem to care. I'm a male and this is really disturbing to me now that I've woken up to it. How do women feel about this? Am I overreacting?
Why when a lot of those males aren't men, they're boys.
I guess my reply was coming from women typically find being called females odd, often by "incels," so I thought males had the same tone. I didn't mean weird in a rude way! You have a good point.
Yes, we get that, but I think they mean that when incels call women "females" it's cringe as hell, because we know it's coming from a place where they don't think of women in a healthy way, so this comes off as stooping to their level
Yeah I'm aware of the problems with saying "men and females" but I thought the issue was more about a double standard of using different terms for different genders... If we say "males and females" and use the equivalent terms for both, is there a problem with this? Because it's not treating them differently so I don't really understand
Honestly, ask a few woman how they feel about the usage and go by what they say. A bunch of men/boys discussing this have no skin in that game.
I think, as with many things, it is about context. When doing a scientific reproductive study about "rats - 5 male, 5 female" it makes sense to use biological descriptors, and when paramedics do it in a biological emergency, etc. A good way to understand it is via other similar trajectories, like racism. Would you consider it reasonable to refer to a "white man" while referring to another "man who's a black"? For example only a few decades ago you might have heard a cop in the US (or South Africa, in Afrikaans) say e.g: "I saw 5 men leave, and 2 of them were blacks" vs what you would (hope to) hear now: "I saw 3 white men and 2 black men leave". Look at those 2 sentences substituting "white, black" -> "male, female" and "men" -> "people", and that should highlight the point (in a slightly grammatically clunky way though because I don't have time to come up with a more elegant example).
In your examples, I would definitely think we shouldn't use differential/non-equivalent language between different groups of people/members of society, including races or genders. So that includes not saying "white man" and "man who's a black" -> I would think this should probably be "white man" and "black man" or "man who's white" and "man who's black". I think being consistent with our language used to refer to people is important to not promote or uphold discrimination. There could be other problems even if it's consistent, I'm not denying that, but I think lack of consistency of treatment (linguistic or otherwise) is a key issue. I believe in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity to a degree, that language shapes/influences how we view the world & informs a lot of actions & behaviors in society. So linguistic discrimination is a real thing that can lead to or perpetuate more overt (physical/social) forms of discrimination. For the same reason, it should be consistent between genders (and as a side note, I don't view male and female to be strictly biological terms to refer to biological sex, but rather that they can be used for gender identity too, as in MtF / FtM [male to female or female to male], which other sociology institutions seem to agree with as well, in case you thought I was being a "sex absolutist" or transphobic).
The case of using "male and female" for rats in an experiment is interesting because to me it represents a double standard where we are okay with using those more kind of basic fundamental terms for non-human animals, even if we're not okay with using them for humans (and it's not like we have terms like men and women for other animals, so it's somewhat understandable in working within the language). But it also shows that if we only reserve those terms for other animals, it can uphold harmful differential treatment of them (such as conducting experiments/testing on them that they can't consent to–and wouldn't since they're typically cruel in ways we would never do to humans–which could be seen as exploitation/taking advantage of sentient beings), as tied to a belief that humans are superior and are not animals, which is used to rationalize these actions & arguably discrimination (speciesism) of another kind. That's partly why I question if it's really valid for us to be opposed to using terms like male and female for humans, or if it reveals something deeper about how we think of ourselves in relation to other animals- as well as just curiosity about if there is really a problem there, and what/why that might be.
If I've read your comment correctly I think we actually agree on all points, but my hurriedly written comment didn't communicate two of them as clearly as I would've liked.
We concur that consistency of terms matters, words are the skeletons of thought-processes and therefore biases, etc.
I realise my emphasising the phrase "biological descriptors" was a bit misleading and strictly speaking actually wrong, but in my partial defence I was trying to avoid more scientific words when not necessary (not wanting to drift into pretentiousness). In light of your observation about biology vs gender identity (which I agree with), probably my point would be more correct if I'd used a phrase like "reductionist differentiation descriptors". Even if accurate that sounds a little pretentious so I'd love any domain-expert to chime in with a more accurate-yet-concise phrase.
I used the rat example purely as an example of a research context divorced from social/political connotations, not as a human-animal vs non-human-animal differentiator (not implying any double-standard there), hence why I followed it with the example of how paramedics also use it. My point could equally have used a "10 humans..." example.
Also, pondering again your comment which spawned this slightly lengthy subthread, namely:
I am not a linguistics expert so I'm probably not using exactly the right terminology here, but I think the bit that matters is using:
adjectives as reductionist/caricaturing pseudo-nouns
when any such words are used merely as labels vs as signifiers for emphasis
Namely:
A. Calling someone a "human" or "person" is using a less common noun as ambiguous label
B. Calling someone a "woman" or "girl" or "man" or "boy" is using a common noun as general label
C. Calling someone a "female human" or "male human" or "female person" or "male person" is using an uncommon adjective-noun combination as explicit signifier
D. Calling someone a "female" or "male" is using a usually unwelcome adjective-as-pseudo-noun as reductionist signifier
In this context "reductionist signifier" means "reducing the value, worth, and significance of a person to only that defined by a single abused adjective". So a line in a book which says "The bar full of people fell silent when a female entered the room" is implying that the "people" (probably primarily/entirely male, by inference) are "whole people" (with hopes, dreams, struggles, character arcs), while the "female" is as far as the writer cares merely a one-dimensional representation of a (different) gender, and not "a whole person, who happens to be female". I remember reading long ago (but can't remember attribution): "Never trust an author who shows you they don't care about their characters". I think the application of that can be extended from authors to people in general, based on how they speak.
In their defense, when talking about entertainment media (especially the industries at large) people usually say “male audience” and “female audience.” Also “male characters” and “female characters.” They’re just common terms in this context.
That’s still a bit different than saying “males” or “females.” Using those words as nouns makes it feel like a nature documentary narration.
Well humans are animals, maybe we should question why it makes some of us feel uncomfortable to be referred to in the same way we would refer to other animals. It could be ingrained biases of human supremacy/anthropocentrism/speciesism that we use to justify differential treatment of nonhumans that we wouldn't want done to ourselves 🤔 just a thought
I hear what you’re saying and I’m not saying you were wrong in your usage. The issue I think most women (including me) have is when men refer to us as “females” while not referring to themselves as “males” is that it makes us feel like they view us as not fully human, or like a lesser animal. Problematic people are often trying to feel superior to others, whether via race, class, religion, age, etc etc, and certainly speciesism (is that a word? Autocorrect thinks so) can play a role.
Yeah but he’s using it in a context that frequently says “male” and “female.” Honestly I didn't even notice until folks complained.
It’s not the same as “you know how females are.”
Yes, that's what I meant. Thanks for explaining it better!
At that point, you could say “male characters.”
I was talking about the people complaining about female characters in media lol. Those people are usually males who are often not (chronologically) mature, making it strange to call them men. I guess some of the characters might not be men either. But yeah we could say male characters rather than e.g. "7 characters: 5 males, 2 females" etc. But it could get a little clunky. Also I'm just not sure what the problem with it is, since saying "males and females" has always been acceptable to me and a basic component of language until patterns of differential linguistic treatment were observed between genders: "men and females" etc, which I understand could be offensive on a gender basis and agree can promote sexist attitudes. I already thought it should either be "women and men" or "females and males", using the equivalent terms in the same context consistently (though somewhat interchangeably), but for there to be an inherent issue with using "males" and "females" even when we apply them equally seems like a separate objection that was new and unexpected for me. I'm curious to find out why that is that some people don't like those terms in general, and I think maybe we should question it, because I have a feeling it could be tied to feelings of human entitlement and the problematic (imo) belief that humans aren't animals, as used to justify speciesism. But I could be wrong.