On the other hand, it's gender essentializing to say that toughness, aggressiveness, and vengefulness are inherently masculine. One of the ways in which sexism works is to code lots of "positive" traits as masculine, thus denying women the right to claim them.

I think both things are at work here: It's not feminist to value women only when they display traits usually coded as masculine, but it's also not feminist to uncritically accept that certain traits are inherently masculine or feminine.

Personally, I think Mattie is feminist in that she displays toughness in a way that transcends gender. At the same time, I think it speaks to the sexism in her society and ours that we, and to some extent other characters in the movie, see that toughness as necessarily masculine.

Great comments everybody. I was also thinking about Sarkeesian's argument that Mattie's character never changes throughout the film, which is true. But, I don't think it devalues her role. I saw Mattie's character as strong and changing everyone else around her. All the adult male characters underestimate her in the beginning, they challenge her, and in the end, they are the ones that give in to her and learn from her. I just think it is great to see a strong, teenage woman that is at the same level as the adult men around her. That seems kinda feminist to me. There are problems with the film, but considering the kind of depictions of women we normally see, I think it is refreshing.

I disagreed with this video so much!

I'm a woman who's a feminist and who loves violent sci-fi and adventure films where the characters are one-dimensional heroes or villains who do larger-than-life stuff in a not-very emotionally nuanced way. Preferably with explosions and spaceships! I love films like this not because I think they reflect reality, but because they're escapist and fun. 95% of the time the kind of films I like show men in the most exciting roles, with women portrayed as being weaker, less important and less interesting, which sucks. So I think having a woman or girl in the role of hero is feminist and awesome.

It's true that being emotionally cold, tough, violent, and not burdened by emotional complexity is coded as male and thus over-valued, while being compassionate and co-operative is coded as female and thus under-valued. Yes as a feminist I think we should value the female-coded things more - but I also think we need to push against the idea that the male-coded things are just for men and the female-coded things are just for women.

Now if you excuse me, I have to go write computer code for a while and then practice my kickboxing and then maybe watch some Battelstar Galactica episodes.

I agreed with this video.

Although pop culture often reflects what is going on in the political economy and we have been seeing a lot of violent, competitive women, we've also been seeing more nuturing men - such as several of the men on the TV show Parenthood, or the son in "The Kids Are Alright."

I think that gender-integrated personalities (whether in men or women) and gender-convergence may be where we are headed. I think that actually the reason there is fear (legitimate or not) that boys are falling behind in school and in the workplace is based on this phenomenon - girls now are more likely to have the strength that comes from being gender-integrated while some boys are still not getting the "feminine" of self-awareness, emotional availability (which is necessary for lasting motivation), relational communication skills, etc.

I love that Mattie experiences no growth...it's not about whether she's feminine or feminist but whether or not she is truly heroic. (Heroine-ic? Um, no.) Not sure. She's honest and proper to the end...and at what cost?
More interesting (to me), from a feminist perspective, is why the Coen Bros chose to sex up the text a little, with that tense scene in her bedroom and their interpretation of the spanking scene.
And most interesting (to me) is that too few critics credit the best thing about Mattie...she's funny as hell. That might be telling all by itself. I firmly believe that feminism is dead until it finds its sense of humor.

I watched the video with my husband (who is a dedicated Western lover) and his thoughts were along the lines of "of course she doesn't show much emotion. It's a Western. No one does." So I'm not sure if Sarkeesian is showing that she isn't familiar with the genre, or on the other hand, that we should be looking for Westerns to change and embrace more "feminine" attributes (I do have a problem with identifying certain attributes as inherently feminine, but I understand what she is trying to say) I'm not sure how much emotion you could add into a Western before it would start seriously transgressing the rules of the genre.

I think the other consideration is to remember that True Grit is a period film. We can't expect period characters to act contrary to what they would have believed at the time. Maddie isn't upset by the death penalty because very few people at the time would have questioned its validity. We should keep this in mind as well when it comes to deciding whether or not she is a feminist character.

I don't think the point of this post or the video is that it would be more feminist of this singular character, Mattie, to be more flawed, more emotional, more feminine, or whatever.

The point is to notice a pattern of which characters and performances tend to be valued. Sarkeesian's videos generally look at overarching patterns - like her list of the genderization of movies that tend to win Best Picture. And it is fair to say that in the larger view, the qualities Mattie exhibits are attributed to masculinity (which is NOT the same as saying that the attributes ARE masculine), and it is fair and interesting to notice that the characters (and movies) we tend to celebrate most are those that exhibit these supposedly masculine traits.

I liked Simone's list of attributes-that-are-presumed-feminine (upthread). . . how often do we reward the creation or performance of female characters that are particularly emotionally intelligent or particularly nurturing or particularly good with interpersonal relationships? How often do we reward male characters with those attributes?

Rarely.

I have to wonder, was there anyone calling the character feminist in the first place? I don't know, but when I watched the film the thought didn't even pass through my head -- she was just a character (and a good one at that). I am very much a feminist myself, but I think the better question is, why does ever female character have to be a "feminist" character.

Frig, you just can't win eh?

I think the problem here is that people are trying to use art strictly for social justice. Maddy was a friggin awesome character, and this lady is upset because she doesn't /perfectly/ reject the patriarchy. But artistically speaking, her character was very interesting, and very fun to watch. I wouldn't have enjoyed it if she'd had empathy, sorrow, or regret for anything because it would clash with the western-movie-attitude i desire from those movies.

I don't study feminism, I'm just female. I read the book when I was 14. Before this book, I pretty much had read every thing I could find on Queen Elizabeth 1 and Annie Oakley, because they were the only female characters I had to read about unless I read Nancy Drew, Cherry Ames and Trixie Belden. Even at 14, I knew Mattie was a REAL person. She was a person first, a girl second. It says something about the time in which I grew up that the only way I could acknowledge Mattie's (and my) entire self was by separating my "personhood" and my femaleness into two aspects of my self. But the video seems to equate judging Mattie as a feminist character by her arc as a epic hero on a quest. That may be a flaw in the story, but not in the character. She is a great character, someone who knew who she was and the road she was on. That seems feminine to me.
The first movie was a vehicle for John Wayne. I did not mind that Kim Darby was older. She looked 14; that's what an actor needs to do. This version respected the considerable talent of Chas Portis AND respected his character. Mattie had true grit, and she was a true character. That's all I wanted

Mattie gets what Mattie wnats and doesn't let anyone stop her. Mattie rocks.

Nitpicking about what or is not 'real' feminism makes me want to stick sharpened pencils in my eyes.

>>Nitpicking about what or is not ‘real’ feminism makes me want to stick sharpened pencils in my eyes.

Yes. This.

Mattis is a strong woman, but unfortunately, she is not a feminist. We never see her working for women's suffrage or doing any other type of women's rights activism. To call Mattie a feminist is an insult to the work that Sojourner Truth, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Lucy Stone, and so many other 19th century feminists did.

RE: Brigid's first post:

You expressed my thoughts, exactly. While there is no doubt we live in an absolutely androcentric society, I wholeheartedly agree that to claim that steadfastness, loyalty, toughness, etc. are 'masculine' traits seems rather more sexist than to admire a woman for doing them. It would be so much better for all if people would stop ascribing various personality traits, thoughts, and actions as either 'masculine' or 'feminine' - I feel that aside from rather few, gender-specific characteristics (such as having testicles, or a uterus), the things we consider 'masculine' or 'feminine' are those that are conditioned into us via parental and peer guidance, media pressure, etc.; I would say very few (though more like if any)of these are inherently 'of men' or 'of women'. The fact that people still refer to human traits this way is more damaging than how we feel about someone's expression of them.

I would also like to point out that our society does not necessarily see certain traits as 'masculine' and, therefore, value them more; many of the same traits are seen in both sexes, but a man's expression of them is simply valued more b/c he's a man. It isn't necessarily the trait itself that's valued, it's him. For example, Sarkeesian sees these as stereotypically masculine, and therefore, more valued traits: emotional inexpressiveness, domination, aggressiveness. When these very same traits are seen in a woman, they are usually given negative names, and valued less b/c it is a woman bearing them (the same traits above, for example, are usually 'feminized' as: emotional inexpressiveness - frigidity'; domination - 'bossy','demanding'; and agressiveness - 'hysterical', 'pushy', 'shrewish', 'naggish'.

If Mattie could only qualify as a feminist character by acting feminine, she never would have gotten off the grounds of her farm in the beginning of this story. Mattie is from a western, 19th century town. By being the eldest child and having no brothers, she socially lucked out in that she was allowed to learn some business and escape the farm grounds.

Mattie's life on a farm would have meant that she would not have necessarily been raised to have the traits she is seen as missing and making her un-feminist. Considering the social context of the setting, Mattie has dealt with farm hands, helped work the land, cared for the animals and worked the kitchen and business of the farm. Her younger sister would probably be the more 'feminine' character, as she would be doing less of the farm work and so more likely be trained in the ladylike social graces or what have you. Children were extra hands in that era. They were still extra hands up to a generation or so ago where I'm from in Saskatchewan.

Mattie had these skills because of who she was, and she used her social capital to get her horse and stay in the city longer than she was supposed to. At one point, she mentions her father was a freemason. This could be argued as an example of Mattie's social savvy, as it would be likely that many of the men running the stores are freemasons. Mattie knows what social clout is and uses it the way she would have learned doing business with her father.

Mattie being a very 'feminine' character would have made her seem out of place and not true to the history of the setting she is placed in. Mattie's knowledge of social standing and use of her abilities to buck the social order and get the justice she knew her impoverished family would not see otherwise sounds pretty feminist to me.

The only way one can describe Mattie as "not being feminist" is to assume that the qualities of bravery, orneriness, and intelligence are essentially coded masculine and that to be a proper girl/woman she needed to adopt a pet while on the trail or to keep her hands busy by knitting while riding. You know, token "female" activities. (Besides, she has several attitudes that are coded very feminine by the standards of the time - our culture is simply different and we don't recognize them as being coded feminine for the period. Case in point: Her disdain for Rooster's drinking habits. This story took place during a time when not drinking alchohol (often to excess) was disdained by most men and a real cause for the Temperance Ladies.

She's punished several times by the Texas Ranger for not being feminine enough - do we have to do the same?

Oh no, I usually love Sarkeesian's videos, but I have SO MANY problems with this!

It seems so much like policing, to be ripping the label of feminist off of characters like Mattie. I think it is entirely fair and true to say that our culture values male-coded traits more than female-coded ones, but does that mean that we should switch that? Should we look DOWN on male-coded things and venerate female-coded ones? NO! I can't say this enough, NO! Female characters who display stereotypically male traits should not be called unfeminist, just like real women who display these traits shouldn't be. In my opinion, fiction is there to reflect real life, and women like this have every right to exist and be represented in movies, and they also have every right to be feminist. The real problem is that the other side isn't being shown. But that doesn't mean FEWER characters like Mattie should exist, it means MORE characters should exist who are still admirable and feminist, working within female-coded character traits, like she describes in the end of the video. Mattie and her ilk existing is not the problem; it is that lacking at the other end of the spectrum that is the problem.

I think that the only standard for being a feminist character should be that she is a fully-developed, complex character who is not formed from sexist stereotypes, is not created to pander to male fantasy, and does not depend on men within the narrative to accomplish things. Mattie fits all of these standards perfectly. The only extent to which she relies on men, it is because she is a child, and still the men are made out to be pretty useless most of the time.

True, she did not develop as much as we see some characters develop, in this movie and in others, but I think to say that she did not change at all is to not be thinking very deeply about the movie. She doesn't explicitly have a speech about all the lessons she learned or anything stupid, but to think that the experience didn't change her would be ridiculous. I think the loss of her arm is partially there to indicate internal change as well, even though she may not display it overtly. That's just my impression and it's all totally debatable, but that's what's great. It's left up to the viewer to think about. But that doesn't mean it's not there.

I was also particularly bothered by the fact that she says revenge is never questioned in the movie. This seems like a mistake one could only make if they hadn't even seen the movie! The whole film was a critique of a hyper-masculine world, with the shooting contest and etc, but I thought the criticism of violence and revenge as justice was the most obvious of all. Mattie goes through the whole movie seeking violent revenge, and when she gets it, she IMMEDIATELY falls into a pit and gets almost fatally bit by a snake. There is no moment in the movie at ALL of triumph or and kind of emotional reward for having achieved her violent goal. In fact, when she's hallucinating from the bite, she forgets she managed to kill him at all. She hallucinates that he's getting away, indicating that managing to kill him did not bring her any relief. Then she has to suffer the loss of her beloved horse followed by the loss of her arm. Many people died along the way and she never sees Cogburn or LeBoeuf again. This is an enormously depressing end that, to me, quite clearly shows the pointlessness and destructiveness of revenge as a form of justice. Just because the characters don't realize it at any point that we see doesn't mean that the movie isn't constructed that way.

I also thought that the basic premise that Mattie showed purely masculine characteristics was also problematic. There were points where she cracked, and you could see that she was really a child, or really compassionate and was suppressing these things, putting on facades at times, to get by in a man's world. Like when she wants to tell scary stories around the campfire or tries to force LaBoeuf to eat. Or, more subtly, she seems to be disturbed or upset at some points, like when they come across the hanged body, feelings which she quickly swallows down. I thought Steinfeld's acting in moments like these was wonderful. Finally, and most critically imo, her extreme sadness at losing her horse while she was sick from the bite showed how much emotion she had been repressing the whole movie. Again, the fact that to be independent she has to adopt these male values, and what this does to her as a person, is another aspect of the movie's critique of a culture favoring extreme masculinity.

I know that was long, but there was so much to say. I just feel like Sarkeesian completely missed the mark on that one.

I loved this video review of Mattie's character and agree with it for the most part, in that its not feminist. Rather, she is just a girl bent on revenge, most seemingly for sake of what she views as justice rather than for some impassioned mission to avenge her father.

But I am really surprised at the portrayal of the Bride from Kill Bill as one of these female 1-dimensional characters that have been plopped into a traditionally male role. The reason I liked the Bride so much was because I felt she portrayed the typically cold emotions of an assassin (usually male), while she simultaneously displayed emotions as a woman, and as a human with feelings.

*SPOILERS* She leaves her dangerous life when she finds out she is pregnant because she is so moved by the baby growing inside her. She mourns a bit when she kills Vernita Green and Oren Ishii (although, not Elle Driver, which I can't blame her for!) because she respects them as strong women. She mourns even more when she does eventually kill Bill, and cries often. I think she was a perfect example of a feminist, female lead role.

who cares? make me a sammage.

I would argue that many masculine traits are objectively positive and many feminine ones are objectively negative, because men have claimed things that are desirable as their own, and left the undesirable as "feminine." Of course, femininity can be redefined by feminists. But traditionally, there are very few good feminine characteristics, activities, and occupations, and few negative masculine ones. Being pro-feminine does not mean that we should embrace the negative side of femininity, as some radical feminists claim we must in order to be true feminists. And appreciating those traits claimed as masculine that are positive and not truly gender specific (such as mental strength) is not anti-feminist. It's pragmatic and for the betterment of women if we claim those for ourselves, regardless of how they've traditionally been defined. Women need to stop wasting their time on the "feminine" and trivial and go for what is best, categories and definitions be damned.

I see what is wrong with Anita Sarkeesian's argument. This person is claiming that in order for Mattie Ross to be viewed as a "feminist", she has to undergo some kind of character development throughout the story. Granted, Mattie's development is somewhat limited in that the most she loses is her naivety, the idea that character development in a fictional story is a sign of a female character being a feminist does not strike me as convincing. If anything, I find this argument rather shallow.

I also found Ms. Sarkeesian's complaint that neither Mattie or any of the other characters express shock or anything of the kind at the violence and death around them rather irrelevant. "TRUE GRIT" is set in the mid-to-late 19th century. When it came to law, order, violence, etc. in the Mid and Far West, Americans viewed matters a lot differently than they do today. The fact that Mattie goes through such extremes to ensure that her father's killer is "punished" is a sign to me of her feelings toward her Mr. Ross' death. I suspect that Ms. Sarkeesian is trying to argue that Mattie has to display some kind of 21st century sensibilities in order to be viewed as a "feminist". And that argument not only strikes me as shallow, but irrelevant.

Ugh.. this video is so hetero-boring.