Fridging: Bad for business or ordinary story trope?

[Carabas]

Della Churchill isn't a love-interest at all, being the bride of Felix Leiter.

If you read this back you'll probably spot your error.

Also, your definition of "Bond girl" is woefully narrow.

Although IIRC May Day wasn't fridged but pulled a Steve Trevor and heroically blew herself up.

[Skedatz]

Saying that the equivalency doesn't exist is just your opinion if you don't offer argumentative proof.

You asked "What if males have it just as bad?" That's a hypothetical equivalency which would restructure the entire argument but the problem is the whole "argumentative proof" isn't really mine to put forth. Aquababy would really only suggest that children are also part of fridging. And is only one example.

So it's not really my opinion. It's just not useful because the problem you're proposing doesn't exist. At least with the little you offered up.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Some of these characters have romantic encounters with Bond, but are not "good girls" in any respect. Lisl is a mobster's moll who tries to hoodwink Bond with sex. May Day is the villain's henchwoman, and she isn't really Bond's girlfriend when she chooses to take his side against Christopher Walken. Plenty is just a good-time girl who wants to have sex with Bond, but she's not especially "good" nor is she a girlfriend, just a passing fancy. Paris Carver is a lot like May Day; literally in bed with the villain at the start though she does at least switch to Bond's side after real passion between them. Tilly never shows interest in Bond as she's concerned only with revenge, and any desire he has to avenge her is based in altruism, not sex. Solange isn't Bond's lover, even if he has some intentions in that direction, and Della Churchill isn't a love-interest at all, being the bride of Felix Leiter.

Bond originally comes up as an example of "fridging," but all these examples only apply if he's formed some special connection with them. Otherwise they're just collateral damage that excites Bond's ire because they're innocents. Hell, in one of the books he even avenges somebody's murdered pet birds...

The only one's I'd argue you could say were straight up used as fridging motivation were.

-Jill Masterson who Bond had a bit of vendetta against Goldfinger over. This was a good use though because a female character was also motivated by the fridging even though she died herself later. It gave Bond a more personal reason to hate Goldfinger and a reason his superiors gave him pause.

-Aki but she died only really to set up Kissy Suzuki and to get her out of the way. Bond also quickly got revenge.

-Tracy whose death motivated him and added pathos to his character for pretty much the rest of the series until the Craig reboot

-Paris who gave Bond a personal reason to want to kill the Assasin who killed her and really make Bond want to take down Elliot Carver

-Vespar who was Bond's first true love. But that's a mixed bag because she also betrayed him. So it was a fridging but also a way to rock his world view and make him lose the ability to trust.


*I guess technically Felix's wife Della in License to Kill but I think Bond probably cared more about his friend getting dismembered and losing his wife. But she was part of it.

Bond is generally viewed as an example of fridging because

1. So many women die in his films and the fact that he failed to protect so many adds a bit of pathos to his character.
2. His origin is sort of a fridging. In the book series he literally becomes the cold hearted Bond who hates and wants to stick it to the otherside because he was broken by Vespar's betrayal and death. That's what makes Bond different from other heroes. He isn't out to do the right thing or be heroic. Who was deeply hurt and wants to pay it back. He hates the men he's up against.

[kjn]

What is the definition of fridging these days?

Originally observation that women in comics (and other popular media) are much more likely to be killed, maimed, raped, depowered, or crippled in gruesome ways than men in comics. The primary source is still around.

The notion that it's for motivating the (usually male) hero is one very common way that the trope expresses itself, and the term fridging is often used to imply this. Personally, I prefer to not tie any storytelling motives to the term, but I'm probably in the minority in that.

[kjn]

Well, I guess that'll be the last time we agree. I think the term "patriarchy" can be used for specific historical cultures, but it doesn't apply across the board to everything in our culture, and it particularly doesn't apply to our fictional stories.

There aren't more male heroes in fiction because of an Evil Patriarchal Principle. There are more male heroes because sexual dimorphism gave men a greater tendency to form muscle mass and to be generally ornery. There are more cowboys than cowgirls in fiction because there were more cowboys in real life. Now, not everything in fiction has to mirror reality exactly. There are no real superheroes, so in theory one could have as many female as male heroes. But the author still has to make it convincing that his female characters have a logical reason to pursue a "guy thing," especially when there's no great rewards for doing so, unlike, say, breaking the glass ceiling.

Well, I'm tired of your sealioning.

I also note that you tie heroism to "muscle mass and to be generally ornery". To me that is a fundamentally limited view of heroism, specifically geared towards that only men can be heroes.

[ouroboros]

If you read this back you'll probably spot your error.

Also, your definition of "Bond girl" is woefully narrow.

Although IIRC May Day wasn't fridged but pulled a Steve Trevor and heroically blew herself up.

She's not a love-interest to Bond, and that's what counts, since we've been primarily talking about his love-interests.

[Carabas]

She's not a love-interest to Bond, and that's what counts, since we've been primarily talking about his love-interests.

You do not actually have to be a love interest to get fridged.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

You do not actually have to be a love interest to get fridged.

She was a strange fridging. I think she was used to essentially double fridge her husband. Who in turn was Bond’s main motivation.

[ouroboros]

You asked "What if males have it just as bad?" That's a hypothetical equivalency which would restructure the entire argument but the problem is the whole "argumentative proof" isn't really mine to put forth. Aquababy would really only suggest that children are also part of fridging. And is only one example.

So it's not really my opinion. It's just not useful because the problem you're proposing doesn't exist. At least with the little you offered up.

You've misquoted me. I never said "what if males have it just as bad." I questioned the use of the term "subculture exploitation" by stating "there are a sizable quantity of male support-characters killed off for the same reason." The problem with your statement (one I'll bet you won't acknowledge) is that if we're not dealing with a trope confined to women-- who I guess are the "subculture" you're talking about-- then the term "subculture exploitation" doesn't mean anything.

I'm not going to trot a list of male support-characters who have been killed in fiction over the years. You know they exist as much as I. If you want to claim that there are more females so treated, or that their treatment is more violent or whatever, that's a claim that Gail Simone famously made. However, she didn't back it up with any comparable study of "male fridging," so even the Founder of Women in Refrigerators didn't do due diligence.

I will admit that no matter how much argumentative proof one offers, if the other person doesn't agree, he or she will almost dismiss the core arguments out of hand.

[ouroboros]

You do not actually have to be a love interest to get fridged.

So you're saying that your earlier statement was inaccurate.

The villain kills the hero's girl, the hero takes non-lethal revenge, and then we get the next arc and the next and the next, and the hero will get a new girl, and new villains who want to kill her, and of course the original girlfriend-killing villain will be back too because nothing is permanent, except for the death of the girlfriend, usually.

That, lest ye forget, was what I was responding to when I asserted that mostly "bad girls," rather than girlfriends, were usually the ones getting it in the neck.

[ouroboros]

Well, I'm tired of your sealioning.

I also note that you tie heroism to "muscle mass and to be generally ornery". To me that is a fundamentally limited view of heroism, specifically geared towards that only men can be heroes.

Note that I also said women could be heroes, especially superheroes, since no real ones exist.

But sexual differences, rooted in sexual dimorphism, can make it an uphill battle.

"Sealioning"= blanket term that allows the user to escape the rigors of sustained argument.

[Skedatz]

You've misquoted me. I never said "what if males have it just as bad." I questioned the use of the term "subculture exploitation" by stating "there are a sizable quantity of male support-characters killed off for the same reason." The problem with your statement (one I'll bet you won't acknowledge) is that if we're not dealing with a trope confined to women-- who I guess are the "subculture" you're talking about-- then the term "subculture exploitation" doesn't mean anything.

I'm not going to trot a list of male support-characters who have been killed in fiction over the years. You know they exist as much as I. If you want to claim that there are more females so treated, or that their treatment is more violent or whatever, that's a claim that Gail Simone famously made. However, she didn't back it up with any comparable study of "male fridging," so even the Founder of Women in Refrigerators didn't do due diligence.

I will admit that no matter how much argumentative proof one offers, if the other person doesn't agree, he or she will almost dismiss the core arguments out of hand.

Here's the post in which I extrapolated your point from:

But is it "subculture exploitation" if there are a sizable quantity of male support-characters killed off for the same reason, as per my example of Aquababy?

Is it subculture exploitation if a sizable quantity of male support characters killed off for the same reason is a longer way of saying, "Is it the same thing if males are treated the same way?" Basically, is fridging a bad female thing if it happens to males as well? Like I said, to make that argument you're going to need a lot more proof than a few examples (or one example in this case). You'll have to also address the systemic reasoning behind why you feel it's the same thing as opposed to saying, "The outcome is the same, therefore the cause must be the same, therefore there is no actual problem."

It's fine if you don't want to do it, I'm just saying if you want me to seriously consider or address your comment you'll actually need to put in the footwork. It's just I'm not going to do it for you.

EDIT: Changed my first line as it didn't convey what I was reading and sounded more like, "Yeah, but that's not what you said." I think it works better since this says more what I got out of your post and not so much, "Don't change your words now."

[Carabas]

So you're saying that your earlier statement was inaccurate.

Yes, it was inaccurate.

[ouroboros]

Here's the post in which I extrapolated your point from:



Is it subculture exploitation if a sizable quantity of male support characters killed off for the same reason is a longer way of saying, "Is it the same thing if males are treated the same way?" Basically, is fridging a bad female thing if it happens to males as well? Like I said, to make that argument you're going to need a lot more proof than a few examples (or one example in this case). You'll have to also address the systemic reasoning behind why you feel it's the same thing as opposed to saying, "The outcome is the same, therefore the cause must be the same, therefore there is no actual problem."

It's fine if you don't want to do it, I'm just saying if you want me to seriously consider or address your comment you'll actually need to put in the footwork. It's just I'm not going to do it for you.

EDIT: Changed my first line as it didn't convey what I was reading and sounded more like, "Yeah, but that's not what you said." I think it works better since this says more what I got out of your post and not so much, "Don't change your words now."

Obviously, I don't agree that my statement and your paraphrase mean the same thing. My original statement takes into account the *possibility* that there may be a greater quantity of female sacrifices than male ones, though it doesn't state that as a given, the way, say, Gail Simone did. Your paraphrase, and your general logic as well, make it incumbent on me to prove that there are a significant number of male sacrifices, which would I guess meet your standards of proof that the syndrome was not just a "bad female thing." I don't think it matters whether or not there are more female than male sacrifices. There may indeed be more of the former than the latter because there are more male heroes to motivate. But it's obvious that even in the periods when male heroes have been dominant-- say, the Silver and Bronze Ages-- there are still plenty of male sacrifices: Aquababy, Bucky, Menthor, two different versions of Steve Trevor, Alfred (died, but got better), Happy Hogan (never completely killed but often on the edge of death). And that fact keeps it from being a "bad female thing."

That it's something a lot of female readers don't want to see-- that's the only decisive statement one can make. Whether they are right to want authors, even bad authors, to indulge in self-censorship is another ethical question.