Portrayal of women in Westerns
- Thread starter Jordan K
- Start date
Marky-Marc
New member
It depenRAB when they were made. If the western was made in the 50's than the women would have been portrayed as the women were treated in those days...which in today's standard's would probably seem sexist.
In other worRAB you would have to find out how women were treated in general in the 50's, 60's etc.and compare them to today. Hope this helps.
In other worRAB you would have to find out how women were treated in general in the 50's, 60's etc.and compare them to today. Hope this helps.
Santino WwE~4~LyFE
New member
You're asking two seperate questions there.
Were women treated fairly?
Yes because in the times the westerns were supposedly set in most part the woman was the homemaker and didn't have high profile jobs. The highest would likely be a teacher. If you were to reseach that time you would struggle to find women that have the same kind of fame/notoriety of someone like Billy the Kidd, Buffallo Bill, Jesse James. The only one that springs to mind is Annie Oakley. Maybe Calamity Jane, but she may be fictional purely made up foor the Doris Day film. This does suggest that in impact terms women were quite invisible, but of course their impact would be felt in the roles they did have.
Are they sexist?
I'm not sure where you are going with this one. The answer above stanRAB and as Recordplayer says it has to be in context of the time. This goes for both in film and in the real life. It's not sexist to have women being less strong than men as in those times women weren't becuase of how society was so it's not that innacurate a portrayal anymore than it would be if women in Victorian drama were seen as being inferior to men. Back then women didn't have the vote, after they were married they often did become the housewife and rarely a mother two goes out to work.
If you are talking about the amount of screentime, they get, lack of character development then I would say no because it was across the board in films when westerns were being made. Whether it's gangster films, science fiction, war, police or horror women were never given big roles. I think it isn't because of sexism but more because back then almost all of the writers, poducers. directors were men so would write from a male prospective and have male leaRAB. This wasn't just in films but on TV and in books. Things are changing as more and more women are achieving high profile roles in the industry so things are getting more balanced.
However that isn't saying that things have changed that much. If you pick up books by female authors virtually all have a female lead character. They are doing the same thing men were doing back then and continue today. Writing a lead with their own gender and their point of view, even when it's unoriginal and cliched. For example the woman being held back in her job because she's a woman, the sexist boss or employer etc. Yes of course that happens, but it's creating stereotype male characters which is basically what the women in westerns were. Weak, home maker, neeRAB saving by a man etc.
Were women treated fairly?
Yes because in the times the westerns were supposedly set in most part the woman was the homemaker and didn't have high profile jobs. The highest would likely be a teacher. If you were to reseach that time you would struggle to find women that have the same kind of fame/notoriety of someone like Billy the Kidd, Buffallo Bill, Jesse James. The only one that springs to mind is Annie Oakley. Maybe Calamity Jane, but she may be fictional purely made up foor the Doris Day film. This does suggest that in impact terms women were quite invisible, but of course their impact would be felt in the roles they did have.
Are they sexist?
I'm not sure where you are going with this one. The answer above stanRAB and as Recordplayer says it has to be in context of the time. This goes for both in film and in the real life. It's not sexist to have women being less strong than men as in those times women weren't becuase of how society was so it's not that innacurate a portrayal anymore than it would be if women in Victorian drama were seen as being inferior to men. Back then women didn't have the vote, after they were married they often did become the housewife and rarely a mother two goes out to work.
If you are talking about the amount of screentime, they get, lack of character development then I would say no because it was across the board in films when westerns were being made. Whether it's gangster films, science fiction, war, police or horror women were never given big roles. I think it isn't because of sexism but more because back then almost all of the writers, poducers. directors were men so would write from a male prospective and have male leaRAB. This wasn't just in films but on TV and in books. Things are changing as more and more women are achieving high profile roles in the industry so things are getting more balanced.
However that isn't saying that things have changed that much. If you pick up books by female authors virtually all have a female lead character. They are doing the same thing men were doing back then and continue today. Writing a lead with their own gender and their point of view, even when it's unoriginal and cliched. For example the woman being held back in her job because she's a woman, the sexist boss or employer etc. Yes of course that happens, but it's creating stereotype male characters which is basically what the women in westerns were. Weak, home maker, neeRAB saving by a man etc.
I think its interesting that people focus on the westerns of the 1950s/60s. If you watch a lot of those westerns, women might have been the home makers but they were incredibly strong women. They displayed a lot of independence and ran the roost. There tended to be a matriarch who could easily put the likes of John Wayne in his place. I think The Searchers has a good example of this.
Being the home-maker took a lot of strength of character. I think back then in the period they are set there was a kind of systematic understanding of people's roles in the family, and the role of mother was certainly hugely respected and revered.
Of course there is the other side of women in Westerns, the good time girl. But again these are often very strong women.
Being the home-maker took a lot of strength of character. I think back then in the period they are set there was a kind of systematic understanding of people's roles in the family, and the role of mother was certainly hugely respected and revered.
Of course there is the other side of women in Westerns, the good time girl. But again these are often very strong women.
tigris22325
New member
Westerns - where men are men and women are just grateful!
I love the old westerns but lets face it, they all have the same stereo-type characters both men and women. If you look at them as being period dramas then they are just reflecting the historical view of the times they were set in with all the prejudices that abounded including sexism. I don't think they are deliberately sexist though, they are just showing men and women in their traditional roles and we can't place modern values onto what has happened in the past.
I love the old westerns but lets face it, they all have the same stereo-type characters both men and women. If you look at them as being period dramas then they are just reflecting the historical view of the times they were set in with all the prejudices that abounded including sexism. I don't think they are deliberately sexist though, they are just showing men and women in their traditional roles and we can't place modern values onto what has happened in the past.
theguitarmaster101
New member
I think it's understandable that most people are concentrating on the 50s and 60s as that was when westerns were at their peak and being churned out a lot. It's no different to people mostly focusing on MGM if the question was about musicals.
You're absolutely right about the homemaker being strong women and a strong role which I mentioned but the point I was making is if you were to say to a person talk about westerns people would struggle to name women that have an high profile or made an impact thus being in people's memory.
I'm sure if you were to stop people and said start naming comicbook characters you would get at least 20 heroes or villains before you got to the first female character. Not only are there tons more of them so the ratio is in their favour but the main male ones are more memorable. Name the Fantastic Four it's a toss up between her and "the stretchy one" as a non-fan may describe Mr Fantastic.
Because of this women in wresterns were always going to be secondary characters and not give much to do. If the person goes to the cinema to see cowboys and indians the last thing wants is a story about an overworked housewife, or a woman that is struggling in the man's world. People went to the movies for escapism not what they have at home or hear about at work.
There is talk that in the third Iron Man film they are going to deal with Tony Stark's alcoholism. They did it in the comic over many months/years and it was popular. The question is when that film comes out do the people want to see Tony figting the botle or Iron Man fighting a baddie with all the explosions and effects? I'm guessing the majority will want the escapism of the latter.
IMO this plays a part in why women were serviced so badly in films in general but especially in westerns. People wanted escapism, cowboys and indians, tail blazing etc, not a kitchen sink soap opera which it would likely be because of where women were socially at that time. Most weren't power business women, bounty hunters etc.
You're absolutely right about the homemaker being strong women and a strong role which I mentioned but the point I was making is if you were to say to a person talk about westerns people would struggle to name women that have an high profile or made an impact thus being in people's memory.
I'm sure if you were to stop people and said start naming comicbook characters you would get at least 20 heroes or villains before you got to the first female character. Not only are there tons more of them so the ratio is in their favour but the main male ones are more memorable. Name the Fantastic Four it's a toss up between her and "the stretchy one" as a non-fan may describe Mr Fantastic.
Because of this women in wresterns were always going to be secondary characters and not give much to do. If the person goes to the cinema to see cowboys and indians the last thing wants is a story about an overworked housewife, or a woman that is struggling in the man's world. People went to the movies for escapism not what they have at home or hear about at work.
There is talk that in the third Iron Man film they are going to deal with Tony Stark's alcoholism. They did it in the comic over many months/years and it was popular. The question is when that film comes out do the people want to see Tony figting the botle or Iron Man fighting a baddie with all the explosions and effects? I'm guessing the majority will want the escapism of the latter.
IMO this plays a part in why women were serviced so badly in films in general but especially in westerns. People wanted escapism, cowboys and indians, tail blazing etc, not a kitchen sink soap opera which it would likely be because of where women were socially at that time. Most weren't power business women, bounty hunters etc.
chadol4962
New member
This made me laugh. It just sums up the women in the Westerns of the 40's,50's & 60's.....Brilliant.!!!mandee.totherescue
New member
theres nothing inherently fair about the wild wild west
many things that are interesting were simply more suited to men.
its like why you don't have army/war films about the supply chain. it exists, and logistics is a huge and important task, but it doesn't make for interesting film.
many things that are interesting were simply more suited to men.
its like why you don't have army/war films about the supply chain. it exists, and logistics is a huge and important task, but it doesn't make for interesting film.