Ripley and Vasquez are antithetical. Vasquez’s strength comes from enbracing masculinity. She’s in a traditionally male profession, she’s stereotypically, “butch,” (short hair, muscular, etc.), she’s aggressive, and she belittles Ripley with her male peers. The film even calls attention to this early on (“Hey Vasquez, have you ever been mistaken for a man?”…“No. Have you?”). Meanwhile, Ripley is similarly a strong woman, but she doesn’t need to reject femininity to show strength. She weeps when she learns that her daughter died and later develops a maternal connection with Newt, but she’s more than capable of picking up a gun and giving orders when needed. She’s also in a traditionally male profession (which she demonstrates when she uses the power loader), but she doesn’t let that define her. She never seeks the approval of the male characters or behaves like them to achieve her goals.
I’ve heard it argued that Vasquez is a sort of queer coded sheild for Ripley, allowing audiences to enjoy Ripley as a strong female character without worrying about her sexuality (“No, Ripley’s not a lesbian; that’s a lesbian.”), but I don’t think that’s fair to either character. Vasquez is a heroic character in her own right, not wanting abandon teammates and ultimately sacrificing herself so that others can escape. But the film is about motherhood, and Vasquez, just like all the other marines, isn’t capable of maternal behavior. I think in the end, Vasquez’s character is meant to demonstrate that Ripley is a bad-ass because of her femininity, not in spite of it.
Putting aside the conversation about sexuality, I think viewing Vasquez as emphasis for Ripley’s femininity downplays the importance they both have. You’re totally right that Ripley shows a strong woman that embraces feminine traits, but there’s a lot to say about a character that breaks gender norms. I think the line you brought up shows that Vasquez doesn’t reject femininity outright, she just chooses to present that differently.
Yeah, I’m definitely not trying to diminish her as a character. Her sexuality is never explicitly stated, and the film doesn’t seem particularly interested in addressing it, allowing the viewer to draw their own conclusions. The fact that she’s a Marine at all is notable, since women weren’t allowed to hold combat roles when the film was made, and it’s awesome that Vasquez breaks gender norms without being demonized or treated like a punchline. All in all, she was an especially progressive character for 1986.
But there is definitely a theme of the film that masculinity (or what we would now call toxic masculinity) is inferior to femininity, specifically maternal femininity. All of these brash, hotshot marines spend the first act of the film belittling Ripley, despite her first hand knowledge of the threat. Ripley is also the only one to take the time to develop a relationship with Newt, despite the fact that she’s the only colonist to survive the Aliens, while the Marines see her as unimportant. They are then immediately massacred in their first encounter with aliens and crumble (especially Hudson) when their big guns and big talk are ineffective.
Besides Ripley and Newt, the only survivors are Bishop and Hicks. Bishop is a male presenting android, but he’s not like the Marines, being much more quiet, thoughtful, and diplomatic, stereotypically feminine attributes. Hicks is a much more traditionally masculine character, but despite becoming the ranking officer during the mission, he’s willing to be deferential to Ripley and allow her to lead.
The film is about Ripley, a grieving mother, finding a surrogate daughter and protecting her, and it is the characteristics of her role as a mother that allow her to overcome the threat of the Aliens. Meanwhile, the tough, masculine characters she’s paired with proved to be no match for that same threat, which in the third act is revealed to be another mother in the form of the Xenomorph Queen. It’s awesome that Vasquez represents a non-gender confirming character, especially one made 40 years ago, but that fact that she’s a masculine-coded character means she’s part of the gender spectrum being critiqued in the film.
Ripley and Vasquez are antithetical. Vasquez’s strength comes from enbracing masculinity. She’s in a traditionally male profession, she’s stereotypically, “butch,” (short hair, muscular, etc.), she’s aggressive, and she belittles Ripley with her male peers. The film even calls attention to this early on (“Hey Vasquez, have you ever been mistaken for a man?”…“No. Have you?”). Meanwhile, Ripley is similarly a strong woman, but she doesn’t need to reject femininity to show strength. She weeps when she learns that her daughter died and later develops a maternal connection with Newt, but she’s more than capable of picking up a gun and giving orders when needed. She’s also in a traditionally male profession (which she demonstrates when she uses the power loader), but she doesn’t let that define her. She never seeks the approval of the male characters or behaves like them to achieve her goals.
I’ve heard it argued that Vasquez is a sort of queer coded sheild for Ripley, allowing audiences to enjoy Ripley as a strong female character without worrying about her sexuality (“No, Ripley’s not a lesbian; that’s a lesbian.”), but I don’t think that’s fair to either character. Vasquez is a heroic character in her own right, not wanting abandon teammates and ultimately sacrificing herself so that others can escape. But the film is about motherhood, and Vasquez, just like all the other marines, isn’t capable of maternal behavior. I think in the end, Vasquez’s character is meant to demonstrate that Ripley is a bad-ass because of her femininity, not in spite of it.
Putting aside the conversation about sexuality, I think viewing Vasquez as emphasis for Ripley’s femininity downplays the importance they both have. You’re totally right that Ripley shows a strong woman that embraces feminine traits, but there’s a lot to say about a character that breaks gender norms. I think the line you brought up shows that Vasquez doesn’t reject femininity outright, she just chooses to present that differently.
Yeah, I’m definitely not trying to diminish her as a character. Her sexuality is never explicitly stated, and the film doesn’t seem particularly interested in addressing it, allowing the viewer to draw their own conclusions. The fact that she’s a Marine at all is notable, since women weren’t allowed to hold combat roles when the film was made, and it’s awesome that Vasquez breaks gender norms without being demonized or treated like a punchline. All in all, she was an especially progressive character for 1986.
But there is definitely a theme of the film that masculinity (or what we would now call toxic masculinity) is inferior to femininity, specifically maternal femininity. All of these brash, hotshot marines spend the first act of the film belittling Ripley, despite her first hand knowledge of the threat. Ripley is also the only one to take the time to develop a relationship with Newt, despite the fact that she’s the only colonist to survive the Aliens, while the Marines see her as unimportant. They are then immediately massacred in their first encounter with aliens and crumble (especially Hudson) when their big guns and big talk are ineffective.
Besides Ripley and Newt, the only survivors are Bishop and Hicks. Bishop is a male presenting android, but he’s not like the Marines, being much more quiet, thoughtful, and diplomatic, stereotypically feminine attributes. Hicks is a much more traditionally masculine character, but despite becoming the ranking officer during the mission, he’s willing to be deferential to Ripley and allow her to lead.
The film is about Ripley, a grieving mother, finding a surrogate daughter and protecting her, and it is the characteristics of her role as a mother that allow her to overcome the threat of the Aliens. Meanwhile, the tough, masculine characters she’s paired with proved to be no match for that same threat, which in the third act is revealed to be another mother in the form of the Xenomorph Queen. It’s awesome that Vasquez represents a non-gender confirming character, especially one made 40 years ago, but that fact that she’s a masculine-coded character means she’s part of the gender spectrum being critiqued in the film.