Alyse — “I also wonder what kind of social experiment the book would have been if a woman had been thrust into Jon’s omnipotent superhero position rather than a man.”
That’s quite an interesting proposition. While I agree with you 100% about how Laurie may/may not be portrayed appropriately as a “real” woman; I think the book would have had a totally different tone with a woman as Dr. Manhattan. I think the theme would probably take a feminist spin and instead of the space time continuum and the folds of the universe being topics that plagued Dr. Manhattan’s time it would be a struggle between the affection for the Earth and sympathy for its people.
Why Dr. Manhattan’s character is such a conundrum and a headache to understand at times is mostly because his character is a man. We see him struggling with saving humanity or even caring seeing time as the definitive decider in life. Whereas a female Dr. Manhattan’s personality may be more centered around motherly topics.
I don’t think Dr. Manhattan as a woman would work for the plot or with other Watchmen characters. Even though Laurie is a handful and possesses some of the worst womanly qualities, she works in her own way. She’s inherited her mom’s fame and doesn’t like it – or maybe she does? She’s the cliché woman that can’t make up her mind, her emotions, or her relationships.
In most respects, I hate Laurie and Silk Spectre. She is easily replaceable and is needed for so little in the Watchmen. She serves to complete a point of the love triangle, but doesn’t have any other purpose.
Although I agree that Moore probably would have characterized Jon differently had he been female, making his emotions more visible and more at the heart of his arguments, wouldn’t it be interesting for the “Superman” to be a woman and NOT be portrayed this way. After all, real women don’t necessarily have to be more emotion-centered than men. Wouldn’t it be interesting if the dialogue and action of the book were completely the same, in every way, except that Dr. Manhatten was a naked blue chick?
As somebody else has mentioned, Moore plays up every character’s flaw, so that the flaw becomes their defining feature (a lesson Moore might have picked up from Greek tragedy). I wonder what Manhattan’s flaw is? He is disconnected and withdrawn, a trait stereotypically attributed to males. Yet he is also quite passive, going along with whatever he is ordered to do — a trait that in our culture we define as “feminine.”