# Are female characters in Fantasy subservient to their male counterparts?



## Ackernon

It has long been my belief that female characters in Epic Fantasy are not equal to their male counterparts and too frequently are only there for eye candy in the visual media or at best a love interest for the male leads.  While we have come a long ways from the days of the "Gor" novels of the 60's, do you agree or disagree that more strong, capable, 3 dimensional female characters, with real life issues, would be a fine addition to modern Fantasy storytelling?


----------



## Vargev

Ackernon said:


> It has long been my belief that female characters in Epic Fantasy are not equal to their male counterparts and too frequently are only there for eye candy in the visual media or at best a love interest for the male leads. While we have come a long ways from the days of the "Gor" novels of the 60's, do you agree or disagree that more strong, capable, 3 dimensional female characters, with real life issues, would be a fine addition to modern Fantasy storytelling?


 
I do, but saying that there are already several female leads who are strong and capable.

Red Sonja for one.


----------



## Menion

Yes, but there are many, many more male leads then female.


----------



## Ackernon

You are correct.  Frankly there are more leads in all genres of fiction. But my question is why?  There are at least as many adult viewers and readers of Fantasy that are female as male.


----------



## sabolich

Hmm. Are you speaking of film or literature, or both?  Epic fantasy is filled with guys wielding swords, and a few females, too, but in the real-life scheme of things, a woman competing with a sword on a battlefield is likely to have a somewhat shorter life expectancy unless she is really, really good (and I'm a girl who once was in the Army, running around in field gear keeping up with da guys, so don't hit me). 

Most of my high fantasy is written with a male in the lead role, but my first book, _Firedancer, _has a strong female lead, who has her share of problems with gaining acceptance but doesn't back up worth sh--, eh, beans. I have seen the discussions that ask whether women can write SF/fantasy as well as guys, with some guys admitting they shy away from female names on the cover and others declaring it makes no difference.  I do know that some female writers deliberately avoid putting women in the lead role because they feel the male audience will not want to (or be able to) relate to a feminine point of view.  I think there is a general fear of girl cooties and "mush" when the protag is a woman. This, unfortunately, leads to the general preponderance of butch, kick-butt, steely-eyed females who are basically guys with boobs and not allowed to be women.  

There are, however, some really excellent female characters in SF. C.J. Cherryh writes excellent secondary female characters, like Mallory in the universe of her _Downbelow Station_, and Ilisidi in her Foreigner series, but those are SF, not fantasy.  Her lead in _Gate of Ivrel_ is a strong woman with a kick-butt sword. You might try that one.  

If you look beyond epic fantasy to, say, urban fantasy, you get into cool characters like the lead in Emma Bull's _War for the Oaks_ which is a fun combination of hard rock and Faery. But I agree that you sort of have to look hard for high fantasy that uses a female lead.  Whether that is a combination of authorly fear, an accurate reading of the likelihood of audience acceptance, or a bow to the realities of medieval-type warfare, I don't know for sure. 

Or maybe other women authors, like me, find it's just fun to write guys!


----------



## Quokka

I think that Fantasy is at least as equal an opportunity employer as general fiction. Just looking at some of the popular series at the moment like Robin Hobbs, GRR Martin, Steven Erikson all contain strong female characters either physically, intellectually, politically etc, living their own lives that intersect with the male characters without being subserviant to them.

Obviously there's still plenty of fiction where the female characters are supporting cast and not individuals but I don't think it's something inherent in Fantasy, particuarly literature, Hollywood probably lags behind. 

There are still many more male leads than females but there are also many more published male authors than female authors, the ratio of both is changing. Male authors may be more capable of creating complete female characters as attitudes change but would at least some of them be reluctant to create leading characters of the opposite sex out of a concern for not getting it right? 

I recently finished a science fiction novel from the 50s and I really noticed how the main character's wife was left undeveloped for the majority of the story (who herself was important in a very small group) so we're heading in the right direction at least.

In fact it stood out because I've read some brilliant female characters in science fiction, so could Science Fiction be in front of the curve?


----------



## Rommel

Ever read a David Eddings Book lately? All his females are male butt-kicking ladies, magically, wifely or even fighting wise. The guys always end second.


----------



## GNath

OGN!

i dont know about fantasy but in real life i have observed that women tend to become increasingly vulnerable to male ego especially in developing countries.

In conservative societies (certain asian countries)  females are mostly found in kitchen cooking most of the time. Its really  crazy. The male gets to retire but never the woman.

Once she becomes mom, its as if she is the Ultimate Engine to carry all the coaches of responsibilities!


----------



## Parson

I'm not sure if this relates, but a study was made of American cartoons aimed at ages 7 and up, and who watched them. It was discovered that while both males and females related to males in the super hero role, males soon did not watch shows with women in that role. So, cartoons with female leads did not get the ratings and did not last. Much to the frustration of the woman who was reporting this finding. Her goal was to create female leads in cartoons.


----------



## Ackernon

Parson said:


> I'm not sure if this relates, but a study was made of American cartoons aimed at ages 7 and up, and who watched them. It was discovered that while both males and females related to males in the super hero role, males soon did not watch shows with women in that role. So, cartoons with female leads did not get the ratings and did not last. Much to the frustration of the woman who was reporting this finding. Her goal was to create female leads in cartoons.


Interesting.  Do you happen to have a source for this data?


----------



## Parson

Sorry, I don't have a source. It was a television program I was watching maybe 5 years ago. I couldn't even begin to tell you which program it was. Googling for several minutes did not turn up anything like an official study.


----------



## Parson

Sorry, double post.


----------



## thaddeus6th

Hmm, that is interesting, Parson.

Lots of fantasy is set in a world that's quite similar to medieval England, so opportunities for women to be involved (if there's a high level of realism and low level of magic) are naturally more limited. Individual women are easily capable of being warriors, but on a large scale this is less likely (women are generally weaker than men and, more importantly, suffer a high mortality rate in childbirth. If lots of women fought and died then it'd rapidly depopulate a country, whereas the same is not necessarily true of men, as a man can easily, and without risk of death [usually] have a wife and various mistress).

So, I'd argue the difference, historically at least, was that men were more expendable and that this carries through into fantasy. Of course, fantasy does have opportunities for women, with individuals breaking the mould (like Boudicca or Zenobia), as well as magic being a leveller.


----------



## Thadlerian

Ackernon said:


> It has long been my belief that female characters in Epic Fantasy are not equal to their male counterparts and too frequently are only there for eye candy in the visual media or at best a love interest for the male leads.  While we have come a long ways from the days of the "Gor" novels of the 60's, do you agree or disagree that more strong, capable, 3 dimensional female characters, with real life issues, would be a fine addition to modern Fantasy storytelling?


This is possibly the most interesting question in the genre. I made a thread about it several years ago, kind of long-winded and directed at Robert Jordan's _Wheel of Time_ series. Here: http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/11424-lets-coin-a-new-term-wotism.html

I haven't thought very much about it lately, as I haven't been reading all that much genre lately.

I could talk about The Quantum Thief by Hannu Rajaniemi, and how the contrast between the male and female lead mirrors tendencies found in Jordan's books. Or about the character gallery of Kim Stanley Robinson's _Mars_ trilogy where - as a rule - men are heroic and women problematic. But I don't feel quite as radical as I used to in these matters - they're complex, and not as black and white as I expressed them in the above thread.


----------



## sabolich

Thadlerian said:


> This is possibly the most interesting question in the genre. I made a thread about it several years ago, kind of long-winded and directed at Robert Jordan's _Wheel of Time_ series.



LOL. I haven't heard anyone ranting about WoT women in awhile, but then, I quit reading the series when he started spending two pages describing walk-on characters in excruciating detail and never advancing the plot. But that's a whole different discussion. 

Parson, that is a sad survey. I wonder at what age the boys stopped watching the girl superheroes, and if that was because they really couldn't relate, or because they had already been taught girls are inferior, or if the writing of those shows presented the girls in a way that just really turned them off. Nature hardwires us to a certain degree to view the opposite sex in certain ways, reinforced (usually pretty blatantly) by the culture we happen to grow up in. So this is kind of an interesting observation on the part of that researcher.

Quokka, you may be right about SF leading the way in presenting women as something other than meek little subservient add-on characters. The very environment of space demands a tougher breed. But then again, do ALL the women have to be kick-butt aggressive to be accepted as viable characters? I would love to have seen Uhura save the Enterprise at the crucial moment with a push of a jamming button on her communications board just once. 

Can a woman win by wiles without being called a manipulative witch? Not all men are alpha males, but not all alpha males always win. Sometimes the ordinary Joe walks away with it all, and we always cheer when he does (bespectacled, skinny, frowsy Harry Potter springs instantly to mind). So why can't the plain Jane who doesn't spend her life pumping iron and shooting up the scenery be as sympathetic a character, or accomplish as much using other skills? Rowling's Hermione saves the boys over and over, on brains and talent, not brute force.  Do guys worship at her feet? Not likely, Viktor Krum excepted. I would have to wonder how many guys are members of the Hermione Granger fan club who aren't lusting after Emma Watson.

Sorry, this is becoming long-winded.  I am interested, though, in why we feel the women characters are only viable heroines if they are kicking guys around. Or am I mistaking the trend?


----------



## Mouse

I love strong female characters. I get really annoyed when there aren't many female characters in books (Dorian Gray springs to mind!), strong or otherwise. I didn't like that there were no women in the Fellowship.

But, I get that these books were written back when women and men weren't equal, so I don't expect anything else.

Lots of the books I read now pretty much all have strong female characters in. For example, I've just finished Mortal Engines by Philip Reeve. The character of Hester Shaw is a really screwed up, facially disfigured girl, and yet she kicks more backside than the lead male character. 

Also, by 'strong' I don't necessarily mean physically strong. I like it when female characters are _interesting_ too. There are too many books/TV shows/films where women are just bits of fluff. 

As for men/boys not really relating/liking books where women are the heroes, I kinda think that's changing nowadays too. For example, my YA books have a girl as the main hero. I vaguely thought girls would probably enjoy the books more than boys, but one review (from Read Between the Lines) was by a 14 year old boy. This is what he said:



> ...A great book for boys, and girls as well, because the main character is a girl...



Which always made me smile.


----------



## Connavar

Men not relating to books where the women are heroes is bad excuse.  

In the hands of a good author a female lead hero will be liked.  Trouble with fantasy of certain type is that  there isnt many good writers writing Ripley/Xena/Buffy type ass kicking heroines.   There are bad writers writing them like the writer of Sword of Truth....

Too many authors both male, female think the hero of fantasy by definition must be a male for some reason.   Its like they must make another straight and arrow or a barbarian male hero to sell....


----------



## Parson

sabolich said:


> Parson, that is a sad survey. I wonder at what age the boys stopped watching the girl superheroes, and if that was because they really couldn't relate, or because they had already been taught girls are inferior, or if the writing of those shows presented the girls in a way that just really turned them off. Nature hardwires us to a certain degree to view the opposite sex in certain ways, reinforced (usually pretty blatantly) by the culture we happen to grow up in. So this is kind of an interesting observation on the part of that researcher.



I agree that this was a sad survey, which is probably why it stuck with me all these years. As to the "why" I'm not sure any amount of research would give anything definite on that. Humans are such complex creatures that motivation is often fuzzy at best.

If a first person illustration is helpful. I have a 6 year-old grandson who lives with me as well as a 4 year-old granddaughter. Up until this this year it didn't seem to matter to him the gender of the lead character in any cartoon he watched, but I can see that it begins to matter to him now. His Dad, who sees him every other weekend, is a serious "red-neck" but our home is seriously egalitarian. So I would tend to think nature more than nurture, but impossible to tell. 

*Mouse,* I would agree that things are getting better at the adult level. But I suspect any 14 year old boy who is writing book reviews (on line?) is likely not a trend setter for that age group. And would be viewed a bit askance by his peer group.


----------



## Mouse

Parson said:


> *Mouse,* I would agree that things are getting better at the adult level. But I suspect any 14 year old boy who is writing book reviews (on line?) is likely not a trend setter for that age group. And would be viewed a bit askance by his peer group.



Are you saying he'd have to be a bit weird to like my books, Parson? 

I think that boys are perfectly happy to read about female heroes in books. Look at Philip Pullman's HDM. Lyra is the hero and lots of boys happily read the books. Same with Garth Nix's Sabriel books.


----------



## thaddeus6th

It may not just be a question of boys not liking female leads. It might be that some female leads are written in a very feminine way (in the same way that some comediennes have 'being a woman' as their main material) and that this turns chaps off.


----------



## Mouse

Well yeah, but that goes both ways. I don't like reading about really butch, masculine men!


----------



## Parson

Mouse said:


> Are you saying he'd have to be a bit weird to like my books, Parson?
> 
> I think that boys are perfectly happy to read about female heroes in books. Look at Philip Pullman's HDM. Lyra is the hero and lots of boys happily read the books. Same with Garth Nix's Sabriel books.



You know better than that. 

My point was not about the enjoyment of the reading but actually taking the time to write a book review that was not required. Most of my cohorts of that age, and my students of that age would not be write a Review that wasn't necessary. Only the "weird" ones would do such a thing.


----------



## Ackernon

I have very much enjoyed reading the conversation on the topic I posted.  Thank you all who have posted your comments.  As a film maker and a fantasy/Scifi enthusiast, it's nice to read people's points of view on a topic that is near and dear to me.  In the current project I'm working on it was actually a stated goal in the scripting to have 3 dimensional, real women characters who could believably function in the Joseph Campbell defined hero or mentor roles.  We also wanted to have them to deal with issues in a fantasy world that are valid issues in ours such as "office romances", sexual orientation, and sexism.  Some issues are just timeless to any universe I suspect.

I agree with the statement that good female characters do not have to be female versions of Conan.  There are lots of tools at their disposal that can be effectively used.  Biologically women have faster reflexes and some would say a higher pain threshold than men, both a certain advantage depending on the situation.  And one shouldn't discount the use of sex appeal after all.  Male hero characters use it so why shouldn't females.  All in all, it has been great fun to read the responses.  Thanks.


----------



## Laura Olson

Hi- new to this thread.  Great stuff.  So Parson, your cartoon study makes that case that female superheros stopped being leads because little boys wouldnt support those shows without a male lead.  So does that mean that little girls also expected to see males in these leads?  Or do females just tend to watch less tv period.  OR do young girls want to still secretly have that strong hunky guy swoop you up rescue you.  
 We still even in america have a culture where women are less truely independent and expected to survive on their own.  Own their home, start and run their own business, fix their own toilets and cars, cut down their own trees, have their own good credit score all without the aid of a man. (you get my meaning?)  I think we are getting there but still not there yet.   Are women watching fantasy because they are wanting to viscerally particpate in what the lead is doing, or is it because they want to fantasize about the lead male?    I personally would love to see more fantasys where I as a viewer can do both.  Have a strong female that I can pretend is me AND a hunky guy I can fantasize about!


----------



## Parson

*Laura,

*As I recall it, your question would be beyond the scope of the survey. The survey noted that over time boys would not support female leads, but that girls would support either female or male leads. I do not remember it delving into any of the why questions, and I would suspect that this would mean someone speculating more than offering evidence. 

The result is of the survey is that it is very hard to get a network to buy into a female lead in an action/adventure cartoon. My observation, limited as it is, would be that when boys become too old for Dora the Explorer, they are much, much, more likely to migrate to Transformers than to Barbie.


----------



## Quokka

Still if a show is well written it can still find an audience, Kim Possible was a very successful cartoon with a female lead and from what little I could find a demographic of both male and female fans. If Pixar's _Brave_ turns out to be more than a disney princess story it will be interesting to see how it's received.

Unfortunately rather than risk something new it's too easy to try and repeat what has worked before and the more it gets recycled the further back it goes and the more certain it is to be a male lead.


----------



## Ackernon

Quokka said:


> Unfortunately rather than risk something new it's too easy to try and repeat what has worked before and the more it gets recycled the further back it goes and the more certain it is to be a male lead.


I think you have nailed the past decade of the entertainment industry philosophy on the nose. Is it because audiences expect bigger explosions and wilder chase scenes that demand such huge budgets that the money people are no longer able to take the risk?  Or would more engaging stories and writing satisfy an audience just as well?  LOTR had a pretty big budget but also an excellently crafted screen play from the original format so it's hard to tell from that one.


----------



## Robert Kelsey

I think the world despite its progress in certain countries for equality for all, is still in its traditional way of thinking. That a man is in the lead role of guiding and safeguarding others. That its his duty to do so. The world isn't ready to break from the stereotypical macho lead. There have, are and will continue to be great women as leaders. Take Queen Zenobia from history for one. As well for over a decade a women ruled the church by putting in popes she could control. But in the world of SFF typically I think you will continue to see more male dominated characters than female ones.


----------



## Anne Lyle

Connavar said:


> In the hands of a good author a female lead hero will be liked.  Trouble with fantasy of certain type is that  there isnt many good writers writing Ripley/Xena/Buffy type ass kicking heroines.   There are bad writers writing them like the writer of Sword of Truth....



And there are plenty of women readers who are equally bored by the Xena/Buffy kickass leatherclad eyecandy that's frankly not much less of an adolescent male take on women than the braid-twirling stereotypes in WoT.

At the same time I don't want to read about female characters whose main interests are domestic, because that's too close to the role that real life tries to force us into, TBH. I wasn't into all that when I was five, and I'm not now!

The main protagonist of my own book is a guy (for the reasons of historical realism discussed earlier), and the main female character is just an ordinary girl trying to make her way in a male-dominated world. She learns to fight well enough to defend herself, but she leaves the serious arse-kicking to the ex-soldier protagonist who is far better equipped to do so, by both biology and upbringing.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae

This is based on the author, really, though I've noticed that for the most part, authors do seem to be getting away from the sexist views you have mentioned and are giving female characters more solidity.

This is not to say that every lead protagonist/antagonist should be female. But neither should they be solidly male and the females simply token characters like what had been represented in 1950s science fiction movies. A good example of the "eye candy" female character would be, unfortunately, from Piers Anthony's Visions of Tarot series, and to be honest, the first few Xanth novels as well. That being said, he had become more sophisticated as the seventies went on by and provided more realistic, independent female characters in novels such as Being A Green Mother, And Eternity, Under A Velvet Cloak (again, the main character was female and while she was sexual, she was confident in her sexuality and was not second fiddle to any male), and some of the later Xanth novels, like The Dastard, Demons Don't Dream, and The Swell Foop.

Terry Brooks, again, seemed to have examples of the eye candy female with Willow from The Magic Kingdom of Landover series, but if what I had heard from the sixth volume onward, the daughter Misty was much more independent.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

Just a thought. Have any of you considered that at least in traditional fantasy books, the hero is often a swordsman of some sort? Yes I am thinking Conan and Gor. Now not wanting to appear sexist, but the idea of a woman - even Red Sonja or Lara Croft - duking it out with men on that physical level, seems a little unrealistic. (And I liked both those movies, and while we're at it, Buffy).

My thought is that its hard to write a female fantasy hero who uses swords or weapons or any sort of physical attack, without 'butching?' if that's a word, her up. In short making her masculine. That in turn makes it hard to take the character seriously. In telly and movies, that's starting to be the case, and these kick ass women rock because in some way they appeal to men like me, since they're both hot and masculine in some (lord I hope not sexual!) way. I mean have you ever seen Lara Croft talking about her feelings? Did Keira Knight's character from Underworld go out and try on clothes or talk about pretty things? They don't because it would interfer with their perceived character, as women competing in a mans world - as men.

There are some exceptions of course, as there are with everything. But really for women to compete as fantasy leads on an even playing field I think they have to find their own place, and it can't really be as a warrior. Magic though seems a natural forte, and I so no reason at all why a witch shouldn't be both twice as deadly as a wizard, and feminine.

Cheers.


----------



## Anne Lyle

See, that's the problem with these "kickass warrior chicks" - they're basically men with boobs.

I deliberately shied away from the "guy gets the sword, girl gets the magic" cliché - in my book the girl is the creative thinker in the partnership and also a bit of a geek with a flair for mechanical stuff and making things. Sort of a thief-type character without the stealing part, if that makes sense!

(Not a self-insertion at all, no sirree... *cough*)


----------



## AnyaKimlin

Yet with the real life versions - Lady of Mercia, Elizabeth I, Boudicca, Empress Maude, Catherine the Great, Cleopatra etc their image isn't usually a butch one.  Even Elizabeth II is all female despite knowing her way round a shot gun, being a talented horsewoman and knows her way round an old fashioned car engine.

I just gave my queen different weapons - a fan (I redesigned the Japanese/Korean weapons), and a bow.  She has vulnerability, but the men around her do her bidding -- her fathers because she has them charmed, her husband, brothers and army because of a mix of coquetishness and they are concerned they will get a strategically placed arrow.  Until next story she is fairly minor character though.


----------



## sabolich

AnyaKimlin said:


> Yet with the real life versions - Lady of Mercia, Elizabeth I, Boudicca, Empress Maude, Catherine the Great, Cleopatra etc their image isn't usually a butch one.  Even Elizabeth II is all female despite knowing her way round a shot gun, being a talented horsewoman and knows her way round an old fashioned car engine.
> 
> I just gave my queen different weapons



None of those ladies was actually expected to fight. As you said, they could command the men around them to do the heavier lifting. This is part of what I liked about Raymond Feist/Janni Wurtz's "Daughter of the Empire" and the other two books in that series. No one expected her to fight; she rose to the occasion on brains, competence, and original thinking. She inspired loyalty which made everyone around her achieve their best as well, which is the mark of a leader.  

The emphasis on sheer brute, kickass muscle power is a mistake, in my opinion, both because it is unrealistic for most women, and limiting in terms of expectations.  Okay, so she drops the baddies with well-placed kicks and dead-eye shooting.  Then what? Pretty soon we're tottering on the edge of Mary Sue territory as she demonstrates her superior brains, empathy, subtlety and come-hither hottiness. However much people might  admire the "guys with boobs", they are rapidly becoming a stereotype and no doubt will soon become tiresome to read. Movies have an advantage in that you get this pretty visual with a constant stream of different women in the lead role for variety. I admire well-toned bodies, male or female, as much as the next person, but honestly, what's under the skin? Or does the majority of the audience not care?  Puh-lease don't tell me the genre audience is really that shallow.

This discussion is interesting.  The guys like watching hot chicks for the same reason women like watching hot guys. I don't feel threatened by a man's brains, so if he is smarter than he is muscular, that's okay by me. Guys, what do you say? Are women getting crammed into the guys-with-boobs role because nobody wants to snuggle up to the smart girl?


----------



## Quokka

Personally I don't think intelligence is the big issue, fiction has always had intelligent women and in general that doesn't challenge the stereotypes. Maybe this is reflected in real life to some extent with men not neccessarily finding an intelligent woman threatning or unattractive, even for many of those who don't recognise intelligence as increasing a woman's attractiveness? 

But a woman who shows leadership? Someone who leads by natural talent and group consensus, where the surrounding males are not told by a higher authority as with royalty, prophecy or special bloodline that this person must lead but where people actively decide that a female shall lead because she is best skilled for the task. This is less common imo but is it also more threatning... or I suppose unbelievable, to someone with stereotypical views of gender roles?


----------



## psychotick

Hi Sabolich,

Sadly, speaking for myself as a mere male - yes I am that shallow. I will happily accept a kick ass warrior chick in a movie / tv series if she's hot. 

But in my meagre defence the televisual media make it easy - not only do they make the women hot, but with special effects they make the action almost believable. Yes, when I see Buffy smash someone in the face I can almost believe its a bone crunching impact which could knock someone aroud a room, simply because its what I'm shown. As they say seeing is believing. 

In a book though I have to try and imagine it, and that's not so easy. After all I know what my fist can do to an eighty pound bag, so if I can't hit someone and expect them to go flying, how am I expected to believe someone less then half my weight can? Uber warrior chick just adds another layer of incredibility to try and overcome for me as a reader.

As I say, if women are to be seen as equal(?) in fantasy lead roles in books at least, I think they have to fight on their own battlefield. Magic, strategy, cunning, range weapons, stealth, - all good choices, and lets be honest, women are naturally going to be seen as better choices for some roles such as the seductive spy / agent, or confident. After all can anyone really see Arnold as sneak thief or spy? How about Jean Claude as a harem dancer? (Ohh god just the idea turns my head inside out!).

Cheers.


----------



## sabolich

Mm, Quokka, yes! The whole woman as leader thing is often overlooked. I loved Marjorie Monahan's character (#1) on Babylon 5 because, yes, she was tough, but she was the head of the resistance because she could lead, not just kick ass.  I like characters who have to claw their way up, rather than just having the top spot handed to them by birth or superior talent.

Psychotick, you gave me a good laugh.  Hollywood is too good at making you believe the impossible. But boy, howdy, you're giving me ideas with that femme fatale stuff. James Bond actually plays this role to a certain degree, wrapped inside the suave, urbane action hero.  Imagine a pretty boy spy in a female-dominated society worming his way into high society beds.  A gigolo with a mission.  Oy. It might be fun, actually, to invert these roles and see what happens. 

Still, in the realities of Mother Nature, you are right that women generally need some advantage to overcome the fact that guys are born stronger. One hopes that just occasionally, it is brains and recognized superiority of the same character qualities we admire in men: courage, determination, loyalty, brains...  Not just magic or whatever.


----------



## Anne Lyle

sabolich said:


> I loved Marjorie Monahan's character (#1) on Babylon 5 because, yes, she  was tough, but she was the head of the resistance because she could  lead, not just kick ass.  I like characters who have to claw their way  up, rather than just having the top spot handed to them by birth or  superior talent.



One of the things I loved about Babylon 5 was that it showed a range of female characters, many of them strong and few of them kick-ass. Delenn was a leader and very feminine, Ivanova was funny as well as kick-ass and Na'Toth was...Na'Toth.



sabolich said:


> James Bond actually plays this role to a certain degree, wrapped inside the suave, urbane action hero.  Imagine a pretty boy spy in a female-dominated society worming his way into high society beds.  A gigolo with a mission.  Oy. It might be fun, actually, to invert these roles and see what happens.



Who needs a female-dominated society to have a pretty-boy spy worming his way into high society beds? 

But yes - I'm having fun at the moment, developing some strong female characters who are _so_ not kick-ass...


----------



## Toby Frost

Most fantasy – at least the heroic sort – seems to be a cross between medieval and modern in outlook, with magical elements. Fortunately it’s not entirely medieval, because the medieval times were both disgusting and really quite alien in terms of the way people thought. The upshot of that is that a standard feminist (whatever the hell that means) outlook would be extremely unlikely in that kind of world. A woman wanting to run her own affairs would be up against not just men but other women and the Church, in which, being medieval, she’d almost certainly devoutly believe. So it wouldn’t just be men keeping her down, but the word of God. Although there were some female saints, they were usually chaste and suffered considerably, which few would want to emulate. That’s a lot to rebel against. (For a demonstration of medieval tolerance, see the death of Richard II). 

So I’d have thought that to be credible in fantasy, a female character would have to have some sort of history to base herself on or at least ‘excuse’ her conduct. The Order of Joan of Arc, or something similar, could allow female fighters to operate. Wizardry would put an interesting spin on things, by making some women inherently very powerful, although religion being what it is they would probably be seen as something to be destroyed unless they were able to secure themselves.

And then there’s the practical problem of physique, especially when being pale and plump was seen as a sign of wealth. At the very least, I’d expect a female swordswoman to have the rather stringy, muscled physique Madonna had a few years back. I suspect most men find that unattractive: I certainly do. (That said, I did once know a girl who was about 5 feet tall, pretty and skilled in ninjutsu. But against a trained male fighter, who knows?). It’s possible, I guess, but don’t expect a lady swordsman to look that kind of fit. 

Which brings us onto Mary Sue. I suspect the answer is just to accept that attractive girls who can fight in close combat are about as common as manly lone woodsmen who are actually kind to puppies, or anyone even slightly resembling Jude Law in a pre-moisturiser setting. Of course, fantasy does let writers do what they want, but it’s got to make some sort of sense. Oh, and wearing high heels in a fight is just plain stupid. I wish male artists would stop drawing them like that.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae

I do agree with Toby on a lot of points here; that being said, the slim-muscled female warrior should be able to still wield light weaponry like katanas, daggers, rapiers, throwing stars, whatever. And not to mention the fact that a small, slim figure could have an asset the larger, heavier opponents might not have: speed and agility.


I do find high-heel combat to be ridiculous. I tend to prefer my characters to use the standard basic leather boots, plate greave boots, or better yet, modern standard military combat boots.


----------



## AnyaKimlin

Also this is fantasy - I just created a new metal-ore which was light and strong.  OK my main female character probably couldn't manage a claymore but as she is 5ft11 she is bigger than William Wallace/Robert the Bruce/Henry VIII etc.

We can do what we want with the world and society to make it make sense.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae

That's not so true, Anya, because the reader will want some semblence of adhesive reality. One can only suspend their disbelief for so long.


My own main character is quite short by modern standards in both our world and hers-she only stands at an even five feet tall-and she can't wield heavy weaponry, hence her preference to katanas.


She doesn't wear armor, but her small stature allows her to be incredibly fast and agile.


----------



## sabolich

Anne Lyle said:


> One of the things I loved about Babylon 5 was that it showed a range of female characters, many of them strong and few of them kick-ass. Delenn was a leader and very feminine, Ivanova was funny as well as kick-ass and Na'Toth was...Na'Toth.



Heh. Yes. Na'Toth was so much fun. That deadpan look and total inability to understand why murder can be detrimental to diplomacy. 



Anne Lyle said:


> Who needs a female-dominated society to have a pretty-boy spy worming his way into high society beds?
> 
> But yes - I'm having fun at the moment, developing some strong female characters who are _so_ not kick-ass...



LOL. Oh, indeed, he could do well just about anywhere, one imagines.  I seem to recall one historical novel of my acquaintance where the spy was the hairdresser to the town's high-society ladies, absorbing all that chattering gossip. 

I have to confess that the majority of my published stories have male protags but not all, and my novel, Firedancer, does have a female lead.  She must establish herself as capable before she can hope to enlist the support of the people she has been assigned to protect, and the only ass she has to kick is the enemy's, which is fire. No swords, no brute one-on-one sweaty fights, but my publisher did tease me about what a bad costuming fad I might start at conventions if they dress like Jetta in her Dance leathers. Oh, my...


----------



## AnyaKimlin

Karn Maeshalanadae said:


> That's not so true, Anya, because the reader will want some semblence of adhesive reality. One can only suspend their disbelief for so long.
> 
> .



But in a society where people are better fed etc then the women would actually be bigger in stature than many medieval male 'heroes' If you haven't created that situation then no it won't make sense.  In the world I have created there is no reason why a normal woman can't fight with a sword.

It isn't unreasonable that a different race or species would just be bigger without being less feminine.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae

Well no, Anya, that isn't what I meant. What you suggested can indeed be plausible, but what I was referring to was your "We can do whatever we want" comment in that you just can't be off the wall too much. For instance, you can't just make the hero win by snapping his fingers or being able to perform master swordsmanship the first time they've ever even seen a blade.


----------



## Anne Lyle

AnyaKimlin said:


> But in a society where people are better fed etc then the women would actually be bigger in stature than many medieval male 'heroes'



Regardless of how well fed they are, women have less upper body strength on average than men and their body chemistry just isn't designed for putting on muscle. 

Also, upper-class medieval men ate a meat-heavy diet and were often considerably taller than the peasants - at 5'11" your heroine is still at least two inches shorter than Henry VIII (Jonathan Rhys Meyers had to wear lifts in his boots in the Tudors!)


----------



## AnyaKimlin

Anne Lyle said:


> Regardless of how well fed they are, women have less upper body strength on average than men and their body chemistry just isn't designed for putting on muscle.
> 
> Also, upper-class medieval men ate a meat-heavy diet and were often considerably taller than the peasants - at 5'11" your heroine is still at least two inches shorter than Henry VIII (Jonathan Rhys Meyers had to wear lifts in his boots in the Tudors!)



That's what I get for typing when I am tired lol  

All true but in a different world and species body mass could change, in the case of my world weapons are lighter, magic or meditation can be used to give tempoary power, intensive training can help etc  My heroine is fairly short for the world she lives on as she is descended from the 'dwarf type race.' (only humans are usually shorter) -- she is a little plump because her race has a slower metabolism, but fit.  Society has moved onto fire arms, but they are useless with the indigenous races as they need to be beheaded.

Her big bulky husband would not know one end of a sword from the next he is also a lot less fit, but she has grown up in an all male household (2 barking mad dads and 5 step brothers) and has been trained daily from childhood, but has chosen other weapons.  Give 6ft10 big framed Angus a sword he is more likely to injure himself however give a well-trained 5ft11 Beatrice a sword and she could do a lot more damage.

My point is merely that as a world is designed from scratch depending on how we take it there is no reason why what women can do can't change if given context.  Plus there will always be exceptions to every rule she could have a disorder or a genetic difference or feel like a man trapped in a woman's body etc.


----------



## Abernovo

The *average* woman is physically weaker than the *average* man. There's no reason a female character could not be a superb warrior, but a warrior who wants to live needs to make smart choices. Open combat against a superior opponent is not one of them. If they're a master swordsman and you're not, don't fight with swords.

On the plus side, there's no such thing as a 'fair' fight. Choose your battles, strategise, play to your strengths, fight dirty, know when to run away (aka tactical withdrawal) and come back with your mates. And sometimes a win is just surviving to escape.

Cynical? Maybe, but if I wanted my character to be realistic, I wouldn't let her win impossible battles. I would let her find ways to swing the odds in her favour.

Re; Henry VIII, his daughter, Elizabeth was vulnerable her entire life, but she used the weapons available to negate her enemies' strengths. In so doing, she became one of the strongest monarch's in Europe and left her kingdom stronger than before. Not a warrior per se, but a leader of them.


----------



## Toby Frost

There's certainly a lot that can be done to get round the problems of the medieval era, especially if you've got the laws of physics to change and other species to introduce. I suppose the risk with making too many changes is that you can end up with something that doesn't feel legendary or related to the past at all, as though an old country village has been populated with modern people and creatures from the star wars cantina. I've always felt Dungeons and Dragons got a bit like that.

But it's probably a matter of striking a balance as well as getting rid of completely absurd elements (high heels in combat again!). I know some people feel that swearing breaks the feel of fantasy, whereas I'm pretty sure real medieval folk cursed a lot (although in a different way). The trick is making it convincing, and that's always tricky...


----------



## chrispenycate

For there to be an appreciable percentage of female fighters in an essentially human society there are two things that are essential; a reasonable effective medical profession, and a reliable contraceptive method. Mediaeval women who survived the experience had ten, twelve even fourteen offspring, remaining pregnant throughout practically all their fertile period. This was not to enforce their subservience, but because so many of them would die in childbirth, and so many of the children never reach adulthood. It is, nonetheless, a very bad recipe for being soldiers. A magic healing talent would change these parameters considerably, but as things were only a sterile woman or a determined man-hater would be capable of continuous military training.

Mercedes Lackey, a fantasy writer who doesn't get much mention here, but considering how many books she has in print must be doing something right, has protagonists male, female and male homosexual (while she has a couple of female homosexual fighters, they're not important characters, and at least one of her protagonists, while biologically female, is actually gender-free). Admittedly, quite a bit of her output is early modern or modern, but a majority is "generic fantasy" period, pre industrial revolution. I have not noticed this diversity hurting her sales, or seen reviews saying "ooh, a girly feminist story". Although I did get a bit miffed with her when (in "By the sword", I think) she said "surprised to see no women at all; you would have expected to have seen some, at least among the archers."

As mentioned, upper body musculation is not what women excel in, and if you've tried stringing, let alone drawing, a longbow you will understand that bowmen were practically deformed in the shoulders and back getting strong enough to shoot through an entire battle; one of the main reasons firearms came to precedence despite being slower, less accurate and shorter range than bows.

High heels are for the cavalry; I think it's a question of matching feet to stirrups. I'm no equestrian, but the few times I have mounted I've had a tendency to fall over when getting off (partly due to cramping in thighs and calves, admittedly). If, on average, the best place for your heroines is among the scouts and skirmishers (if you're writing to attract an adolescent female following, horses would probably help in a majority of cases, lacking unicorns) then high (ish – not stilettos) heeled thigh boots might not be that impracticable, and titivate the adolescent male audience's imagination, At least until she got down from her steed, and tottered instead of running.


----------



## AnyaKimlin

I'm sure they did swear my very prim and proper Gran born in 1907 had a few like pigs melt (offal) which have since fallen out of use -it carried a strength to them.  You don't often see it in Edwardian novels.   

We know name calling existed in Shakespeare's day - things like Bulls pizzle, bed presser, pox on you etc  Taking the Lord's name in vain certainly happened as early back as the Ten Commandments.   The f word probably didn't have the strength it does now because they had yet to go through the prudish later Victorian/Edwardian era - most people slept in one room a religious swear word would have had more impact.   My Great Gran born in 1881 thought nothing of breastfeeding another woman's child when it was needed, my Gran was scandalised by it.

Admittedly mine isn't Earth and has developed differently as a result (when a good portion of your population can become birds then air travel is less of a necessity etc).  The first rulers in the world were female, and although currently it is male dominant, because the ruler women had more male than female children, the women have a high status, and have always been educated as equals etc



> . A magic healing talent would change these parameters considerably, but  as things were only a sterile woman or a determined man-hater would be  capable of continuous military training.



That is an interesting idea - it is funny where I find my worldbuilding has happened by instinct.  My indigenous to the planet folk are pre-mortal or mortal until they have a child then they become mortal.  In order to stay safe until they are ready for death before reliable contraception they have same-sex relationships or remain celibate or they have the option of using their birdform as part bird children don't count towards mortality.


----------



## Toby Frost

> thigh boots might not be that impracticable



Popular with puritan cavalry everywhere. I hear they go well with a round head.


----------



## Mouse

I know men are stronger than women, but I'm a (UK) size 6 and 5'4. I'm pretty weedy and yet I did karate for several years and was perfectly capable of throwing a man over my shoulder (yes, I have done it). It's all about using your opponent's size/strength against them. So... yeah. Just cos (some) women aren't as strong, doesn't mean they can't kick a man's ass. Should've seen the looks on some of the guys' faces when I punched them and it actually hurt.


----------



## Connavar

Anne Lyle said:


> And there are plenty of women readers who are equally bored by the Xena/Buffy kickass leatherclad eyecandy that's frankly not much less of an adolescent male take on women than the braid-twirling stereotypes in WoT.
> 
> At the same time I don't want to read about female characters whose main interests are domestic, because that's too close to the role that real life tries to force us into, TBH. I wasn't into all that when I was five, and I'm not now!
> 
> The main protagonist of my own book is a guy (for the reasons of historical realism discussed earlier), and the main female character is just an ordinary girl trying to make her way in a male-dominated world. She learns to fight well enough to defend herself, but she leaves the serious arse-kicking to the ex-soldier protagonist who is far better equipped to do so, by both biology and upbringing.




Sure be bored by Xena/Buffy thats your choice, taste.   I would like more female heroines of any kind.  Ripley for example is no ass kicking superpowered heroine.  More like regular human soldier.  There are difference heroines.  

Historical realism is good and everything but its means just another male hero to me.   Its a bad to me i have to look outside book medium for good female heroes in my fav genres.   

Biology ? She leaves ass kicking to male protagonist ?  Thats fine and all but its a shame too many authors think like that.

We are talking about fiction and not real world.  There are many great authors who has made believable female heroes.   Best example Robert E Howard.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae

And again, I think there's a point being missed here. This talk has all been about brute, raw physical strength alone. To be a warrior or a fighter one does not need to wield a heavy 90-pound hammer or a massive claymore.


Yes, medieval upper-class males would often have a meat-rich diet. But this being said, meat is high in fat and such diets, unless kept in close balance with exercise, will put a lot of weight on a person and greatly reduce how fast they can move, and how much energy it exerts for them to move. Add a good 100-pound set of steel armor around their bodies, they might as well be used to push downhill and crash into weak walls and doorways.


A female on the other hand, being of smaller frame and a lighter weight, coupling that with the fact that most suits of heavy, rigid armor were not made for the female form, could easily train with use of light weaponry and what they might lack in raw power they make up for in grace, agility, and speed. It's not much use trying to bring a two-handed, slow overhand swing down on the head of someone who can leap away from it in half a second. And while light weaponry might not be able to puncture through plate mail, every armor had its drawbacks and you get a knight in full plate armor on the ground, he's not getting up for a while, and if you get him away from his weapons, one might be able to get the helmet off, or use a well-aimed blow through an eye hole. Even if a female's opponent is not wearing plate mail, but rather something like scale mail or chain mail, that puts him at a bigger disadvantage seeing as how a rapier or a dagger or dirk could easily get past such armor's defenses. With females against a male opponent, the trick would not be brute power strength, in most cases. It would be up to who moves faster than who.


----------



## Abernovo

Karn Maeshalanadae said:


> A female on the other hand, being of smaller frame and a lighter weight, coupling that with the fact that most suits of heavy, rigid armor were not made for the female form, could easily train with use of light weaponry and what they might lack in raw power they make up for in grace, agility, and speed. It's not much use trying to bring a two-handed, slow overhand swing down on the head of someone who can leap away from it in half a second. And while light weaponry might not be able to puncture through plate mail, every armor had its drawbacks and you get a knight in full plate armor on the ground, he's not getting up for a while, and if you get him away from his weapons, one might be able to get the helmet off, or use a well-aimed blow through an eye hole. Even if a female's opponent is not wearing plate mail, but rather something like scale mail or chain mail, that puts him at a bigger disadvantage seeing as how a rapier or a dagger or dirk could easily get past such armor's defenses. With females against a male opponent, the trick would not be brute power strength, in most cases. It would be up to who moves faster than who.



That's partly what I meant about playing to strengths, although I don't always express myself well. If you're light and fast, use it. If you have karate like Mouse, use that as well.

(Mouse, I too have seen men handed their butts by women in martial arts. Always funny to see, especially when they're a little bit arrogant beforehand.)

As to weapons, Karn, the Estoc (or Tuck), one of the immediate predecessors of the rapier, was specifically designed as a thrusting sword to pierce armour, both plate and mail. Not the devastating force of a claymore, but lighter, faster and just as deadly. As you say, something like this could give you the advantage over a heavier, armoured opponent.


----------



## Menion

A few months ago the USS nuclear Aircraft carrier George H.W Bush (CVN-77) moored just off the coast of the closest city where I live and work. There were many Navy boys and ladies (sometimes hard to tell the difference) hanging around for three days, in the restaurante where I work we had hundreds of them coming in and out. 
I mention this because the girls from that boat looked like they could beat me to a pulp and any other guy. 
I think if ladies go into the buisness of fighting then thay can "beef up" and be equal too any man.


----------



## Parson

Menion said:


> A few months ago the USS nuclear Aircraft carrier George H.W Bush (CVN-77) moored just off the coast of the closest city where I live and work. There were many Navy boys and ladies (sometimes hard to tell the difference) hanging around for three days, in the restaurante where I work we had hundreds of them coming in and out.
> I mention this because the girls from that boat looked like they could beat me to a pulp and any other guy.
> I think if ladies go into the buisness of fighting then thay can "beef up" and be equal too any man.



They can be very tough, but women without taking hormones can not beef up to what a man would beef up to with equal amounts of training. But let's be clear that a woman can be just as deadly as a man. However history teaches us that this is the extremely rare female.


----------



## Toby Frost

A couple of small points on armour. Firstly, armour varies a lot during the middle ages. Secondly, the average knight would probably have been very fit indeed, and as time went on, quite a skilled fighter rather than just a thug. I suspect it would be very difficult to get a knife into the joints or eye-slit of a man in late medieval armour who knew how to defend himself. Knocking him down would help, although he'd have his legs braced to fight, and he wouldn't be helpless on the ground owing to its weight. A crusader, on the other hand, might have serious problems there - especially if you crept up on him!


----------



## Ashcroft

Ackernon said:


> Biologically women have faster reflexes and some would say a higher pain threshold than men



Huh? I've never heard that. In fact, the only study I could find on the matter found the reverse to be true, and that (despite what kitsch pseudo-science shows like Mythbusters claim) women experience greater pain than men.

See, this is a big part of the problem I usually find with female characters: the author usually appears to be so laboured by the desire to create an inoffensive female character that s/he creates a completely unbelievable female character that plays out more like Zeus than a real woman.

I totally agree with Sabolich; I think that, by far, the most interesting female characters are those that are three dimensional, rather than a mere "Yeah! Girl power!" derivative. I'm not put off by female characters per se, but it's just that I know that most of the time the female character will be offensively boring with the exact same 'inexplicably hates men and inexplicably kicks their behinds' theme I've seen a bazillion times.

As regards the OP, I don't know whether women are under represented in modern fantasy. I know that GRRM has some cracking female characters that respond coherently to both their internal desires and their societal constraints (Arya, Catelyn etc).

But, honestly, I'm fine with anything that can suspend my disbelief and present me with something novel; it's just that far too many female characters (that aren't just the meek type) fail on both those counts.

EDIT:



Mouse said:


> I know men are stronger than women, but I'm a (UK)  size 6 and 5'4. I'm pretty weedy and yet I did karate for several years  and was perfectly capable of throwing a man over my shoulder (yes, I  have done it). It's all about using your opponent's size/strength  against them. So... yeah. Just cos (some) women aren't as strong,  doesn't mean they can't kick a man's ass. Should've seen the looks on  some of the guys' faces when I punched them and it actually hurt.



Granted, Mouse, women _can_ train to use their opponents' strengths against them, but there's a _big_ difference between a woman hitting a man who (due to modern societal constraints) can't hit her back, and a woman hitting a man who can go all out on her. Unless the female character is much better talented, armed, or trained than the male combatant, it's just hard to see an outcome where two equally talented, armed, and trained combatants of opposite genders would have any unpredictable outcomes.

To put it in perspective, a US military cross-gender study found that



> male soldiers’ strength relative to females as follows: upper-body, 72  percent higher; leg extensor, 54 percent; trunk flexor, 47 percent; lean  body mass, 33 percent; and aerobic capacity, 28 percent.


That's _a lot_ of extra muscle, and given that human muscles put out almost six lbs per square inch (gah, this is starting to feel a lot like my biology lectures again), you're looking at hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds of strength difference.

This is why it's so important to make it crystal clear why a female character is able to beat a male character in combat. It becomes so perilous that, in my opinion, it's better to just avoid the issue wherever possible, and permit women to play to their actual strengths in a medieval setting: men will never see them coming.

That's not to say that a world _can't_ be created where women can beat men (it's your novel, so you set the darn rules!), but it's just going to be tough to do so without seriously smashing against the readers' known rules about reality.


----------



## Anne Lyle

Personally I think the "kick-ass" female is a dangerous stereotype - it gives the impression that women _ought_ to be able to defend themselves physically against men, which simply isn't true in the majority of cases. For most ordinary women, the key aspect of self-defence is avoiding dangerous situations, not rushing into them! There's a fine line, IMHO, between empowerment and setting unrealistic expectations...

I make it clear that my young female character is at a serious disadvantage compared to the men around her. I find it more interesting to write, and I think it makes her occasional victories all the sweeter


----------



## sabolich

chrispenycate said:


> As mentioned, upper body musculation is not what women excel in, and if you've tried stringing, let alone drawing, a longbow you will understand that bowmen were practically deformed in the shoulders and back getting strong enough to shoot through an entire battle; one of the main reasons firearms came to precedence despite being slower, less accurate and shorter range than bows.



Too true. I have always had pretty good upper body strength for a woman, from bucking hay bales all my life to push-ups and other strength exercises in the Army, but I had great difficult pulling a compound bow when somebody let me try it. I have better luck with ye olde Robin Hood type bows but I can't imagine trying to pull a longbow. Or keeping it up for hour after hour of a long battle. I once wrote a story wherein one of the characters had lost a partner to simple exhaustion on the battlefield after the fight had deteriorated to prolonged slogging hand to hand. The reflexes slowed and he missed a stroke he shouldn't have. The archer's accuracy would deteriorate after a while, too, I'd think.



chrispenycate said:


> High heels are for the cavalry; I think it's a question of matching feet to stirrups. I'm no equestrian, but the few times I have mounted I've had a tendency to fall over when getting off (partly due to cramping in thighs and calves, admittedly). If, on average, the best place for your heroines is among the scouts and skirmishers (if you're writing to attract an adolescent female following, horses would probably help in a majority of cases, lacking unicorns) then high (ish – not stilettos) heeled thigh boots might not be that impracticable, and titivate the adolescent male audience's imagination, At least until she got down from her steed, and tottered instead of running.



High heels for horsemen aren't for looks; they are to keep your foot from going all the way through the stirrup and ending up getting dragged if you fall off. To this day Pony Club demands heels of a certain height (1/2 inch, I think, but I can't remember for sure; it might be higher) for safety. As to thigh boots, they are absolutely practical to prevent chafing when you spend long hours in the saddle. Comanche warriors, who rode bareback, were also known for their thigh-length boots. Cowboy boots also have fairly good heels, and the older boots were higher than modern ones. Puh-lease don't put your girl in high heels to totter around the barn or the campsite taking care of her horse (which is rarely ever shown in fiction anyway; the poor horse is just assumed to be a tireless machine). If you want her to be a credible, competent heroine, then don't remove her credibility at the outset by turning her into Hollywood's idea of cool.


----------



## TL Rese

Ackernon said:


> It has long been my belief that female characters in Epic Fantasy are not equal to their male counterparts and too frequently are only there for eye candy in the visual media or at best a love interest for the male leads.


 - i think this was true back in the day, with the epic fantasy tradition that tolkien started with his little band of all-male fellowship dudes.  people prob just kept imitating this, so most epic fantasy has male leads.

recently (altho maybe not in epic fantasy lit, per se), there have been Lots of strong female leads - xena, buffy, katniss (hunger games), underworld, etc.  but then this begs the question of whether a female lead has to be kickass (ie. like the male stereotype) to be "strong".


----------



## assasin

I think martin does females fairly well. Though a lot of his characters of both genders are a bit exagerated [mountain that rides, ser piggy, brienne the beautiful], and he has a slight imbalance towards male characters in terms of numbers.

I'm not talking about anomalies like brienne the beautiful. But politically inclined women in a mans world. The queen of torns comes immediately to mind. She is the main political strategist for the tyrells, though seeing as most tyrells we've seen so far are idiots its not that difficult to imagine. And you must admit, while cersei has her faults, she is a lot more competent than aerys the mad and baelor the befuddled/. And dany does have a lot of potential [owing to the fact she hasnt hit fifteen yet].


----------



## hopewrites

Not having read the 5 pages I don't know if Melanie Rawn and her Exiles series has been mentioned.
In the world she creates women rule over men with the very logical reason that after the war that nearly destroyed the planet a woman's right to bare healthy children became her right to rule everything else. It's an interesting role-reversal where men are treated in some cases as nothing better then breading tools. And over the course of the story she has them struggle for parental and personal rights, having already given them political and trade rights before the story begins.

So if your looking for a fantasy where women are given power, but not always powerful; where old gender roles start reversed and are slowly overcome, I recommend it. Though it isn't finished, she got stuck on book 3 Capitals Tower, still waiting for a release date on that.


----------



## TL Rese

also, this wkend i came across an article on the tor.com website that i thought was relevant to this discussion.  my link won't post, but if you just google "tor, your formula for a kickass heroine", it should come up at the top.  it's an article by natalie zutter.

i also had a further thought about some of the comments regarding women's lack of brute strength.  of course, there's no need to make a heroine "kick ass", but there's equally no need to conform fantasy to our own reality.  isn't that what makes fantasy so enjoyable, is that it's Not like our world?  if women in a fantasy world are endowed with a lot of kickass power, then so be it!  good fantasy has to be "believable", but it doesn't have to be "real".


----------



## Rob Sanders

They say that science fiction is not about the future, it's about the present. If SF explores present concerns then it is likely that present misogynistic representations in society and culture (or even their binary oppositions - as demonstrated in the "kick-ass" female stereotype identified above) are likely to surface in SF fiction.   



________________________________________________________________ 
Rob Sanders Speculative Fiction


----------



## hopewrites

Rob Sanders said:


> If SF explores present concerns then it is likely that present misogynistic representations in society and culture (or even their binary oppositions - as demonstrated in the "kick-ass" female stereotype identified above) are likely to surface in SF fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________
> Rob Sanders Speculative Fiction



I would have to disagree with that. Mostly because it is my experience that the male of the species is the oppressed one. Touchy as the subject is I dont know how to express my opinion further without offense, and fear I have said too much already.


----------



## Toby Frost

And so, to quote King Theoden, it begins...


----------



## TL Rese

Rob Sanders said:


> They say that science fiction is not about the future, it's about the present.
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________
> Rob Sanders Speculative Fiction


 
i definitely agree with this.  it's difficult, if not impossible, to write another world without it reflecting our own social values and presumptions, in some way, shape or form.  but of course, fantasy n sf are blends of the real and the not real - otherwise, it would be realist fiction.

as for which gender is the oppressed one, this can be argued endlessly until doomsday.  fact is, there is good and bad to being either gender, and which gender is better off is just up to personal opinions and preferences.  (for example, would you rather die in childbirth or in a war?  some would prefer one, while others would choose the other).


----------



## soulsinging

Parson said:


> I'm not sure if this relates, but a study was made of American cartoons aimed at ages 7 and up, and who watched them. It was discovered that while both males and females related to males in the super hero role, males soon did not watch shows with women in that role. So, cartoons with female leads did not get the ratings and did not last. Much to the frustration of the woman who was reporting this finding. Her goal was to create female leads in cartoons.



I read something like this too, only it was about books as I recall. Girls had no problem identifying with male protagonists, but boys were very unlikely to read stories with female protagonists. I can't remember where I read it either, but it was probably somewhere at uni when I was preparing to be a teacher before I bailed on that. So they come into schools already thinking this way, which I think is due entirely to upbringing/socialization. It's ok for girls to admire masculine traits, but boys that like anything feminine quickly learn it makes them a "sissy." It's a shame.

Of course, there are exceptions. Harry Potter and Robin McKinley's Blue Sword/Hero and the Crown spring to mind as having strong, smart female protagonists that are also plenty feminine. The Hunger Games as well.


----------



## Rob Sanders

Depends how deep you go. According to Propp's Morphology of the Folktale, the character performing the role of being a 'Hero' is defined by action -usually as part of a quest or objective. Richard Dawkins assigns this confidence to act or aggressive pursuit the term 'male' or what we understand to be 'maleness' in The Selfish Gene. Looking at it that way (which is just one way of looking at it), all female characters assuming the 'traditional' role of a hero might be seen to be assuming a kind of 'maleness'. It's interesting. 


________________________________________________________________ 
Rob Sanders Speculative Fiction


----------



## Parson

soulsinging said:


> I read something like this too, only it was about books as I recall. Girls had no problem identifying with male protagonists, but boys were very unlikely to read stories with female protagonists. I can't remember where I read it either, but it was probably somewhere at uni when I was preparing to be a teacher before I bailed on that. So they come into schools already thinking this way, which I think is due entirely to upbringing/socialization. It's ok for girls to admire masculine traits, but boys that like anything feminine quickly learn it makes them a "sissy." It's a shame.
> 
> Of course, there are exceptions. Harry Potter and Robin McKinley's Blue Sword/Hero and the Crown spring to mind as having strong, smart female protagonists that are also plenty feminine. The Hunger Games as well.



A shame, I must certainly concur. I just finished reading book one of "the Hunger Games" (don't generally read much YA) but I found the book fairly riveting, but I am unsure if I want to read book two I have the awful premonition that it's going to degenerate into some sappy love story where no one is honest (or believes anyone else) --- Which I suppose puts me into the category of the male not identifying with the female point of view. Or maybe not?.


----------



## TL Rese

Parson said:


> I have the awful premonition that it's going to degenerate into some sappy love story where no one is honest (or believes anyone else) --- Which I suppose puts me into the category of the male not identifying with the female point of view. Or maybe not?.


 
i'm currently almost finished reading book 3 of the hunger games, and i would encourage you to go ahead and read the rest - i thought book 2 was even more gripping.  and don't worry.  there's some love story, but it's just in the background and not the main focus of the books.  

as for "male not identifying with the female point of view" - i dunno.  i'm a girl and i hate chick lit.  i dunno if that makes me a "male" or "female"? =P  but frankly, i don't really care.


----------



## Parson

Parson sighs contentedly and puts book 2 "Catching Fire" on the list of books to be read soon.


----------



## Anne Lyle

Parson said:


> I have the awful premonition that it's going to degenerate into some sappy love story where no one is honest (or believes anyone else) --- Which I suppose puts me into the category of the male not identifying with the female point of view. Or maybe not?.



"Bad romance" should not be confused with "the female point of view". Most of us gals (particularly the above-averagely intelligent women who read SFF) are equally annoyed by Too Stupid To Live characters who are kept apart by the author rather than by internal motivation.

FWIW I don't identify with the female PoV either, at least not the stereotypical "Heat" magazine-reading, baby-cooing-over variety. Give me a book about the history of swords any day 

(And yes, that's a boy in my avatar...)


----------



## Parson

Anne Lyle said:


> "Bad romance" should not be confused with "the female point of view". Most of us gals (particularly the above-averagely intelligent women who read SFF) are equally annoyed by Too Stupid To Live characters who are kept apart by the author rather than by internal motivation.
> 
> FWIW I don't identify with the female PoV either, at least not the stereotypical "Heat" magazine-reading, baby-cooing-over variety. Give me a book about the history of swords any day
> 
> (And yes, that's a boy in my avatar...)



Thanks Anne, "bad romance" I hadn't even thought of that as a category. My wife used to thrive on what I would guess most people would call "bad romance" so that's what I've read, when I've read it. She's a wonderful woman in almost every way, but she wants to be sure that the books going to end "right" before she reads it. Until she trusts the author or the series, she will read the ending before reading the book. Presently she is more into the "Amish" style romances. I haven't read any of these so they might well be a step above what she used to read. 

Are there really "romances" where people are honest, trustworthy, and hard working? The closest I can come to that in my experience would be "Pillars of the Earth," which I enjoyed a lot and romance was a considerable, but it certainly wasn't (at least for me) the driving force in the book.

[I suppose it was projection, but I always thought your avatar was a girl.]


----------



## Anne Lyle

Parson said:


> Are there really "romances" where people are honest, trustworthy, and hard working? The closest I can come to that in my experience would be "Pillars of the Earth," which I enjoyed a lot and romance was a considerable, but it certainly wasn't (at least for me) the driving force in the book.



I dunno, I don't read the romance genre. I'll happily read an SFF novel with romance in it, even a big part of it (e.g. Catharine Asaro), but because such books often deal with major cultural obstacles to the romance, they don't have to fall back on the "can't get together because they are stupidly deceitful" tropes of Bad Romance.

I think this is why new romance sub-genres like Amish and m/m (gay romance aimed at women) have become so popular - there are so few genuine obstacles to (heterosexual) romance in the modern Western world. It requires a relocation to a time or culture where the relationship in question really is going to be difficult, in order to evoke that same frisson of forbidden pleasure that bodice-rippers offered our grandmothers' generation! 



Parson said:


> [I suppose it was projection, but I always thought your avatar was a girl.]



I deliberately chose it for its ambiguity 

(If you look closely at a larger version, you'll see he has the beginnings of a 'tache!)


----------



## Parson

*Very Clever Anne.* The guy looks like a real scalawag. Are you giving us some insight into your inner character?

I'm glad you added your definition of m/m I wouldn't have been able to guess otherwise.


----------



## Anne Lyle

Parson said:


> *Very Clever Anne.* The guy looks like a real scalawag. Are you giving us some insight into your inner character?





More like my characters - I do like a good rogue!


----------



## chongjasmine

Ackernon said:


> It has long been my belief that female characters in Epic Fantasy are not equal to their male counterparts and too frequently are only there for eye candy in the visual media or at best a love interest for the male leads.  While we have come a long ways from the days of the "Gor" novels of the 60's, do you agree or disagree that more strong, capable, 3 dimensional female characters, with real life issues, would be a fine addition to modern Fantasy storytelling?



Some fantasy books do contain women, who are 3 dimensional in nature and interesting. Unfortunately, most of the fantasy books I read, focus more on the male characters.

I think this may be due to the fact that most fantasy writers are men?


----------



## Anne Lyle

chongjasmine said:


> Some fantasy books do contain women, who are 3 dimensional in nature and interesting. Unfortunately, most of the fantasy books I read, focus more on the male characters.
> 
> I think this may be due to the fact that most fantasy writers are men?



Around 45% of SFF writers are women - but women get reviewed less, and generally get less publicity. So there may be women writers whose work you would love, but you've never heard of them.

Of course there are variations within sub-genres - I'm willing to put good money on there being far more male writers of military SF and epic fantasy, for example. Also, if you're reading fantasy set in a historical or quasi-historical world where women are second class citizens, the chances are that, regardless of the writer's gender, the story will focus on the male characters because they have far more opportunities to do cool stuff.


----------



## chongjasmine

Anne Lyle said:


> Around 45% of SFF writers are women - but women get reviewed less, and generally get less publicity. So there may be women writers whose work you would love, but you've never heard of them.
> 
> Of course there are variations within sub-genres - I'm willing to put good money on there being far more male writers of military SF and epic fantasy, for example. Also, if you're reading fantasy set in a historical or quasi-historical world where women are second class citizens, the chances are that, regardless of the writer's gender, the story will focus on the male characters because they have far more opportunities to do cool stuff.



I tend to read epic fantasy, and most of the books I read are from male authors, so I tend to have the wrong perception that there are more male fantasy writers than female.


----------



## Anne Lyle

QED 

I don't read much epic fantasy - anyone got any suggestions for female writers of same? Would you count Juliet E McKenna? She writes secondary-world fantasies with lots of politics and characters running around big mapped-out areas...


----------



## hopewrites

If by epic fantasy you mean several main characters and a deeply developed and explored world then Melanie Rawn's unfinished series Exiles would be perfect.
The way she made men second-class citizens, the reasoning behind it and the efforts made to over come it, brilliant. Her story is rich and even with only two books completed it is a series I enjoy revisiting time and again for its subtle intricacies and engaging plot.

she did say she would finish it eventually... *has hopes up*


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae

Anne Lyle said:


> QED
> 
> I don't read much epic fantasy - anyone got any suggestions for female writers of same? Would you count Juliet E McKenna? She writes secondary-world fantasies with lots of politics and characters running around big mapped-out areas...




Actually, though it's not strictly Epic Fantasy, the fantasy parts to it ARE:


The Interior Life: A Quest by Katherine Blake. The main character is a female: A housewife and mom who, despite being married to a wonderfully loving husband, goes through the same rigamarole of day-to-day cleaning/cooking/kid caring wife and mother, so in her mind she creates a world and uses it to escape. The character she has eyes through is a sexually independent, very self-confidant woman who serves as a maid to another woman-a woman of great respect and power because she has the ability known as the Sight.

Now it is through character interactions with the woman she is in the fantasy world, I can't remember that character's name, that the wife herself, whose name is Sue, actually starts to take on other aspects of her own, real life. She starts to attend PTA meetings, where she makes friends with another PTA mother. She and her friend, Siobhan, help another, pregnant woman and her young child escape from a physically abusive husband by giving her advice on where she could turn to. She buys a computer system for the first time for work, and even goes to a dinner with her husband's boss, strictly on her end as a sort of business thing for her husband. (The boss does sexually advance on her but she denies him the contact and the man is fine with it, she later tells her husband of the event, everything is fine because nothing happened.)

She even starts to delve into classical and historic music, thereby making friends with a young, late-adolescence boy, who she eventually helps hook up with her on-call babysitter. (A pretty, late-teens girl.)

I'm afraid I've given most of it away, but in no way, at any time, are the female characters ever subservient to their male counterparts, and actually, this could be quite an inspiring read to feminists, as it pictures women in a manner of independence, free thinking, still caring and loving their family, and at the same time not just giving into every sexual temptation that comes by. (The woman she is in the fantasy world is sexually open and active, but not at any point in the book anything but monogamous.)

God, if I had that book here I would read it again, it is an EXCELLENT read and I picked it up in a secondhand shop for just three or four dollars. One of the best reads of my life, and definitely a wonderful investment, especially so cheap. I've reread it about four or five times.


(And my spiel is now over, I apologize. )


----------



## sajtomat

XENA (Lucy Lawless, Xena: Warrior Princess) ,
BUFFY SUMMERS (Sarah Michelle Gellar, Buffy the Vampire Slayer) ,
SARAH CONNOR (Linda Hamilton, Terminator),
ELLEN RIPLEY (Sigourney Weaver, Alien, Aliens, Alien 3, Alien Resurrection),
PRINCESS LEIA ORGANA (Carrie Fisher, Star Wars),
STORM (Halle Berry, X-Men) ,
PRIS (Daryl Hannah, Blade Runner) ,
WONDER WOMAN (Lynda Carter, Wonder Woman) ,
BARBARELLA (Jane Fonda, Barbarella) ,
STARBUCK (Katee Sackhoff, Battlestar Galactica) ,
DANA SCULLY (Gillian Anderson, The X-Files) ,
CATWOMAN (Michelle Pfeiffer, Batman Returns) ,
KATHRYN JANEWAY (Kate Mulgrew, Star Trek: Voyager) ...

Have fun.


----------



## Rosemary Fryth

My heroic epic fantasy has a strong male lead, he also meets a girl who is almost as adept at the sword as he is. Both characters have strong outspoken personalities, however they are also complimentary to each other. My other female characters all have important roles to play in the story - so no, although the main lead character is male, none of the females are subservient.

Without giving too much of the story away, the main enemy in my book is an alpha female.

As a woman I like reading about strong women (and strong men) in fantasy stories. I think my all-time favourite strong female character is Ayla from the Clan of the Cave Bear series of novels. Not exactly fantasy, yet I admired Jean M. Auel's depiction of her, especially in the book 'The Valley of Horses'.


----------



## Parson

Rosemary Fryth said:


> I think my all-time favourite strong female character is Ayla from the Clan of the Cave Bear series of novels. Not exactly fantasy, yet I admired Jean M. Auel's depiction of her, especially in the book 'The Valley of Horses'.



I think that's a debatable point. I loved Clan of the Cave Bear so far haven't read the lightly regarded last installment, but I would most definitely put into the Fantasy category. There is even a small amount of "magic."


----------



## Rosemary Fryth

Parson said:


> I think that's a debatable point. I loved Clan of the Cave Bear so far haven't read the lightly regarded last installment, but I would most definitely put into the Fantasy category. There is even a small amount of "magic."


 
Interesting point, especially in regards to the small amount of (shamanistic) magic. Perhaps I don't personally regard it as fantasy because my own personal taste in fantasy is more in the range of high/epic/dark fantasy. Yes I agree CotCB is fantasy, however I'd class it as a realistic fantasy in a primitive setting.


----------



## sabolich

Anne Lyle said:


> I don't read much epic fantasy - anyone got any suggestions for female writers of same? Would you count Juliet E McKenna? She writes secondary-world fantasies with lots of politics and characters running around big mapped-out areas...



Haven't read McKenna, but if you have not yet encountered Carol Berg I would definitely recommend her. The Cartamandua duology hooked me with the character on page 1, and the Collegia Magica trilogy was a really good read. Her "Transformation" was excellent, though for some reason I don't have a great yen to read the rest of the series. As a character study, the first book is fascinating.


----------



## Anne Lyle

I read the Rai-Kirah trilogy and found it a great page-turner, but was frustrated by the end of it - I thought the princess character was woefully underdeveloped (quite a feat, given each book is ~500 pages), whilst Seyonne goes on and on about how much he loves his wife, which makes him look a complete idiot when she turns out to be an unrepentant bitch.

If I have time in my busy reading schedule I might take a look at the two-parter - thanks for the suggestion!


----------



## Warren_Paul

The manuscript I just finished writing has a strong female lead as one of the four main protagonists. In fact, 3 out of 4 are female characters and they can all give the male characters in my story as good as they can take.

The prequel novella I'm working on now features a sassy, quick witted woman who is good with a knife as the protagonist.



But if you want books with strong female lead at its best, then I would recommend Kate Elliot's Crossroads trilogy, in my opinion an absolute masterpiece.


----------



## Jeffbert

After reading the entire thread, I now feel able to respond. I do not recall anyone mentioning the psychological aspects involved. I do feel like I am putting my head in a guillotine, & hope no one is offended, but as I understand it, women have a nurturing instinct that men lack. Men are warriors and women raise the kids not only because of their physical differences, but also, their instincts. I suppose one could argue that these instincts arose as a result of the physical differences, though I do not see how that changes anything. 

Sarah Connor & ELLEN RIPLEY did not go about looking for trouble, but to defend the kids in their lives. I know little about KATHRYN JANEWAY or Buffy, whom sajtomat mentions, though, because I avoided TV during the last two decades of the 20th century. 

As far as Wonder Woman goes, it has been too long since I saw the TV series, though, as I recall, the women on the island determined that WWII could affect them, & WWoman went out to prevent that from happening. This is not quite seeking adventure for the sake of adventure. 

I guess I should ask, which of the women action characters were motivated by the lust for adventure, rather than, by other things more in line with the instincts of their sex?

PLEASE DO NOT KILL ME FOR SIMPLY BEING CURIOUS ABOUT THIS!


----------



## HareBrain

Jeffbert said:


> I guess I should ask, which of the women action characters were motivated by the lust for adventure


 
Dora the explorer?

I understand your question, but it's almost impossile to separate the effects of socialisation in arguments like these. There have been real-life adventurous women in periods when they would have been generally looked at aghast, and it's hard to guess how many others there would have been if society hadn't been against such things.

I would also question whether there are any modern male fictional characters with no more motivation than "lust for adventure". All characters these days need more than that.


----------



## Anne Lyle

Jeffbert said:


> I do feel like I am putting my head in a guillotine, & hope no one is offended, but as I understand it, women have a nurturing instinct that men lack. Men are warriors and women raise the kids not only because of their physical differences, but also, their instincts. I suppose one could argue that these instincts arose as a result of the physical differences, though I do not see how that changes anything.



Except that not everyone has this "nurturing instinct", if such a thing exists separate from social roles. I hated dolls as a child and never had any burning desire to have children.

I think it's more accurate to say that in societies without birth control, women's lives tend to be bounded by pregnancy and child-rearing, which makes "adventuresome" behaviour impractical. If the society is also strongly patriarchal (e.g. most Western cultures, where women had fewer legal rights than men), there is a lot of cultural pressure for women to conform to the role of wife and mother, so few will develop that independent spirit required for a fantasy protagonist. 

It requires more thought to make a realistic female character in these circumstances - I know, because I've done it.


----------



## Toby Frost

Without wanting to seem facetious, I honestly think that as far as this argument is concerned, you (one) just can't win. You have only to look at the schisms in feminism itself to get the impression that "feminist" is now a very vague term indeed. Very often, and probably incorrectly, to say something is feminist is now merely to indicate that it involves a woman making a lot of money, possibly at the expense of other women. If there has been a war of the sexes, it has certainly involved a lot of confusion and collaboration.

Against that background, considering the position of women in fantasy novels is guaranteed to cause trouble. Written a strong female protagonist who succeeds in a male-dominated world? Why, all you've done is put a man into a woman's body, disregarding the fundamental differences of gender outlook. This isn't Tomb Raider, you know. Or how about a powerful figure who solves problems with compromise and dialogue instead of raw aggression? That'll be the Lady Macbeth stereotype, then, sly and devious and, of course, ultimately dependent on the men she uses as her pawns. Realistic medieval setting? Failure to criticise the crimes of history. Gender equal setting? Failure to depict the crimes of history.

Personally, you can't please everyone. What I think you can do, though, is to write each character properly. That means chucking out anything wrong or ready-made: all the illogicalities, all the Mary Sue chainmail bikini stuff, the list of "mysterious things women do when left together", the "Men are such children!" attitude that seems so popular with sorceresses in David Eddings novels - and just write what that particular character would do. Some things can't be allowed to occur, but they are usually matters of common sense and survival: you couldn't walk through 14th century London in a miniskirt without getting into serious trouble (less raised eyebrows than raised pitchforks) - likewise, anyone going into battle in selected pieces of plate armour (cleavage exposed, of course) will be very dead very soon. (It's also worth mentioning that to actually train to a point where you can fight in armour and with a sword will leave you looking less like Arwen from Lord of the Rings and more like Vasquez from Aliens).

I can imagine something like this: say a fantasy-world Joan of Arc really could channel the power of some god. After her death, the people beside whom she fought cannonise her. The authorities wonder whether the process could be repeated, and set up an all-female knightly order. So the Joanites train and live like Templars (can they marry? Good question - that may have interesting repercussions). Once the initial shock dies down, and their prowess is demonstrated, they are held in awe by the people, but some see them as a bit freakish, and there are the inevitable whispered jokes about what they get up to in their monastery. But if they still can deliver the goods, they'll stay, and perhaps broaden the options for women earlier than reality allowed. If they don't, then they may become an embarrassment or, like the real Templars, be denounced as succubi and destroyed (if the Abrahamic religions have proved anything, it's that faith, sexual repression and violent misogyny are closely and sleazily linked). Meanwhile, in a different country, rumours surface of a girl who can slay dragons. "Blasphemy!" says the king. "Maybe not, liege," says the king's counsellor. "After all, in Xland they do have those Joanites..."

All of which could pan out in a lot of different ways, but, I think, makes a sort of rough sense. I can imagine the sort of women such an organisation would create, and some of the results which would at least not rely on stereotypes or offend against common sense. There might be points where a character does run parallel with a stereotype in certain ways - the High Sorceress of Yland is both crafty and glamorous because there is a lot of international diplomacy required - but those don't rely on her being a woman or doing "women stuff". 

So ultimately, I suspect the answer is to write the individual character as logically as possible. If the interior logic works, then unless you are clearly setting up that character as a representative of a general type or a figure to be denounced in the plot, I can't see an inherent objection.

EDIT: apologies for incredibly long post. I had no idea I was going on that much!


----------



## thaddeus6th

Interesting post, Mr. Frost.

On the Joanites, I have a sort-of similar shindig in Bane of Souls (not yet published, but hopefully out this year) called the Dames de l'Acier. They're an order that keep mages in line, having undergone a process that makes them immune to the direct effects of magic. 

Women find it easier to survive the process, hence the order being all female. 

Oh, and on Miss Croft: she's being rebranded for the new reboot this year. Looks are more realistic, and whilst still attractive her, er, flotation aids have decreased buoyancy compared to the past.


----------



## Toby Frost

That sounds like a really good idea. I suppose if you are writing a fantasy story with medieval Europe as a backdrop, and want to give women a more active role, you have to find some way to put them in exciting situations where they are allowed to be competent. Generally, since the main difference between real medieval times and fantasy is magic, using magic to allow women to have a greater role is the easiest way to do it. It sounds like you've got a good way of making that happen (the obvious path is to have female wizards - sterotypically healers!).

[For no good reason I have the curious mental image of Julie Andrews dancing up mountains and fighting dragons by shouting "Do Re Mi!" at them. Anyhow.]


----------



## Jeffbert

HareBrain said:


> Dora the explorer?
> 
> I understand your question, but it's almost impossile to separate the effects of socialisation in arguments like these. There have been real-life adventurous women in periods when they would have been generally looked at aghast, and it's hard to guess how many others there would have been if society hadn't been against such things.
> 
> I would also question whether there are any modern male fictional characters with no more motivation than "lust for adventure". All characters these days need more than that.





Anne Lyle said:


> Except that not everyone has this "nurturing instinct", if such a thing exists separate from social roles. I hated dolls as a child and never had any burning desire to have children.
> 
> I think it's more accurate to say that in societies without birth control, women's lives tend to be bounded by pregnancy and child-rearing, which makes "adventuresome" behaviour impractical. If the society is also strongly patriarchal (e.g. most Western cultures, where women had fewer legal rights than men), there is a lot of cultural pressure for women to conform to the role of wife and mother, so few will develop that independent spirit required for a fantasy protagonist.
> 
> It requires more thought to make a realistic female character in these circumstances - I know, because I've done it.


I have no kids, though I have a basic idea of Dora's character.  Does the instinct, if it exists, arise from the physique, or is it the opposite? I freely admit being old-fashioned, and that I have no problem with women who, being thrust into situations not of their own choosing, take on whatever roles are necessary. 

One manga/anime title character is Sapphire, who, while a female, because of a prank by an angel, was born with both male & female *hearts*. She is a princess who is proclaimed a prince, & reared as such, though she also receives the standard training for a princess. There is an evil duke who wants his half-wit son on the throne, & as the kingdom denies it to women, is out to prove Sapphire is really a girl. 

Complications arise when God sends the angel to Earth to retrieve the boy's heart, because he is forced to do so, when Sapphire most needs it; for she is dueling with Sir Nylon who is the Duke's henchman. 

This story gives girls both adventure that is usually reserved for the boys' comics, & the fancy dresses, etc., that appealed to girls. But it clearly makes Sapphire as a girl weak, though benefiting from the male strength of the boys' heart. She initially finds the woman's role distasteful, & much prefers the man's role. But, after the angel coerces her into wearing a beautiful dress, & attending a dance, her desires for the man's role slip away, especially after she dances with the prince from the neighboring kingdom.  

I think that the modern 'feminism' may have arisen, in part, from abusive husbands who denigrated the role of women. They saw themselves as kings of their households, and their wives as mere concubines or slaves. Admittedly, motherhood *is* a burden, but until recently, life itself was also a burden. Since the men earned the wages, they felt they alone should have control/authority. I understand that the older cultures placed women in the submissive roles. I, for one view the Genesis Adam & Eve story as an allegory for childhood innocence & coming of age; though either way, it apparently places women in the inferior role. As an allegory, it only gives an explanation for the way society was, but as history, it demands things be that way. 

Clearly, the man wants a son to inherit his name, wealth, & title, if he has any. The woman, being literally the property of her father, has little if any say in whom her husband will be. I read an autobiography of  3 generations of Chinese women. I think it was called *WILD SWANS*; anyway, the oldest generation, the grandmother was given away as a concubine for the hoped political-social advancement of her father. To him, she was nothing but a commodity, to be spent as he pleased. Her happiness was not even a factor. 

If things had been fair, the women should impose demands on her husband to be, & the law would enforce them. He gets his son, but must also give his own share. But, history indicates that might = right. 

I think it takes a lot of strength to be a mother. Especially when the culture seems to denigrate the role. Here, in the USA, the kids of Mexican immigrants will soon out number the citizens whose grandparents etc. were born here, because the wealthy seem to regard parenting as an undesirable thing, but the immigrants are having 5 or 6 kids per family, perhaps strict Catholicism or poor education accounts for this.

It seems to me, that if a person was trained to be a smithy, or a physicist, he should not prefer being a miner or a historian. Here I go, putting my head on the block, there are roles for which men are better equipped than women, just as the role of child bearing & rearing is especially suited to women. Men can only watch the special intimacy that mothers have with their children.  I know there are plenty of women who resent this role, or at least have no interest in it. 1 of the actresses who portrayed CATWOMAN in the 1960s BATMAN put off motherhood until she was in her 40s. She gave birth to a half-wit son; perhaps not entirely because she waited so long, but that certainly was a factor. Whether she had all along intended to delay motherhood or avoid it altogether, I know not.

I do not know much about male characters, offhand, but real-life men do things like climbing mountains simply because they are there. I also know there have been a few women mountain climbers, though.

I should have kept this much shorter, & fear this post may be a bit confusing.


----------



## Anne Lyle

Jeffbert said:


> Does the instinct, if it exists, arise from the physique, or is it the opposite?



Not physique, but hormones. Hormones have a huge effect on our behaviour, and of course the two sexes have different hormone balances. For example, it's been shown that women are more attracted to hunky, macho men in the middle of their menstrual cycle, when they're fertile!



Jeffbert said:


> It seems to me, that if a person was trained to be a smithy, or a physicist, he should not prefer being a miner or a historian.



Why? Plenty of people, male and female, get pushed into careers they're not interested in by well-meaning parents. Fiction is rife with this theme.

And that's "smith", by the way. "Smithy" is the place where a smith works 



Jeffbert said:


> Here I go, putting my head on the block, there are roles for which men are better equipped than women, just as the role of child bearing & rearing is especially suited to women.



Only a few roles are strongly reliant on male or female physique. Men naturally have more upper body strength, so any job that relies on a lot of heavy lifting or similar is going to be easier for a man - but not impossible for a woman (provided she isn't too petite). When it comes to mental aptitudes, there are some skills that are more common in men than in women, and vice versa, but there is a great deal of overlap.

Men and women are individuals, not two mutually exclusive groups. Some men enjoy working with children (and not for pervy reasons!), some women like me would rather work with computers any day of the week, thanks.


----------



## Parson

Jeffbert said:


> I, for one view the Genesis Adam & Eve story as an allegory for childhood innocence & coming of age; though either way, it apparently places women in the inferior role. As an allegory, it only gives an explanation for the way society was, but as history, it demands things be that way.



Lots of fodder in that post but I take exception to this part particularly. 

I would argue that it does not matter if you take the Genesis account literally or allegorically. In neither case does it "demand" that things be in any one particular way. The Bible and particularly the Old Testament developed in an extremely patriarchal society. And it is interesting to note (if you see the Old Testament as history) that there are women who develop into both strong heroes and villains. Leaving the role of strong capable woman open to any woman who aspires to it. 

But if the Old Testament narrative is rife with allegory, you have to deal with the strong capable women that do appear in the Old Testament. Then you probably have to conclude that women should aspire to these important roles. 

A person can make a strong case that in the context of the historical times in which the Bible was written that it was quite positive of the role and ability of women. (If you bring it up to modern times, not so much, but better than most critics want to believe.)


----------



## Jeffbert

Anne Lyle said:


> Why? Plenty of people, male and female, get pushed into careers they're not interested in by well-meaning parents. Fiction is rife with this theme.
> 
> Men and women are individuals, not two mutually exclusive groups. Some men enjoy working with children (and not for pervy reasons!), some women like me would rather work with computers any day of the week, thanks.


I have failed! Though I tried to avoid it, I cannot. I must be explicit: Men cannot give birth or milk; the woman's body is specially adapted to those tasks.  My comments about the Smith (thanks for the correction) wanting to be a miner was a failed attempt to make that point, which I hoped would have been implied by the topic of this thread, etc. There, I have said it. Now I'm gonna die!   Men, not being burdened with wombs & such, are free to pursue adventure, or rather forced into it because the women are otherwise occupied. The hunters & the gatherers; the men hunt, the women & children gather berries.  

I know it does not seem as exciting, but I suppose motherhood itself can be a bit adventurous, though such novels might not attract very many male readers.




Parson said:


> Lots of fodder in that post but I take exception to this part particularly.
> 
> I would argue that it does not matter if you take the Genesis account literally or allegorically. In neither case does it "demand" that things be in any one particular way. The Bible and particularly the Old Testament developed in an extremely patriarchal society. And it is interesting to note (if you see the Old Testament as history) that there are women who develop into both strong heroes and villains. Leaving the role of strong capable woman open to any woman who aspires to it.


What I meant by 'demanding' was that the curse was that the woman  must be subordinate to her husband. I believe I said that as an allegory, it merely justified the conditions that already existed; e.g., men were dominant, but as history, it was God's will that the husbands rule the wives. 

The fact that there were a few notable Biblical women, the name Deborah comes to mind, as does Jezebel, does not change the norm, women's status was inferior to men's.  Even as recently as the women's suffrage movement in the USA, I am persuaded that there were quite a few women who were against it. So thoroughly were they insistent on the Biblical model; They actually wanted to remain under their husbands' authority, rather than be regarded as their equals, citing the passage about Sarah calling Abraham 'lord.'


----------



## Parson

It is true that the story of Adam and Eve was/is used as a defense of women being subservient to men, but that assumes a kind of Biblical interpretation which takes a specific command and applies it generally. The judgement was on Eve "your desire will be for your husband..." and it is often taken as a general command. 

It was seen this way in some New Testament texts, but there you also have to balance the full sweep of Scripture which says some very freeing things and the actual way the church business was done with this reading of the story of the fall.


----------



## Jeffbert

Parson, while I respect your opinion, I for one, do not recognize the NT; though this is not the place to discuss this, I must say so, to limit the current discussion to the Hebrew Bible, which even Christians respect. 

But, anyway, as I was citing the creation story, I think it is appropriate to limit the discussion to it. I agree with you that there are several interpretations of God's curse on the woman, including that, as Eve was the presumed archetype for all women, & that their relationship was the archetype for all married couples, all women were also cursed likewise.

But my view of the story is that children when prepubescent, & especially pre-operational brains (younger than 7, under the age of reason) are immodest,  & unable to understand their mothers' objections to their running around naked. While in this state, they have very few, if any, burdens (some cultures are exceptions, though). They cannot even understand danger; they are not only carefree, but careless. Their world view is very simplistic, and their mothers must guard them from their own acting on ignorance that otherwise would endanger them.  Then, comes puberty: things change, hormones begin to flow, etc. The allegory is an oversimplification because these changes are gradual, up to a point, anyway. Now, the male is old enough to work in the fields, the female is now old enough to bear children. The free ride is over! The girl's papa gives her away as a bride or concubine. The bridegroom takes her as his wife, etc. No more do their parents & mothers, especially, provide for them.

The woman eats first, because females generally enter puberty two years earlier than males. The Serpent, need I say it? It represents sexual desire, & in specific-- 

In those now all but extinct cultures, there were coming of age rituals, I suppose the Bat Mitzvah is about all that remains. I read how that in 'premodern' cultures, the boy often receives a new name, or identity, & is forbidden from any contact with his mother; in some cases, she will not even recognize him. He has died to his old self, the child self, & has entered the adult world, with its sacred nature and secrets (as kept from those outside the group). Childhood is a  profane condition of shame, adulthood is a sacred condition of pride (Eliade, 3, 8, 9, 14).




Eliade, Mircea. Rites and symbols of Initiation: The Mysteries of Birth and Rebirth. Trans. Willard R. Trask. Putnam CT: Spring Publications, 2005.


----------



## Anne Lyle

Jeffbert said:


> I have failed! Though I tried to avoid it, I cannot. I must be explicit: Men cannot give birth or milk; the woman's body is specially adapted to those tasks.  My comments about the Smith (thanks for the correction) wanting to be a miner was a failed attempt to make that point, which I hoped would have been implied by the topic of this thread, etc. There, I have said it. Now I'm gonna die!   Men, not being burdened with wombs & such, are free to pursue adventure, or rather forced into it because the women are otherwise occupied. The hunters & the gatherers; the men hunt, the women & children gather berries.



Agreed - there are physical differences that determine roles. Women in pre-industrial societies are obliged to take on the bulk of the childrearing (as well as the childbearing), which limits their freedom. But once a woman can control her fertility, the division between the sexes is greatly reduced, at least in theory. There's no reason why modern humans should be constrained by the biological demands of our ancestors.

But I still don't see how the smith/miner analogy holds water. Do you mean that a woman brought up to be a homemaker can't desire to have a career? I think you need to read about the women's suffrage movement before you make such claims 



Jeffbert said:


> I know it does not seem as exciting, but I suppose motherhood itself can be a bit adventurous, though such novels might not attract very many male readers.



TBH it wouldn't interest me either. I prefer to read about swashbuckling rogues, particularly sexy male ones


----------



## Susan Boulton

Anne Lyle said:


> . I prefer to read about swashbuckling rogues, particularly sexy male ones


 

Better yet, write about them


----------



## Anne Lyle

True, I do both


----------



## sabolich

Wow, this thread has picked up a little momentum, hasn't it? I cannot agree that in any but the smallest cultural units (tiny tribes and clans) is nature going to play the dominant role in male/female roles. Ancient hunter-gatherers were fully occupied in survival. There was no time and likely no concept of adventure. Not until societies became large enough and prosperous enough for diversification, where specialists could trade for food produced by others, do you get a loosening of those bonds. Until then, yeah, the men hunted and the women did everything else. Note that until the 1960s it was still that way even in Western societies, if the woman took the marriage rather than career track. 

That said, there have always been rebels against the established, comfortable social order, from Anne Bonney the pirate to Sadie Marcus, Wyatt Earp's common law wife (who ran away from a very proper Jewish family) to all those women who joined the army long before any law allowed them to do so. I was in the second ROTC class that allowed women, which let me do all sorts of fun stuff like rappel down cliffs, sink a raft (and almost drown) whitewater rafting, run around in a jeep all over Europe, lead a platoon, and generally experience a lot more life than being stuck in the house with the kids would ever have let me do. I had nightmares as a young bride about being pregnant. No nurturing instinct here. Sorry.

What women will/can do is as much a matter of self-will as circumstance and societal acceptance. We have a society that encourages women to do what they want. Really rabid feminists will look down on them for choosing hubby, home and hearth. Real women believe they should do what makes them happiest. If that is picking up a sword and learning to use it better than the males around her, go for it, sister. If it is becoming the village wise woman, indeed, go for it. If it is being the best mom on the block, the world needs lots more good moms.

There are too many possible roles for women to fill to stereotype them into any "plausible" role in fiction. The point is to write a character whom you really, honestly, 100% believe can do all those things. Because, really, can just any guy who isn't built like Schwarzenegger do the Conan thing? Sheesh.


----------



## Anne Lyle

*applauds*

Small correction, however. Hunter-gatherer societies typically have more leisure time than agricultural ones. Agriculture is actually harder work, but food surpluses have their own advantages.


----------



## sabolich

Anne Lyle said:


> *applauds*
> 
> Small correction, however. Hunter-gatherer societies typically have more leisure time than agricultural ones. Agriculture is actually harder work, but food surpluses have their own advantages.



LOL, I bow to greater knowledge. However, having both hunted and participated in the annual huckleberry-picking rituals of these parts in the mountains, holy cow, both are time-consuming. And then you have to drag it home, clean the stuff, preserve it, prepare it, turn the leftovers into clothing, utensils, whatever... I would guess only the men had much actual sit-around time, and hopefully they would at least be manufacturing weapons while the women were chasing the kiddies in their copious spare time. 

What is amazing to me is that anyone had time or energy left to create the beautiful things they did leave behind for us to find. I wonder if it constituted mega-rebellion for a girl to want to carve a stone idol or paint the cave walls?


----------



## Anne Lyle

I'm only going by what I've read. Modern-day hunter-gatherers have been pushed into marginal habitats - in the past they would have occupied areas that provided a lot more food.

Not exactly food, but in a good year I've picked six pounds of sloes from the bushes near our house in about an hour. If that had been of a more edible fruit or nut (rather than one used to flavour gin!), I could have fed a family on 2-3 hours work a day. I wish I could support our household on so little work


----------



## Parson

Jeffbert said:


> But, anyway, as I was citing the creation story, I think it is appropriate to limit the discussion to it. I agree with you that there are several interpretations of God's curse on the woman, including that, as Eve was the presumed archetype for all women, & that their relationship was the archetype for all married couples, all women were also cursed likewise.
> 
> But my view of the story is that children when prepubescent, & especially pre-operational brains (younger than 7, under the age of reason) are immodest,  & unable to understand their mothers' objections to their running around naked. While in this state, they have very few, if any, burdens (some cultures are exceptions, though). They cannot even understand danger; they are not only carefree, but careless. Their world view is very simplistic, and their mothers must guard them from their own acting on ignorance that otherwise would endanger them.  Then, comes puberty: things change, hormones begin to flow, etc. The allegory is an oversimplification because these changes are gradual, up to a point, anyway. Now, the male is old enough to work in the fields, the female is now old enough to bear children. The free ride is over! The girl's papa gives her away as a bride or concubine. The bridegroom takes her as his wife, etc. No more do their parents & mothers, especially, provide for them.
> 
> The woman eats first, because females generally enter puberty two years earlier than males. The Serpent, need I say it? It represents sexual desire, & in specific--
> 
> In those now all but extinct cultures, there were coming of age rituals, I suppose the Bat Mitzvah is about all that remains. I read how that in 'premodern' cultures, the boy often receives a new name, or identity, & is forbidden from any contact with his mother; in some cases, she will not even recognize him. He has died to his old self, the child self, & has entered the adult world, with its sacred nature and secrets (as kept from those outside the group). Childhood is a  profane condition of shame, adulthood is a sacred condition of pride (Eliade, 3, 8, 9, 14)



I apologize for assuming the Christian background. We will indeed limit, if we go further, to OT texts, which I do a whole more than just respect.

You make very good points. Obviously you have read/thought about this a good deal. Would you maintain then that the assumption that women are subservient to men in Fantasy is equally a kind of racial memory. We might know better, but when we write or read we make certain assumptions based on generalized experience. 

I like to pride myself on having only slight bias, but one of my female friends ran a little experiment on me by telling me several stories where the gender of the main character was not given, but I found myself assuming that the character was either male or female just by the tone and the action of the story. A very humbling experience.


----------



## Toby Frost

I honestly think, and I don't mean to refer to your friend, Parson, that almost anyone can be caught out in some way. Prod the right nerve or use the right tone of phrase, and I suspect virtually anybody can be caught out as a sexist or, for that matter, racist in some way if you try hard enough. In writing, as with real life, I sometimes suspect that the best one can do is to remain fair and open-minded and, where judgment is required, to do it on the basis of facts rather than vague suspicion and/or prejudice. The best way to approach it is to discuss this person who happens to be female, rather than this woman who is, by virtue of being a woman, weird. I suppose that sounds vague, but actually it can lead to a nuanced approach: my lead character is crass and cannot open his mouth without putting his foot in it, but his instincts are ultimately moral, and at the end of the day he is a decent guy. If this was not the case I wouldn't be able to get the comedy and the likeability out of him I need for the character to work.


----------



## Parson

Well put Toby, I think you are exactly right. And I don't mind being thrown a life saver either.


----------



## Jeffbert

Anne Lyle said:


> But I still don't see how the smith/miner analogy holds water. Do you mean that a woman brought up to be a homemaker can't desire to have a career? I think you need to read about the women's suffrage movement before you make such claims


 O.k., a better analogy: Two HS athletes, 1 tall the other very broad shoulders, muscular, etc. We might assume that the tall one would pursue basketball, & the other, football, as they are better suited to these, but, what if they should want the sports to which they are not suited?  The tall guy wants to be a linebacker, the stocky guy wants to play basketball.  just as the smith is trained to use the anvil & forge, so the woman is equipped for bearing children. Please forgive me for this! 

I apologize for being unclear. 

Just so you know, my only adventures come on pages or video screens; I am anything but athletic.


----------



## Anne Lyle

OK, that's fair enough - you need the right physique to excel in certain physical activities. This is why men and women compete separately in sports - the top women just can't match the men's physical standards, at least not without (illegal) steroids. It's a simple fact of biology that men have a higher percentage muscle mass, more lung capacity, etc.

I don't think you can push this analogy into more complex tasks, though. It's true that, for example, more women go into teaching young children than men, no doubt (in part) for those nurturing instincts you mentioned. But there's no reason why men can't be just as good at the job as women, _if their interests lie in that direction_. Likewise women can excel in traditional male roles, e.g. scientists Marie Curie and Rosalind Franklin.

It's all down to a combination of personal aptitude and social pressures - biology (i.e. sex chromosomes) plays a much smaller role than you think!


----------



## Jeffbert

Parson said:


> I apologize for assuming the Christian background. We will indeed limit, if we go further, to OT texts, which I do a whole more than just respect.
> 
> You make very good points. Obviously you have read/thought about this a good deal. Would you maintain then that the assumption that women are subservient to men in Fantasy is equally a kind of racial memory. We might know better, but when we write or read we make certain assumptions based on generalized experience.


Lest you get the wrong impression, I am agnostic, though I think there is only 1 testament. As much as I would like to further discuss this, I think this is a bad place. 

About your next paragraph, I need you to be very clear on the term "racial memory." Can you rephrase that statement?



Anne Lyle said:


> I don't think you can push this analogy into more complex tasks, though. It's true that, for example, more women go into teaching young children than men, no doubt (in part) for those nurturing instincts you mentioned. But there's no reason why men can't be just as good at the job as women, _if their interests lie in that direction_. Likewise women can excel in traditional male roles, e.g. scientists Marie Curie and Rosalind Franklin.
> 
> It's all down to a combination of personal aptitude and social pressures - biology (i.e. sex chromosomes) plays a much smaller role than you think!


I will not need to push it further, as it has served its purpose. I understand that a few men are teachers, I was teacher chess to elementary school kids for a few years, & added some experience to what little I thought I knew about kids.  

But, anyway, back to the topic, I have read only the classic literature, it was the film versions that added women to the stories, but only so the hero would have somebody to rescue. 

I suppose I would enjoy reading about female adventurers, as long as the thing was fairly believable, though scifi itself often requires the readers to suspend disbelief, I think that is the term I had heard. If the writer invents a whole new universe, why not make new laws of nature to go with it? What about androids or cyborgs? I guess manga & anime lead the way with these. They can be as petite as young girls, but as strong as any male. In this case, size is not such a limiting factor, & the smaller, lighter ones can out-maneuver their larger, heavier opponents. Then there are the human females whose sole advantages are perhaps, quick wits, & intelligence. I would find reading about such characters rather interesting.


----------



## Parson

Jeffbert said:


> Lest you get the wrong impression, I am agnostic, though I think there is only 1 testament. As much as I would like to further discuss this, I think this is a bad place.
> 
> About your next paragraph, I need you to be very clear on the term "racial memory." Can you rephrase that statement?



I did indeed draw the wrong conclusion (again!), assuming that you were Jewish. But in this place agnostic/atheist might just put you in the majority. Feel free to pm me if you want to talk about this a bit further.

What I meant by "racial memory" --- probably not the best use of the term --- was that women are subservient to men without any thought out bias, but rather because that's the way it's always done even from before critical thinking about these kinds of things became common place. A kind of direct line from the oral traditions from which Fantasy arose.


----------



## Jeffbert

Parson said:


> I did indeed draw the wrong conclusion (again!), assuming that you were Jewish. But in this place agnostic/atheist might just put you in the majority. Feel free to pm me if you want to talk about this a bit further.
> 
> What I meant by "racial memory" --- probably not the best use of the term --- was that women are subservient to men without any thought out bias, but rather because that's the way it's always done even from before critical thinking about these kinds of things became common place. A kind of direct line from the oral traditions from which Fantasy arose.


O.k., to answer your question, while I cannot comment on modern fantasy, the older, classic stuff such as E. R. Burroughs, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle,  & others during that time wrote, yes, I would say that they put women in roles that were appropriate for the culture at that time. I read all of E.R. Burroughs' Mars, moon, Venus, Pellucidar, & the LAND THAT TIME FORGOT series. Likewise, I read all the Professor Challenger stories. In these, women, if they were there at all, were there to give the heroes damsels to rescue. In *Journey to the Center of the Earth*, only the men went on the expedition, though the 1950s film version did include at least 1 woman, she was only there to be rescued. Likewise the Verne & Wells Moon adventures. Women only went in the 1950s & '60s film versions, & then, they likely screamed, fainted, & needed rescue.  Though *MASTER OF THE WORLD* is one of my favorite Vincent Price films, & I have read both that & *Robur, The Conquerer*, I cannot recall if any women were in either novel as adventurers. 

I think that if any author had dared to defy convention & created female characters in any but the helpless damsel role, he or she would have sold very few copies of that story, & perhaps would have been lucky if any subsequent novels regardless of female characters, sold at all.


----------



## Jeffbert

Parson said:


> I did indeed draw the wrong conclusion (again!), assuming that you were Jewish. But in this place agnostic/atheist might just put you in the majority. Feel free to pm me if you want to talk about this a bit further.
> 
> What I meant by "racial memory" --- probably not the best use of the term --- was that women are subservient to men without any thought out bias, but rather because that's the way it's always done even from before critical thinking about these kinds of things became common place. A kind of direct line from the oral traditions from which Fantasy arose.



I am writing a book about my experiences in a FUNDAMENTALIST CHURCH, & until that is either published oir rejected, I really do not want to say more than this. 

O.k., to answer your question, while I cannot comment on modern fantasy, the older, classic stuff such as E. R. Burroughs, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle,  & others during that time wrote, yes, I would say that they put women in roles that were appropriate for the culture at that time. I read all of E.R. Burroughs' Mars, moon, Venus, Pellucidar, & the LAND THAT TIME FORGOT series. Likewise, I read all the Professor Challenger stories. In these, women, if they were there at all, were there to give the heroes damsels to rescue. In *Journey to the Center of the Earth*, only the men went on the expedition, though the 1950s film version did include at least 1 woman, she was only there to be rescued. Likewise the Verne & Wells Moon adventures. Women only went in the 1950s & '60s film versions, & then, they likely screamed, fainted, & needed rescue.  Though *MASTER OF THE WORLD* is one of my favorite Vincent Price films, & I have read both that & *Robur, The Conquerer*, I cannot recall if any women were in either novel as adventurers. 

I think that if any author had dared to defy convention & created female characters in any but the helpless damsel role, he or she would have sold very few copies of that story, & perhaps would have been lucky if any subsequent novels regardless of female characters, sold at all.


----------



## Anne Lyle

I suspect it's more likely that it never occurred to the (male) authors that there could be women in active roles.

In fact there were successful stories of strong female characters even back in the early 20th century, but as with so much else written by women, they've been largely forgotten:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jirel_of_Joiry


----------



## Jeffbert

I had no idea! I still remember the VIRGINIA SLIMS ads that ran, I guess during the late 1960s that showed men's attitudes toward women who smoked.  The men always held the habit as belonging exclusively to men, & by one means or another, extinguished the women's cigarettes. But, since I have been watching old movies, I note that everybody smoked. 

Back to your post, the cover shown on that wikipedia page uses the women as an attraction to male readers. I imagine that the stories depicted the women as scantily clad, or placed in sexy situations. Do you know of any stories in which the female characters *were not* there for the sake of sexiness? I subscribed to more than a few magazines in my life, & I believe an Asimov anthology scifi series was among them. I cannot recall any details, though. http://www.asimovs.com/2012_03/index.shtml

Anyway, I really only knew about the names of the founders of scifi, & it was their stories that I sought to read.


----------



## Anne Lyle

I suspect that the cover art bears little relation to the content of the story, which is set in a medieval world, but I've never read the stories so I couldn't say.


----------



## Triceratops

Goodness gadness, we're having this same topic over at AbsoluteWrite, and it does tend to get a bit heated. 

Answer to OP: Both my genders are on equal footing with each other, unless  the plot dictates that one take control. My gals are intelligent, independent and very physically active. They have to be with the **** I put them through. 

The trick is to serve a fair balance between the sexes, in whatever capacity.

chris


----------



## cesarica

Haven't read the whole discussion but basically, yes, they are subservient to their male counterparts. Although this is not surprising considering the historical framework it's still quite annoying (probably because I am a woman too ). However, I also must admit that I tried reading LeGuin's fiction and I didn't like it; not sure why though and if it has anything to do with some reviews I read prior to LeGuin in which the author argues that women's SF is much more emotional and character-focused - the characteristics we usually ascribe to women. -_- So when I saw that it is kind of true I stopped reading it. 
I also read the post from the first page that mentions some research about boys and girls watching superhero shows and how girls identify themselves with male instead of female heroes...That's probably correct, and that's probably the reason why i have problems digesting female SF. 
Anyways, cyberpunk has given us quite a lot of heroines so it would be unfair to claim that all female charact. are subordinate to men


----------



## Parson

That's not exactly what the research said. It said that boys don't identify with female heroes and therefore will not watch the show. If I remember correctly females identified with both and therefore it was wise for the producers to put guys in the lead role, and gals in the secondary (although important) roles.


----------



## cesarica

ok, possible but then again I know that all the books/movies/tv shows that i like were about men power, heroes etc; even if you had women in secondary role it just didn't seem so relevant when compared to the character
and also, take any DC or Marvel (ok, few exceptions there) comic, take any canonical piece of lit and I don't think you'll find female characters that have predisposition to become serious heroines, or idols whatever. 
things are changing nowadays though..


----------



## Parson

I don't read many comics (none in the last 30-40 years) so can't really speak there. 

But in classical literature, and often in music and the situation comedies of the first half of the 20th century, "Mom/Wife" was always the stable and sane one. She might not drive the bad guys away, but she was the one who made home worth coming back to. So I would posit that she was a very real hero even if not the "action hero."


----------



## cesarica

Ok, I agree with you but the problem is the fact that that was the only thing they could and should be: stable and firm characters that keep the family together while the big guys save the world and what not. 
I don't have problems with that picture but I do have it if it's the only picture there is. Only recently have female characters evolved into something more than mom\wife image and I'm not saying that all those new portrayals are flattering or better; all I'm saying is that there should be a choice.
And 





> So I would posit that she was a very real hero even if not the "action hero."


From the contemporary perspective, yes. Go back 30, 40 years and I don't think you'd have the same perception of female characters because, simply, the life was different for  both sexes.


----------



## Parson

cesarica said:


> Only recently have female characters evolved into something more than mom\wife image and I'm not saying that all those new portrayals are flattering or better; all I'm saying is that there should be a choice.
> 
> From the contemporary perspective, yes. Go back 30, 40 years and I don't think you'd have the same perception of female characters because, simply, the life was different for  both sexes.



If we are moving into the "should" category, I agree wholeheartedly; there *should* be a choice. Previously I thought we were discussing the "is" category (as in -- what is the contemporary state of being). 

I have the ability (unfortunately easily) to go back 30 years and even 40 years ago. (I was 21, 40 years ago.) I don't think things were as different, at least in the USA, as you seem to infer. There was most definitely a "glass ceiling" and there was a lower percentage of women working in almost any field you could name (education and nursing had a higher percentage than today). But I can think of no field where women were totally banned. (Do you count combat soldiers? That would be one.) 

One thing that is different is that today a woman has to put up with a lot of "You mean you don't actually do anything" looks if she chooses to be a stay at home wife/mother. That choice is not considered to be as good or wholesome as it was 40 years ago or more. 

My point is that women were "domestic heroes" and were honored for that. Today "domestic hero" sounds like an oxymoron or a kind of insult.


----------



## cesarica

well, yes, the present state of literature shows the absence of choice (as in, being a 'domestic hero' as you call it or an action hero) where there should be one  that's why i said that female characters are actually subservient to the male ones.

and i definitely agree on the last point you made; but i suppose it's only a natural course of events; once we had a completely different situation, now we have this and maybe some time in the future we'll find a balance in that sense.


----------



## Mangara

I seem to have picked up a lot of books with female leads recently, characters like Vin in the Mistborn series might have an argument with you  

I have however just finished day by day Armageddon by J.L. Bourne, who seemed to find women quite useless in Zombie survival situations. 

And in Fool Moon by Jim Butcher the women were irrational or a sex object. Found it quite distracting really.


----------

