Are female characters in Fantasy subservient to their male counterparts?

[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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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.