We Have Always Fought

[Fishbowl Helmet]

But Fantasy! Sure there's been a move towards "realistic" fantasy but the very word includes things that are improbable and different to our own world and experiences. And to go along a line of agrument that I think Scott Lynch brought up...why can we accept dragons and magic and all the rest of it but we argue so much about what women might or might not be able to do, what roles they might have?

I think that's exactly what the article explains. It's the sheer weight of media / narrative that keeps the notion of warrior-women as more fantastic than magic and dragons. The few writers who claim they're trying to be more realistic actually go quite the opposite, especially in their representation of women.

 

[Toby Frost]

Much like Allmywires, I did know most of the points the article makes. There's a lot of rhetoric there, but the information is interesting, and probably the sort of thing that you just generally ought to know. But more importantly, given that this is a writing forum, what can writers get out of this?

First up, I think writers are under an obligation, no matter the style and setting, to be realistic within certain parameters. Character is one area where you can't go far from reality without the risk of ruining the story being very large indeed. As a writer, if you introduce a character, they have to convince as themselves. Say I write about someone very like Joan of Arc. She needs to convince in herself as a character. She might do things that most women don't, or that most knightly sorts or French people don't. That's fine, so long as that character is convincing and isn't clearly meant to be representative of every Frenchwoman in armour (or some combination thereof). Writing characters well may or not be a step forward for feminism, but (more importantly as far as writing is concerned) it is a basic requirement in producing a good book. Likewise a taciturn mercenary, a drunken dwarf or whatever other figure may appear, stock character or not, has to work and be more than just "that kind of person". I think this is why introducing “the hero’s girlfriend” in the same way as “the hero’s firearm” – ie as another piece of hero paraphernalia – doesn’t cut the mustard.

Second, there's the question of whether there ought to be more women in Story Type X. This is probably a fairly separate question, and is more political than the first one. Certainly, there's a point below which you can't go in terms of realism (and if you are trying to go there, why?). A story set in the Crusades with no Arabs isn't really going to work. Similarly, if you write a novel from the perspective of Oscar Wilde and never address his sexuality, you've failed. It's just not credible.

There is the issue of people who will feel that their story is being taken away from them if you do certain things (see Bioshock Infinite, where certain weirdos felt that the game was being "spoiled" - ie made less theirs - because there was a woman on the front cover). In terms of writing, such people are best ignored. If they feel that it's ruined the book to discover that there are women doing stuff in it, then it's their loss. That's not really a valid criticism.

But - if you really can't make it work, don't do it. I couldn't write a convincing novel set in, say, a nunnery. Even if I really wanted to, I wouldn't try it, because I have very little conviction that I'd be able to do it justice with my current knowledge and ability in writing. Also, some people will want to read or write certain types of story. I'm always going to be more drawn towards the story of Ursula Graham-Bower than that of Marie Curie, because Marie Curie didn't do much jungle warfare. Which is probably a long-winded way of saying that you shouldn't as a writer feel obliged to do what you can't do convincingly. The first duty is always to write a book that works. Happily, making a book that works requires a certain amount of truth to be told about the way societies were and may well be, and that involves giving characters (all of them, including women) the credit they are due. Which is surely doing what these two articles call upon writers to do.

 

[The Judge]

... why can we accept dragons and magic and all the rest of it but we argue so much about what women might or might not be able to do, what roles they might have?

Because societal pressures act on women, not on dragons and magic. Both men and women should act with reference to the history of their world, their culture, and their technology. Sometimes that "with reference" means acting against the pressure and assumptions of their upbringing, but for most people -- of both sexes -- it means acting in accordance with societal norms. And if the people with power object to women doing certain things, then the risk of punishment has also to be taken into account. Plus all societies want children, it's the way for society to continue, so anything that impinges too greatly on the breeding and raising of children is likely to be given short shrift by those in power.

If a fantasy culture allows for women to be warriors, fair enough -- but where the technology is such that military prowess is predicated on strength, particularly upper body strength, then the fantasy writer has to explain how and why women are able to compete on equal terms with men. Sure women can use long bows -- but the men of the middle ages trained from childhood in using them and their skeletons reveal that their physique altered as a result, so the women must have the same training and the same deformations. Women can also use swords -- and I read of at least one "fight-book" which refers to women. But again, those things get heavy, and although skill is needed, so is physical strength. So by all means have a woman in the middle of battle wielding claymores or battle-axes, but if she isn't built like a brick outhouse, then you've got to come up with some damn good reason how she is doing it.

One of the real problems for women in the US military nowadays, apparently, is the risk of rape. Not from the enemy. From her superiors and fellow soldiers ie "I thought she wanted it" or "We were all drunk together" rape. That's with modern laws. Take it back a few centuries and think about being in the middle of several hundred testosterone-filled men, particularly after a battle when they're on a high. Again, it's not an insuperable problem for a fantasy writer, but it's not something that can be ignored in world-building, either.

I'm with Vertigo on this. Resistance fighters, fighting in self-defence (of village/family), going round after the battle and finishing off the wounded, torturing captives, leading/rallying the soldiers, engaging in feats of endurance or spying or scouting -- yep, I've no problem with women doing any of that. Put an ordinary, unmagical woman in the middle of a pre-industrial battle and holding her own for any length of time with hand weapons and I'll need a lot of convincing.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Yes that's obviously true NF however I suspect that all-women armies, regiments, companies, etc. or even ones with comparable numbers of men and women were probably pretty rare. Again, there are obvious exceptions to this, but seriously, how many women were actually fighting in the ancient armies of Rome, Egypt, China, India, etc. as compared to men. Or to take more primitive tibal cultures; women would, I'm sure, fight in defense of their village, but I'm also pretty sure the raiding parties of those ancient tribes would have been almost exclusively male. Think about primitive tribal groups that we have had direct experience of in the last few hundred years: native Americans, African tribes like the Masai, South American natives, Indonesian tribes etc.; I don't believe we have found any that use significant numbers of women in their normal 'warfare.'

Personally I think it far more realistic to have large numbers of women soldiers in SF rather than in F.

Well, fantasy is never more than selectively realistic. And I think an all-female regiment would be really interesting to read about, whether or not its something that's common in human history. I mean, what would Glen Cook's Black Company books be like if the male/female signs were inverted? Sounds like a promising basis for a story to me...

That said, I think the point of the OP article is a simple one: there's ample evidence that women have fought over the course of human history, so there's nothing inherently "unrealistic" about portraying that in fantasy. I don't think it's saying that there's something inherently "more realistic" about portraying 50/50 gender balanced armies.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Because societal pressures act on women, not on dragons and magic. Both men and women should act with reference to the history of their world, their culture, and their technology. Sometimes that "with reference" means acting against the pressure and assumptions of their upbringing, but for most people -- of both sexes -- it means acting in accordance with societal norms. And if the people with power object to women doing certain things, then the risk of punishment has also to be taken into account. Plus all societies want children, it's the way for society to continue, so anything that impinges too greatly on the breeding and raising of children is likely to be given short shrift by those in power.

Not sure I quite understand your point. Are you saying that because women face societal pressures in our world, that they must face similar pressures in a fantasy world?

 

[Mouse]

I agree with everything Hoops says.

I am far more aggressive, far more, than any man I know. (I have more male friends than female, so it's not like I only know one bloke or sommat ) I've done karate, I've fought guys in karate and surprised them by how hard I could kick (I'm a kicker not a puncher. Unfortunately I have weedy girly arms, but I kick like a mule). I've made a girl cry in karate by throwing a punch (I didn't actually make contact, she was just a big pansy). I'd rather fight than have a kid.

What irritates me is this 'women nurture, men fight' crap.

Also, if anybody doesn't know of Julie d'Aubigny, go google her. She is kick-ass.

 

[Gumboot]

I'm the type who says "blame society for everything!" so while I will accept that there are some evolutionary reasons for extra aggression in males, I don't think it's as wide as it would be without the extra social pressures.

This sort of thing has been pretty well studied. Aggression is driven by testosterone. Men have more testosterone than women. Therefore they're more aggressive. The correlation between aggression and testosterone is pretty strong not just in humans but in many different animals.

 

[Gumboot]

Hrm, this makes me wonder...

I've written my battle-related material with Lt Col Dave Grossman's premise of the psychology of killing in mind; namely that humans have an inherent resistance to killing other humans, that this resistance has to be overcome or disabled in order for a soldier to be effective, and that there are psychological repercussions in the form of a "backlash" when a killer-enabled soldier kills.

One thing Grossman doesn't really explore is if there's any difference between men and women. Based on what he's presented, I would suspect that female resistance to killing is greater than male resistance to killing (because it's based on empathy, and females generally feel greater empathy than males), which might explain how few female combatants there have been historically.

Something to ponder...

 

[Gumboot]

Not sure I quite understand your point. Are you saying that because women face societal pressures in our world, that they must face similar pressures in a fantasy world?

I think what The Judge is saying is that even fantasy has to function by suspending disbelief which only works if the world is internally consistent and logical. If you present a human society, a reader will expect to to operate within a general frame of human society, and if it doesn't they'll reject it out of hand.

So if you want a society where only women serve in the army, for your reader to suspend disbelief you need to present a human society that plausibly allows for that scenario. You can't just present "Medieval Europe but the women are the knights" and expect a reader to swallow it.

And the problem is that the vast majority of male-female dynamic in human society has its root in biology and evolution, so if you want to start rewriting those you're talking a new species.

Of course, a reader's threshold for suspension of disbelief is very dependent on what they know. No matter how thoroughly you research horses on Google, you're probably not going to fool someone who breeds them for a living.

In the end, with all things writing, it comes down to the writer's preference. There's nothing wrong with letting the plausibility of certain aspects of a story drop. But I think as a writer it's important to know where you're slacking off on the plausibility.

 

[Gumboot]

One of the real problems for women in the US military nowadays, apparently, is the risk of rape. Not from the enemy. From her superiors and fellow soldiers ie "I thought she wanted it" or "We were all drunk together" rape. That's with modern laws.

That seems to be a problem with the US military rather than anything to do with women and men serving together (although certainly people who are opposed to women in combat have framed it that way). The US military generally speaking has a bit of a discipline problem compared to other militaries, probably a combination of expanding rapidly in size at a time when it was hard to find recruits, and deploying young inexperienced soldiers.

Many other armed forces around the world are much, much more integrated than the US military, but don't have anything like the same problems with sexual assault on female combatants. Incidentally, other armed forces don't have such an issue with their soldiers murdering and raping civilians in the countries they're occupying either.

 

[Nerds_feather]

I think what The Judge is saying is that even fantasy has to function by suspending disbelief which only works if the world is internally consistent and logical. If you present a human society, a reader will expect to to operate within a general frame of human society, and if it doesn't they'll reject it out of hand.

Being internally consistent and being consistent with human history are two different things. I see very good reasons why fantasy should be the former, and very few reasons why it necessarily has to be the latter. I like it when fantasy authors experiment with social forms, provided there's good rationale for it and it's well-implemented. After all, human history provides a very wide range of social forms and structures. There's nothing wrong with building a society off of one of the more exotic ones.

Take, for example, polyandry. Not very common, but there is historical precedence. Why not build a fantasy world where women are born much less often than in our world, but practice polyandry--then aggregate this up to the level of society? What would the implications of this be? Sounds like a pretty interesting world to me, and I don't really see a reason why an author should not go for it, provided the world is well fleshed out and internally consistent.

 

[Kissmequick]

Being internally consistent and being consistent with human history are two different things. I see very good reasons why fantasy should be the former, and very few reasons why it necessarily has to be the latter.

This, times about, ooh, a bajillion (okay, provided you are talking second world, not so much on this world, because that would limit it to an extent).

The world has to make sense for itself, not to our history. Because it's history has shaped it just as ours shapes us.

 

[Mirannan]

Being internally consistent and being consistent with human history are two different things. I see very good reasons why fantasy should be the former, and very few reasons why it necessarily has to be the latter. I like it when fantasy authors experiment with social forms, provided there's good rationale for it and it's well-implemented. After all, human history provides a very wide range of social forms and structures. There's nothing wrong with building a society off of one of the more exotic ones.

Take, for example, polyandry. Not very common, but there is historical precedence. Why not build a fantasy world where women are born much less often than in our world, but practice polyandry--then aggregate this up to the level of society? What would the implications of this be? Sounds like a pretty interesting world to me, and I don't really see a reason why an author should not go for it, provided the world is well fleshed out and internally consistent.

I'll have a brief stab at the consequences of an otherwise human race with such an imbalance in terms of numbers. First of all, I'll assume that the degree of sexual dimorphism remains the same as ours - although the species that do exist with such a setup tend to have females much bigger and stronger than males. None of those are land vertebrates, AFAIK, incidentally. I'll assume that the situation with the number of offspring at once, and the gestation period and degree of maturity at birth, also stays the same as with real humans.

With many fewer women around, it is inconceivable that they wouldn't be protected to a huge extreme - and also inconceivable that they would have much freedom. Why? Simply because of what's already been said - that women put in much more time, risk and resources into each child than men do for reasons of simple biology. In such a world, the rare women would have to be just about continuously either pregnant or nursing. If they weren't, the problem would rapidly go away by reason of the race becoming extinct.

I can think of at least one fictional society with rare women and polyandry, with biology staying the same as ours. However, it wasn't a natural society by any means; it was sustained by continual immigration rather than what used to be charmingly called "natural increase". That society was the one in Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" - and it was basically a prison colony. In that society, women had a great deal of freedom and very high status - but the situation was unsustainable, a fact stated by several of the characters.

 

[AMB]

Women can also use swords -- and I read of at least one "fight-book" which refers to women. But again, those things get heavy, and although skill is needed, so is physical strength. So by all means have a woman in the middle of battle wielding claymores or battle-axes, but if she isn't built like a brick outhouse, then you've got to come up with some damn good reason how she is doing it.

If she looked like a brick outhouse I'd have to wonder who was supplying the steroids. Although, steroid abuse in a fantasy setting could be interesting. Xena is much more likely (unless you think she is built like said outhouse). Strength training would give muscles that complement her basic shape, not make her bulky.

Trying to find out how much strength it would require to wield a Claymore, I found this essay/rant about Mediaeval sword weights: http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm. It doesn't mention said weapon (though wikipedia suggests a Claymore would be 5.5lb, don't know how much strength would be required to swing it), but it is interesting reading nonetheless.

Based on the above, I imagine that in a pseudo-Mediaeval fantasy world it would be reasonably achievable for a determined woman with sufficient motivation to gain enough strength, skill and endurance to wield at least a one-handed sword in battle, so long as she had someone to teach her (or some other method of learning to actually fight rather than just waving it about). Easier perhaps for a lower class woman used to graft, because she'd be starting from a place of greater physical strength and endurance than a well off lady with people to do the hard work for her.

That said, I'm not saying every woman should be able to become a warrior princess. I agree with your argument. There are plenty of factors that need to be convincingly addressed.

 

[The Judge]

Not sure I quite understand your point. Are you saying that because women face societal pressures in our world, that they must face similar pressures in a fantasy world?

Depends what you mean by "similar". But yes, people in fantasy must face societal pressures in their world -- those pressures might not be identical to those we have faced in history, but they must be there.

Hoopy was asking why we should have to argue the point about women fighting, when we take dragons in our stride, and that's the reason. We know what society has done for women in all cultures in our world, and we therefore need convincing why that would be different in a fantasy culture. I'm not saying it can't be done, but that's why people argue about it.


As for polyandry, I've not done any research on it in real life, but an article I read years back about one region made it clear it isn't some libidinous woman's fantasy life with as many men as she wants when she wants, a female version of a harem, but several men (usually related -- I think they tended to be brothers) all using one women. It was the result of a shortage of women, and avoided the social turmoil and bloodshed that comes with men wanting a woman and not being able to have one (something, so I've read, that is feared for China as as result of its one-child policy where most people wanted sons and there's an imbalance of the sexes).


AMB -- yes, brick outhouse was a tad tongue-in-cheek -- but I get annoyed at the image of warrior women with Keira Knightley's figure (save for the breasts, of course...). Actually, I get annoyed at the idea that Keira Knightley's figure is one appropriate for any woman, but that's another rant!

 

[Luiglin]

Interesting discussion. In my WiP the main antagonist is a woman. The character started out as a man but the back story and their drive didn't fit to being a male in my opinion. As soon as I changed it to female then it all seemed to feel right. To me it didn't matter that the character is still a warrior, a leader of an army and a religious chosen disciple of a demigod.

 

[HoopyFrood]

There are a few points I would address -- and I'm aware my dragons and magic comment was a very general one -- but gendered things send me into a frenzy so I'll step out instead. And Nerds Feather consistently says everything I'd like to and in a much better way so I'll leave it in better hands

 

[Nerds_feather]

I'll have a brief stab at the consequences of an otherwise human race with such an imbalance in terms of numbers. First of all, I'll assume that the degree of sexual dimorphism remains the same as ours - although the species that do exist with such a setup tend to have females much bigger and stronger than males. None of those are land vertebrates, AFAIK, incidentally. I'll assume that the situation with the number of offspring at once, and the gestation period and degree of maturity at birth, also stays the same as with real humans.

With many fewer women around, it is inconceivable that they wouldn't be protected to a huge extreme - and also inconceivable that they would have much freedom. Why? Simply because of what's already been said - that women put in much more time, risk and resources into each child than men do for reasons of simple biology. In such a world, the rare women would have to be just about continuously either pregnant or nursing. If they weren't, the problem would rapidly go away by reason of the race becoming extinct.

That's one set of possible implications, and it would mean that human polities would likely be at constant war over women (who would be prized beyond all imagination).

But this is a fantasy world, and presumably we've got magic. So we could always say that the women are the ones who wield magic (a la the status quo at the beginning of The Wheel of Time), and then we've got possibilities for powerful matriarchy. Or we could say that humans live to be 150 on average in our fantasy world, so the humans aren't quite so intent on reproducing as soon as hitting adulthood--which would change the context a bit. Or we could go grimdark and ask: why are there so few women? Perhaps there are just few free women (who wield massive power), but at the expense of other women, who are basically used as baby-making-slaves.

Or we could just ditch the "women are much less numerous than men" bit and just have them be polyandrous. There are tons of possibilities.

But we just don't see a lot of experimentation along these lines. Well, we do, but in SF. Fantasy sometimes feels, to me, as if it's just obstinately conservative. I don't mean that in the sense of political conservatism, but in terms of sticking to conventions and being risk-averse.

 

[Erin99]

Such a complex subject, women in history. There's a theory that women were actually more empowered in the middle ages, which declined over the centuries to lead to the male-dominated society we were used to.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/6987874.stm

I agree with Nerds about society in fantasy novels. Why stick with plain ol' "middle age" style worlds? Societies that are vastly different, or have interesting new ways of looking at things, are far more engaging. Robert Jordan invented a whole race with a male-female divide, the Aiel, where the women were strong and played equal roles and men had to lay a bridal wreath at a woman's feet for the woman to choose to accept... or not. I find it fascinating, much better - and more imaginative - than faux medieval societies.

That's not saying you can't base parts from medieval times - but why not put your own spin on things? I know I've tried to. Whether it works on not is another matter! If you invent a society where women have equal share or more, you can't be accused of not being realistic to history; you're being realistic to your world's history, not ours.


Edit: I should have reloaded the page! Nerds mentioned WoT, too! YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY! (Sorry, big WoT fan here.)

 

[Nerds_feather]

Depends what you mean by "similar". But yes, people in fantasy must face societal pressures in their world -- those pressures might not be identical to those we have faced in history, but they must be there.

Hoopy was asking why we should have to argue the point about women fighting, when we take dragons in our stride, and that's the reason. We know what society has done for women in all cultures in our world, and we therefore need convincing why that would be different in a fantasy culture. I'm not saying it can't be done, but that's why people argue about it.

Why would we need to do that? We don't need that in Iain M. Banks' Culture novels, so why would we need it in second-world fantasy? Fantasy is full of things that don't exist in the real-world, which could act as mechanisms for explaining just that kind of thing--not dragons, but magic, sentient non-humans, fulfillable prophecies, etc. And if we can believe magic is real (in a second-world), why couldn't we believe that women might be soldiers in a world with fully fleshed-out and internally consistent physical and metaphysical rules that differ from our own? It all comes down to implementation by the author, I think.

As for polyandry, I've not done any research on it in real life, but an article I read years back about one region made it clear it isn't some libidinous woman's fantasy life with as many men as she wants when she wants, a female version of a harem, but several men (usually related -- I think they tended to be brothers) all using one women. It was the result of a shortage of women, and avoided the social turmoil and bloodshed that comes with men wanting a woman and not being able to have one (something, so I've read, that is feared for China as as result of its one-child policy where most people wanted sons and there's an imbalance of the sexes).

There are two forms of polyandry observed in myth and history. This is one of them. The other is basically high-status women in matriarchal societies having multiple consorts. Both are rare.