We Have Always Fought

[Nerds_feather]

Just as a point of reference, I'm not saying that you need magic or metaphysics to have woman warriors, but that the presence of magic in a fantasy can easily obviate any real-world limitation (factual or theorized) that we import into our fantasy worlds. As a result, I just don't see how any of the points drawn here so far can delegitimize the idea of fantasy authors making good use of warrior women.

 

[Montero]

Polyandry - saw a documentary on either Tibet or Nepal (I think) where polyandry was fairly common - it was to do with limited land, controlling population and land inheritance. The documentary followed a young woman (with land) and a young man who wanted to get married, which they did, but his younger brother was included in the package, which the young couple were not entirely happy about but had to accept under custom and practice. There was then a follow up, where the brother husband was basically bitching that he was not being treated as an equal husband and was feeling deprived.

Strength of women - do need to bear in mind that not many women do physical jobs these days. Again a documentary looking at photos of working class Victorian women. One bunch of washerwomen, who spent all day heaving around heavy wet linen, wringing it out, loading fires to keep the laundry water hot - they were not someone you'd want to meet in a dark alley! Also my grandmother, who'd done her laundry by hand for many years - she was a little lady, with whacking great hands, that had developed during her teens from all the wringing out of washing.
Women farm labourers used to be pretty common - and for that think of Charlie Dimmock of Ground Force.

 

[Erin99]

Just a further thought...

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.

You could easily turn that around. When dragons don't exist here, why should we so readily accept them in fantasy novels? My answer: because readers know they're not on Earth when they pick up a second-world fantasy. We turn the pages eager to see what this new and unfamiliar land is like, what strange creatures inhabit the lands and what the peoples are like. Differences make things interesting... which is why it could be argued that dragons (and vampires, etc) are old hat now*.

And why, when we can accept all the strange creature people in, say, Perdido Street Station, would we grump about women being different in books, too? The author's world is the author's world. As long as it's consistent to itself...



*I love dragons, though!!! Yes, I even had one in my story. How could I not?

 

[Nerds_feather]

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.

Missed this the first time, but I'd just like to point out that anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists and biologists who study social organization note that a very significant portion of what we call gender isn't biologically determined, but socially constructed. There's debate as to the exact proportions of nature/nurture involved, but strict biological determinism in gender is now confined to a very small corner of the social and physical sciences. The consensus is that certain genes or gene combinations can make specific outcomes more probable, but that the same can be said for how children are raised and acculturated.

Gender isn't just something you're born with, it's something you are raised into and something you perform. And by performing it, we reproduce it. Consequently, if a society has different rules and institutions pertaining to gender, it's likely to produce different outcomes in terms of how individuals perceive and perform gender.

 

[allmywires]

You could easily turn that around. When dragons don't exist here, why should we so readily accept them in fantasy novels? My answer: because readers know they're not on Earth when they pick up a second-world fantasy. We turn the pages eager to see what this new and unfamiliar land is like, what strange creatures inhabit the lands and what the peoples are like. Differences make things interesting... which is why it could be argued that dragons (and vampires, etc) are old hat now*.

And why, when we can accept all the strange creature people in, say, Perdido Street Station, would we grump about women being different in books, too? The author's world is the author's world. As long as it's consistent to itself...

I agree with this. It's essentially pointless (bear with me) to argue the nitty-gritty of physical capabilities in fantasy when you have dragons and the like swanning around, because if you can accept that a giant lizard with wings that are aerodynamically incapable of allowing flight (not to mention the whole breathing fire malarky) exists, then you can damn well accept a woman warrior exists. Really. Have to second the point about being internally consistent as well, I think that's really the absolute most important part (well, secondary to the actual story).

 

[Brian G Turner]

Missed this the first time, but I'd just like to point out that anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists and biologists who study social organization note that a very significant portion of what we call gender isn't biologically determined, but socially constructed.

Just to add to this, there's a reasonably strong argument that before the bronze age, human societies around the Mediterranean were essentially matriarchal.

Anything involving snakes and serpents in mythology I find often correlates with a female-led society that is later conquered by a male deity. Apollo slaying the python at Delphi, and even the Adam and Eve story of the snake I take as evidence of this (it's a personal theory, probably quite contentious).

In fact, following on from this, it appears to myself that religion has defined and changed gender roles over the past few thousand years - women as a focus of power in pre-Bronze Age periods due at least in part to their ability to bring forth life. This period of history is littered with birth and fertility figures.

However, I see hints of a major theological change happening as farming becomes more common - and a male agricultural deity becomes associated with this - somewhere around the 4th millenia BC in Britain.

There's then a general shifting of power from Matriarchal dominance, to shared but divided power, and then eventually to Patriarchal dominance. And this cycle continues - theoretically taking us into a Great Matriarchy within the next millenia, depending upon the speed of progress.

While the Mediaeval period of North-western Europe is a key focus for inspiring fantasy, it was a society that was breaking free of the Dark Ages, growing only through absorbing knowledge brought back from the more advanced cultures of the Baghdad Caliphate and even India.

There can be so much more to Mediaeval history as an influence than taverns, wenches, and swords.

 

[Vertigo]

I think the point is that dragons do not exist in our real world and so the qualities and characteristics are necessarily made up. Women on the other hand do exist in our real world and therefore to move too far away from that norm is to step on thinner ice.

I accept all the arguments about gender and social conditioning. But it does not change the fact that we are still biologically preprogrammed. Like it or not the average man is going to be stonger than the average woman. Women who train or just do hard labour will get stronger, but not stronger than men doing the same training or hard labour. That's just how humans are built. I'm sorry but I have to agree with the Judge that you need to change more than just some social mores if you want it to be normal to have women engaging in physical battle with swords etc.

Brian got in whilst I was typing: matriarchal societies were certainly very common in prehistoric times. The earliest religious idols were typically female fertility symbols. In early times the two greatest mysteries must have been birth and death. The act of birth, in partciular, must have seemed totally magical and that is then likely to result in women being held in some veneration. However there is a big difference between a matriarchal society and one in which it is the norm for women to fight.

 

[HareBrain]

Just to add to this, there's a reasonably strong argument that before the bronze age, human societies around the Mediterranean were essentially matriarchal.

This was the main thrust of The Chalice and the Blade, if I remember right, but the actual evidence advanced therein was disappointingly sketchy and inconclusive. It's been several years since I've read it, though -- has any more evidence come up since?

Anything involving snakes and serpents in mythology I find often correlates with a female-led society that is later conquered by a male deity. Apollo slaying the python at Delphi, and even the Adam and Eve story of the snake I take as evidence of this (it's a personal theory, probably quite contentious).

I find it quite credible, and it fits with the pattern of divinity moving from female to male and earth to sky, a process Ken Wilber (in his very interesting book Up From Eden) calls the solarisation of the divine. Snakes have always been magically associated with the earth, and it would fit that the suppression of the earth/female in favour of the sky/male would bring about the idea of the evil serpent. (Not sure how this fits in with Eastern myth, though, where serpents/dragons seem to be more benevolent and more associated with the sky.)

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

I think the point is that dragons do not exist in our real world and so the qualities and characteristics are necessarily made up. Women on the other hand do exist in our real world and therefore to move too far away from that norm is to step on thinner ice.

I think that's the crux of the argument in the article. What we think of as "that norm" is largely illusory. When all the stories say X is true, then writing a story where X isn't true is suddenly unrealistic and catches people's attention in a negative way. The trouble is, in the real world X isn't true.

I accept all the arguments about gender and social conditioning. But it does not change the fact that we are still biologically preprogrammed. Like it or not the average man is going to be stonger than the average woman.

But we're not talking about average people in any way. The characters who populate fiction, especially fantasy fiction, are far from average. It's when this argument, "women are on average weaker" becomes "women are weaker" becomes "that woman warrior in your book is unbelievable" that it turns into a self-perpetuating stereotype that's completely against anything found in the real world.

Yeah, on average women have less upper body strength than men. But, so what? There are many women who could bench press more than anyone who posts here. There are women who could one punch ko any of us. There are women who could easily kick all of our asses. Wrap us in a bow and send us crying to our mommas. It's a simple fact. That those women basically don't exist in fantasy is utterly unrealistic.

This argument of "on average" turns into women in fantasy only being used as a relationship to a man, as perpetual victims, or cardboard characters with the threat of rape ever looming over them is not only blatantly unrealistic, it's insulting.

 

[Erin99]

I think the point is that dragons do not exist in our real world and so the qualities and characteristics are necessarily made up. Women on the other hand do exist in our real world...

But that's saying that the women on these other world must start out as women here do. Why? Women on other words could equally play an important part in society, even as fighters - IF they're trained for it and are not rake-like waifs who'd struggle to wield a sword.

I have no problem believing in strong women on other worlds. Just because they share the name "woman" and some of them bear offspring doesn't mean they will be exactly like us.

Equally, I'd have no problem reading a series about men who weren't the type of man I expect. It would make it fascinating. Why stick to the norms for Earth?


Look at lots of other animals on this world. Some of their females aren't so different from the males. I like the idea that the fittest of the species survive, and males - and females - must be able to prove they're up to the challenge.

 

[Montero]

Written following on from amw, cross posted with Leisha.
Mm. I just find it frustrating when people in general say that women can't be warriors due either to lack of strength or aggression, when in today's real world, not fantasy, I have met plenty of aggressive women and strong women and know historically that there used to be an even higher proportion of strong women due to manual labour.

The historical re-enactment I used to do had plenty of women who wanted to be, and were, soldiers out on the field. OK, it was not real killing (thankfully) but that did not mean that it was free of aggression. There were some women you'd have been a fool to cross. If there are plenty of women who want to play at soldiers, then that rather undermines the traditional thinking that only men want to be soldiers and play at it and women would be on the sidelines minding kids, cooking and spinning wool.

Also, used to do Karate, and the scariest person in the dojo, was a five feet two lady black belt. She could channel aggression for the entire hour.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Eh...to be honest, I find it hard to understand the notion of anything in fantasy being "unrealistic" based on real-world conventions (real or imagined). This is fantasy, as in "this **** is blatantly not real." No fantasy is more that selectively realistic.

What I do understand is the notion of things in fantasy being "unrealistic" because they don't make sense within the physical and metaphysical rules established to govern the fantasy world.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

If you're referring to my comments, Nerds, I'm specifically taking about the grimdark authors who claim they're writing more realistic fantasy. They're not. The general portrayal of women makes their stuff even less "realistic" than typical fantasy fare.

 

[Nerds_feather]

If you're referring to my comments, Nerds, I'm specifically taking about the grimdark authors who claim they're writing more realistic fantasy. They're not. The general portrayal of women makes their stuff even less "realistic" than typical fantasy fare.

No, I agree with what you wrote. I just don't think "realism" is the right thing to strive for in a genre where humans can do all kinds of things they can't do in the real world, like use magic or ride dragons.

That said, I do think there is a place for fantasy that hews more closely to human history...I just think it's very narrow to expect it all to be like that, or worse, to expect it to conform to a particular view of history. Fantasy and science fiction are uniquely positioned to experiment with these kinds of things. Bring it on, I say!

 

[Drakai]

I think that's the crux of the argument in the article. What we think of as "that norm" is largely illusory. When all the stories say X is true, then writing a story where X isn't true is suddenly unrealistic and catches people's attention in a negative way. The trouble is, in the real world X isn't true.

But we're not talking about average people in any way. The characters who populate fiction, especially fantasy fiction, are far from average. It's when this argument, "women are on average weaker" becomes "women are weaker" becomes "that woman warrior in your book is unbelievable" that it turns into a self-perpetuating stereotype that's completely against anything found in the real world.

Yeah, on average women have less upper body strength than men. But, so what? There are many women who could bench press more than anyone who posts here. There are women who could one punch ko any of us. There are women who could easily kick all of our asses. Wrap us in a bow and send us crying to our mommas. It's a simple fact. That those women basically don't exist in fantasy is utterly unrealistic.

This argument of "on average" turns into women in fantasy only being used as a relationship to a man, as perpetual victims, or cardboard characters with the threat of rape ever looming over them is not only blatantly unrealistic, it's insulting.

I've once heard an argument from a feminist, she said the belief that women are fundamentally weak is wrong. Let's face it, it's not. Women are fundamentally weaker. It's how we were made or It's how we are, whichever one you believe.

That's not the whole story however, women were brought up believing they were weak for centuries. It's only normal that female warriors, explorers, pirates are much less than their male counterparts.

So I believe, considering the real life ratio, portrayals of women as warriors or tough dudettes aren't all that rare.

****---- WARNING MILD SPOILER-PROCEED WITH CAUTION ----****


I'm pretty sure I haven't read as much as you guys but almost all series that I've read had some strong women in them.

In Riftwar Series the dark elf women are portrayed as independent, confident, powerful and maybe sometimes dominant.

In Death Gate Cycle Patryn women are completely equal man and every one of them must fight to stay alive. They are all strong and independent.

LotR obviously has Eowyn.

In Drizzt Do'urden's story, we have a matriarchal society of dark elves. Women hold the supreme power. We also have Cattie-brie.

And I think GRRM's Daenerys is a near perfect portrayal of how a scared fragile girl is transformed into a strong, fierce and sometimes brutal women under the pressure of a harsh environment

And if we look at other mediums such as comic books and manga, we have a lot of strong women although sexualized to the extremes in most of them. But that is another issue that must be adressed.

 

[Vertigo]

I wasn't saying women can't be fighters and I'm certainly not saying I find women warriors in fantasy or soldiers in SF unbelievable; there have been plenty in history and there are sure to be plenty more to come in the future. However a fantasy world in which all, or at least as many as men, are warriors simply doesn't strike me as realistic. And I'm afraid I disagree with the 'this is fantasy; anything goes" argument. I actually think that precisely because fantasy is invention it needs to be almost more realistic than other genres simply to give the more fantastical elements a firmer grounding. I'm afraid fantasy that is not realistic is the kind of fantasy I put down unfinished. All the best fantasy I have read has come across as incredibly real despite all the elves, dwarves, dragons, goblins etc. A good example is Pratchett; all his books are underpinned by extremely realistic detail even if he has a shape-changing, werewolf, female guardswoman!

 

[Nerds_feather]

Vertigo,

I see what you are saying. However, at least as far as I'm concerned, I haven't been arguing "this is fantasy; anything goes," but rather posing the question: "this is fantasy; if something can be explained and made consistent with its context, why not?" I do agree there have to be some tethers to the here and now, just as with SF. But why would those necessarily have to be (modern interpretations of) medieval social conventions?

Fantasy doesn't have to experiment with social conventions, but it's a near perfect medium for doing so. I think there's a lot of potentially fertile ground there, which is largely unexplored.

 

[Vertigo]

Yes but what I'm saying is making fighting women the norm not the exception is not playing with social cnventions but with physical limitations. Fine, you can do it, but I for one will not find it credible unless the characters are not labeled as human; elves, dwarves etc you can do what you want with. If they are human and it is the norm for women to do physical fighting against men with swords and such like then, unless the author can come up with some very convincing reasons, I just won't find it believable.

Frankly it is the tendency for fantasy to be sloppy with such details (a big generalisation I know) that is one of the reasons I read so little of it nowadays. Maybe I'm just too fussy, but I see a big difference between a flight of fancy and a serious fantasy novel. This goes along with other complaints like lopping off limbs, heads etc. with single swings of a sword (possible but generally unlikely) or travelling impossible distances on horseback with no adequate supplies (such as having a pack horse). As I say, maybe I'm an exception but I expect realism with regard to this sort of detail.

 

[Luiglin]

@Vertigo ...Why are female fighters not realistic? Having trained to a reasonable high level in Aikido I can honestly say that it doesn't matter what sex you are if you fight someone that is well trained then they will easily be a match. I see this being applicable to many fighting styles.
It all comes down to training and knowing what you are capable of being able to do. I have a female antagonist who is a warrior. I'd never envisage her swinging around a two handed sword or a halberd but I think that she'd be more than capable with a short stabbing sword like a gladius.

 

[Mirannan]

Luiglin - I sort of agree; if a woman (or a small man for that matter!) uses weapons appropriate to her (his) strength then she has a reasonable chance in combat. For one thing; rapiers, shortswords and daggers are less clumsy than zweihanders. Women tend to better dexterity, too.

However, the situation changes when armour is brought into the discussion. Doing significant damage to someone in full plate when you're wielding a dagger isn't impossible - but it's DAMN difficult.

This might be relevant in the specific case of seaborne combat, such as in pirate stories. Why? Because wearing a full suit of plate on board ship is tantamount to suicide.