We Have Always Fought

[Hex]

The point is that it's not unusual in the real world, historically or in modern times, for women to fight. It's certainly not the norm, but it's not freakishly rare either. That's the whole point. Only by willfully ignoring history and all societies outside the modern West could one possibly think that women can't or don't fight. The weight of societal pressures and narrative reinforces this false perception of women as lesser than or incapable.

My point, which I maybe didn't make clear, was that I don't agree that being a soldier or a warrior makes someone 'better than' or 'capable'. The article say lots about how women have led countries/ made political decisions etc as well, but the take-home message, if you like, was the one you summarised above -- women have fought, so women are equal to men -- and that message makes me deeply uncomfortable in all sorts of ways.

(I liked the article but I have been aware for a long time that women have been soldiers and politicians and all sorts of things. That's the basis of Women's History (and yes, it's rubbish that there's "history" and "women's history" but revisionism has to have a focus), so it didn't come as a surprise).

The argument against women warriors is that it's unrealistic, but when it's shown that in fact many women throughout history have fought the argument shifts to "well it's fantasy, you don't have to worry about realism". I don't know what's more maddening, that many posters clearly didn't bother to read the article, or that a fair number of posters arguing against women being capable of fighting are themselves women.

I thought the discussion had moved beyond the original article. I hope you didn't think I was arguing that women couldn't fight -- I know they can, I just think there are good reasons why they tend not to (and, see above, I'm nervous about "being fighters" being equated with "being worthwhile", partly because I don't think being able to kill people should necessarily be such a positive thing, and partly because:

if (*) fighting is what defines worth, then women still won't be as worthy as men since far more men than women fight, and generally, on average, using their evolutionary advantages like extra muscle mass and the spiny plates of bone on their foreheads(**) are better at it. So the whole argument is a way of saying women aren't as good as men, really. Which is patently untrue).

EDIT: hear hear, FeedMeTV! Great post! (and I also agree about the hair).

(*) and it isn't

(**) may not be technically accurate

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

The point is that it's not unusual in the real world, historically or in modern times, for women to fight. It's certainly not the norm, but it's not freakishly rare either.

I never said it was freakishly rare. We agree that it's not the norm.

Only by willfully ignoring history and all societies outside the modern West could one possibly think that women can't or don't fight.

I certainly never said they can't fight, or don't fight. I said it was the exception. I'm not willfully ignoring anything.

And really, all societies outside the modern West? All?

 

[FeedMeTV]

And why did all the female warriors pictured in the linked article all have such wildly impractical hair?

Firstly, absolutely agree with this - if I was off to war, the first thing I'd pick up would be a hair bobble. Swinging a sword about in a heroic fashion and then scalping yourself is a sure fire way out of the history books.

I'm aware we've diverged somewhat from the original point of discussion but this article did not sit too well with me. From a personal point of view I have never felt being a woman is a disadvantage. I say this of course from my extremely fortunate position as a white British middle class woman with a university education, a job and my own credit card. I can drive a car, I can walk alone down a street, I can buy my own house, I can talk to random men I'm not related to and I can express my own opinions - and I am well aware that this is not the case elsewhere in the world. But from own experiences, I grew up watching Buffy and Xena and Rogue and Storm. I learnt about real women who were Prime Ministers and warriors and women who lead revolutions and even some who were murderers and thieves and traitors. I watched and read about strong women doing exactly what they wanted and doing things just as well as a man and at no point did I ever think I wouldn't be able to do what they did. And that's great.

But - and I know it's been talked about on Chronicles before - there is a tendency in fantasy these days to ensure we portray women as nothing less than a superhero. I'm not saying this is bad, women can be superheros. Then can be fearsome warriors and great leaders and every bit the equal of any male hero. But that isn't feminism. Feminism is the right to choose exactly what you want to be. If a woman wants to be a hero then she can be. And if she wants to marry a good man, have a child and keep her home then she can do that too. That doesn't make her any more of a woman and it certainly does not make her any less of a feminist. It is our right to choose that brings us equality.

I vote for better women in fantasy, not better female soldiers.

 

[Brian G Turner]

But what really annoys me is something that people have already pointed out, and that is the subtext I think I read in so much of the woman-warrior dialogue, and that is "why can't we have women who are trained fighters, to prove that women are as good as men?" As if they aren't already as good. Or if they are, the only way we can prove that is by arguing for the fact that they can be as good at killing people as men are. Why not write stories about a world where women are respected for the other roles they play (respected by the inhabitants of that world or society, and most of all by the author).

I love this quote.

 

[Tywin]

It is extremely likely, in fact inevitable, that if all the men have been lured away somehow and the camp/village/town only has those males too old or young to fight effectively and the women left in it, then they would have to do their best to defend themselves; and also, perhaps if such a situation is at all likely they ought to be trained to do so. Incidentally, women who are trained to fight are likely to be fitter than those who are not - at least in the social classes in which idleness would otherwise be an option. And being fitter is likely to mean better outcomes for pregnancy. I believe studies have been done confirming that.

If we think this through a little deeper we may come away with an entirely different conclusion, and one which I think is (sadly) more historically accurate.

When the female population was left behind (likely with the children and those too old to fight) and an enemy force came calling, it would be extremely dangerous to fight back. Unless the odds were highly in your favor (I'm thinking of an example from the Peloponnesian war when a small group of Soldiers tried to take a city and were chased out by hundreds of women throwing rocks and roofing tiles), then fighting back would result in dying. That death of the women fighting back would likely be accompanied by the death of those they were protecting.

What I think we will find is more common (and more logical if we really think about it) is that the females end up offering very little resistance, largely getting raped and robbed ("rape and pillage"). Satiated enemy Soldiers being less likely to get carried away and just kill the women and their families.

You know, we don't even have to look to medieval history for an example of how this works. It still happens frequently in several areas of Africa, and has happened within the past twenty years in Europe (ie Serbian troops in Kosovo)

 

[Hex]

Good (if depressing) point, Tywin. And it depends on your priorities -- as you said. If your primary consideration is to do what you can to survive and to prevent your children/ parents being killed, then you'll do what you can to keep the enemy happy, and that's likely to involve offering no resistance.

And I think that's just as brave -- if not braver -- and worthy of admiration than being able to swing a big sword.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Was just reading a John Le Carre interview, and two great quotes from him came up:

"the whole art of writing is to be credible, not to be authentic"

"the victims remember, the victors never do"

 

[Tywin]

And I think that's just as brave -- if not braver -- and worthy of admiration than being able to swing a big sword.

Agreed.

Have seen it delved into in a couple of places in more serious novels, but not so much in our beloved fantasy fiction.

A couple of parting shots on the subject of medieval 'rape and pillage': 1) People were just as smart then as we are now. They did the best thing for them, to include choosing the better of two evils. 2) Depending on the culture/time period, rape may have been a somewhat accepted part of life. Just another painful element of a short and brutal life, and perhaps not containing the same importance as it would for a woman (or man) who believes that life shouldn't include going through that.

 

[Brian G Turner]

And here's an interesting blog post that covers a number of pointers already raised, and opens a few new areas of discussion:
http://worldweaverpress.com/2013/05/28/female-warriors-in-fantasy/

 

[Toby Frost]

As far as characters go, I take the view that you just can't win. I don't mean that as a grunt of exasperation (not entirely, anyhow), but a considered view. When writing a novel, even a polemical one, you just don't have the space to comment on the situation of womankind, or any other topic that's up for discussion. You probably won't be able to get enough characters in to represent all the different possible viewpoints, for one thing.

So, and with no disrespect to earlier posters intended, you may end up with a situation where Reader A thinks that Character X is a bold adventurer taking on her male opponents at their own game, and Reader B may think that she's squashed into a set of male stereotypes and isn't allowed to win at her own game. Similarly, Queen Y might seem skilled in compromise, diplomacy and other "feminine" qualities, or might just be another stereotyped "devious woman". Someone, somewhere, will be able to label almost any character (and if not, it's probably already on TV Tropes).

To my mind, the solution is to write each character credibly, and not to worry too much about what readers may or may not decide that they represent. Articles like the ones that started this thread, while interesting, don't get individual characters written. Of course it's important to get the ramifications of the setting right, particularly as it impacts on the characters through whose lives the setting is experienced, but they are just individuals.

This does throw up problems. I recently read Ghost Story by Peter Straub, and was uncomfortable with the fact that the story is ultimately about five straight men managing not to be seduced by a female succubus. Had one of the men been essentially uninterested (the obvious way would be to make him gay, but there are probably other methods) or had the team included a woman, it would have been a much more rounded and interesting story. But I think this is a matter of degree. If there is only one female knight in the kingdom, there isn't the obligation (beyond basic credibility) to make her a representative of all (possible) female knights. If a question relating to being a female knight comes up, she will have to answer it not as a spokesperson, but as an individual character. Of course, the question of why there is only one will have to be answered...

 

[Montero]

What I think we will find is more common (and more logical if we really think about it) is that the females end up offering very little resistance, largely getting raped and robbed ("rape and pillage"). Satiated enemy Soldiers being less likely to get carried away and just kill the women and their families.

Depends on where they were left . Open village, easily invaded, yes. I'd think male fighters might also fold if badly outnumbered in that situation.

Fortified town with good strong walls, not always. There were quite a few places held during the English Civil War by a force including women, or indeed commanded by a woman. Wem was held by the "wild women" and Lathom House was held very successfully for years by Lady Derby - to the point it was razed to the ground after the King's surrender and no-one is quite sure where it was.

Again, a minority thing, but not impossible.

 

[Nerds_feather]

So Django Wexler has weighed in on this topic with an excellent post that pours cold water on, among other things, the assumption that differences in physical strength would preclude women from being able to fight in ancient or medieval armies.